User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/September

Change to Lightmouse script

Hello, I see you are using User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js developed by Lightmouse (talk · contribs). This is to let you know that the script commands are now located in the toolbox at bottom left beneath: What links here. If you have any questions or comments please make a note of it at User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Port of Manchester

Hi Malleus, there's something a bit strange here - both the Times articles were dated to 1844, maybe they had a crystal ball. Anyway I've changed them all to 1894 now - perhaps they've got a whole run of papers in the archive with the wrong year. And as for the ISO dates - ignorance Sir, pure ignorance! Richerman (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ps If you feel the quotations are overlong feel free to chop them down - or just use the articles for references.

Hmm, Ive gone back to the newspaper articles in the Times archive and the original scanned pages have the dates and the year of 1844 clearly shown on the banner at the top. I'm afraid there's something wrong with these dates somewhere as the Port of Manchester was in existence, with a bonding warehouse on the Bridgewater canal at Knott Mill, 50 years before the ship canal opened. Richerman (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be in the definition of port. Customs ports are more than ports, and the presence of a bonded warehouse didn't make Manchester a customs port. "The whole coastline of the United Kingdom is included within the limits of one Customs port or another; where one ends another begins. Landwards a Customs port extends up rivers to the limits of navigation unless otherwise specifically defined." So Manchester didn't become a customs port until the ship canal made it accessible by sea-going ships; that Times article talks about the goods being unloaded at Liverpool, and then transferred up the Bridgewater Canal by barge. Having said that, we obviously need to include a bit about the Bridgewater in the History section, to make all this clear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You just beat me to it - it looks like at least the term "Port of Manchester" was in use 50 years previously. Are we rewriting the history here? Richerman (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If would be great if we could find when the term "Port of Manchester" was first used. Maybe looking into the history of the Bridgewater would help? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if it this was the first use of the term as the first letter talks about the "first cargo of wines and spirits". This sounds like a job for the Parrot of Doom! Richerman (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also investigate the Mersey and Irwell Navigation, this predates the ship canal by a couple of hundred years and was a pretty important waterway (it's article deserves serious attention). In fact some of the features of the navigation are still visible on Google Earth - here's one: its the dry straight bit of land to the north of the river. One thing I've observed is that nomenclature from those old articles varies considerably, and many things aren't quite as accurate as one would wish - there are many books that state with authority that the Haslingden Canal existed, when not a single cut was ever made. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

monobook

Hi

I notice that you are using a very old version of my monobook script. Have you considered updating it? Lightmouse (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The version I'm using works. What do I gain by updating it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, all I know is that I have made many changes. Most have been improvements of detail and bug fixes. There are/were versions out there that added deprecated or no-longer-functional templates to articles. The user interface has changed so that the tabs are no longer there, the commands are now in the toolbox on the left below 'What links here'. Plus there are additional options to delink full dates to day/month/year format or to month/day/year format. I just thought that you might like to know. If not, that is fine with me. Lightmouse (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible to include your script, instead of copying it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is possible. Just add the line:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

and after clearing your cache, you should see the commands in the toolbox at the left below 'What links here'. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Much nicer. I'll do that imminently. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC

A note on your comment, Malleus. You're right in saying that prolific is not the same as knowledgeable. It happens that Awadewit's FAs focus on eighteenth and early nineteenth century English literature, which is a strong suggestion that she's knowledgeable about Johnson. I happen to know her offsite bona fides, but don't want to bring that into open debate. More specifically, though, I have concerns about whether the primary editor at this article may have stepped outside his expertise. His strong point appears to be literary criticism, yet he has selected a biography where he holds literary criticism to be of minimal value. If we assume for purposes of discussion here that he's right in that assessment, then what does that leave? When I attempted to engage him in a discussion about priority of sources, he responded by redefining sections of text as illustration as if that removed them from the discussion. Well that--to be as kind as possible--is a very dubious approach. Here's the dilemma, though: I have a degree in history from Columbia University and I have 127 featured content credits, most of which are historic image restorations; oddly the result was that I was hardly in a position to object or say why, because hardly anyone would understand the objection and the justification for it would sound either pompous or inflated. So I went ahead and entered a weak support despite the misgivings, but really as the discussion continued those concerns deepened. The reason I changed again to neutral principally had to do with whether the primary editor had enough grounding in historiography and historical method to estimate NPOV appropriately, and I advised mentor contact because his actions had the increasing appearance of unwarranted attempts to undermine other editors' credibility in lieu of addressing the merits of their comments and suggestions. As you may be aware, the editor in question was nearly sitebanned for disruption this summer. Academics have been known to leave Wikipedia rather than risk their professional reputations. Awadewit has been endeavoring to persuade more of her colleagues to contribute; it becomes very difficult to pursue that effort when FAC degenerates into high social register dogfights. So I'm not sure what to say if my words came across in some unintended way, but I've been on eggshells the whole time at that discussion and I've tried very hard to participate politely and in good faith. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute Awadewit's credentials, but I do dispute her understanding of wikipedia's summary style in this case. Johnson is more than just another author, to be fitted into a formulaic 18th-century author article. I would agree that Ottava has sometimes responded to criticism unconstructively, but I also believe that some of the criticism has been intentionally inflammatory. I am not, of course, referring to anything that either you or Awadewit has said. My general opinion of academics will keep for another time. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

The article starts with "The Pendle witch trials of 1612 are among the most famous witch trials in English history". Don't you think "famous" is a peacock term? It can be changed to "well-known". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a simple statement of fact, no peacockery. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But per WP:PEACOCK, "famous" is a peacock term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't; it's simply listed as a word to look out for. In this case I think it's perfectly justifiable. WP:PEACOCK goes on to say that: "A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph." The source is given later in the body of the article, #54. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bury St Edmunds

Thanks for the interest and care. I read the Pendle article today, just left a note on the talk page. The quote you have added was the originally removed by the editor that awarded the GA quoting

• (per WP:MOSQUOTE, cquote is to never be used for block quoting, and blockquotes should be 4+ lines in length or multi paragraphs). Which one to go with? Edmund Patrick – confer 19:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add a quote, I just reformatted it with {{quote}}, not {{cquote}}. I think the situation with {{cquote}} is very clear, it should only be used for pullout quotes. The 4+ lines in length is just a general guideline. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

apologies I know you did not add the quote I did a long time ago ; the format was the one specified by the reviewer that gave it a GA. But I do agree it is much better, and yes Pendle has given me ideas, but I will not go for FA , look far too much hard work, and congrats to you for all yours. GA is what this is no more. Thanks for the additions an improvement. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

GA is a worthy goal, and it's always easier if there's an example for you and the reviewer to refer to, one of the reasons why I took the Pendle witches to FA. It was hard work, and there were many times I thought I'd never finish it, but I'm pleased with end result. Good luck with the Bury St Edmunds witches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that this article has already been listed as a GA. In my view it's very far from being a GA. What do you think? Take it to GAR? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never look at the main page.

But I just did. It looks f***ing awesome. Excellent work. Simply excellent. Keeper ǀ 76 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a brilliant article, isn't it. On the downside though, I don't think I've ever done so many reverts or issued so many warnings in a single day before. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The witches deserved their day in the sun, but I'm more than happy to pass the responsibility for defending the featured article of the day to someone else now, anyone else. I expected the amount of vandalism to be higher, and I certainly hoped that it would be at least a step above the obvious moronic teenage stuff. But there were two or three good suggestions for improvement among the dross, so all in all a success I'd say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done from me too! Hadn't realised until just now! Congrats! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons

Look what you started :-) I'm trying to sort Johnson, and I keep getting orange bars on the Simpsons! OK, I'll come take over your talk page! Can you help with resolution on any of the remaining talk page items? I have no Johnson sources other than TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if there's anything I can address. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A nice surprise

Suddenly coming upon the following left a pretty sour taste in the mouth:

I'd be happy to answer your question, but I'd likely be blocked for a week if I did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to think I once thought of leaving a note on your talkpage to thank you for the Peterloo Massacre page. almost-instinct 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you've opted to take offence at this? That's entirely your prerogative, of course. As it is mine to consider that demanding wikilinks for common English words like "diagnosis" is patently absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said I asked for a wikilink of the word diagnosis? This is the total of what I wrote:

"During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that would influence how people viewed him in his later years and would eventually form the basis of him being diagnosed with Tourette syndrome" - to me this sentences reads as if the diagnosis came during his lifetime, not two and a half centuries later. No matter how compelling the TS diagnosis is, surely it remains a POV, something we are N keen on? (btw, like most people on the planet, I am unsure of the exact meaning of "diagnosis") almost-instinct 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was making the point that for a non-specialist eye, coming across the concept of a posthumous diagnosis for the first time is quite a startling experience. Now I've had opportunity of reading the WP articles on TS—yes, and diagnosis—I can begin to understand. Remember: for a sizeable chuck of the populace "Tourette's" means little more than wandering about town centres shouting "Fuck!" at random. A sentence like the one I quoted can shock on first viewing; the possibility of a diagnosis being done in an environment considerably different to, say, a doctor sitting in a clean, white-walled room with a patient can be new. In a state of momentary bewilderment various questions, including "what exactly does diagnosis mean?" come to mind. If WP's text causes the reader to doubt his understanding of a "common word" then something needs sorting. A wikilink wasn't what I had in mind when I wrote that comment. Was it so unreasonable, so worthy of ridicule, to suggest that some kind of explanation be provided? almost-instinct 21:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the link I provided above, my reply was to SandyG, not to you, or even about you.[1] I was simply responding to the question she posed. My response was in part a reaction to similar discussions in other FACs, where one reviewer demands one thing and another demands the exact opposite. There was no ridicule intended of you or anyone else – except perhaps of myself, hence the reference to the one week block – so I'm sorry that you have taken offence at what I intended to be a perfectly innocent remark. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Its almost certain that I'm over-sensitive ;-) Btw, when I came across the Peterloo Massacre page a few weeks/months ago, I was seriously impressed. It struck me as the kind of page that makes WP so wonderful: a solid informative summary of the history of something that in pre-WP days I vaguely knew about, knew was important, but could never really hope to get to know about. almost-instinct 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your kind remarks about the Peterloo Massacre. I can't take all the credit for it though – believe me, I would if I could :lol: – there were a lot of great editors from the Greater Manchester Project involved. Looking back on it, it's difficult even for me to believe that the whole thing was developed from start to FA in about three weeks. It's a great feeling though, making an event like that accessible to the general reader with what is probably one of the best online accounts available anywhere. If we hadn't done it, I'd have felt like we'd let down all those who attended the meeting, and unwittingly faced the brutality of the local Tories. I'd better stop there, before my politics start to show. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for disruption in the form of humor and insinuating thoughts of incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC) :D

Not good for my health, Lara !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Had that come from anyone else but Jennavecia my first thought would have been "wtf's going on?" Having said that though, I haven't tried to edit anything yet, so ... ;-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this makes me laugh, from the guide to appealing blocks: "In practice, almost all unblock requests are declined." Err, right, so not much point in bothering then, eh? Obviously best to activate one of your undisclosed sockpuppets and carry on as normal under a new name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's BS (about unblocks being declined; depends on who you know). And I've got the ArbCom scars to prove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed that the policies and guidelines aren't always applied even-handedly, or even consistently. I think we could all live whatever reasonable rules were in force, but not with their inconsistent application. I call someone an idiot; I get banned for 24 hours. Someone calls me "a nightmare", that's considered fair comment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is said person was not an idiot... however, you haunt my dreams. ;) Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, I even haunt some of my own dreams. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're dreaming about Malleus, I'm guessing your mental picture of him differs from mine. I always pictured MF as a cross between Wilfrid Brambell and John Ratzenberger (you're probably too young to remember them – google the names). I'll be most disappointed if Mall turns out to be a Nicola Roberts lookalike. – iridescent 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. I most resemble one of the members of Pink Floyd. I'll leave it an exercise to the reader to guess which one. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Syd, as he is now?</bad taste joke> My money would be on Roger, he looks the most likely to be awake at 0200 writing articles on Manchester and Bolton Railway (and you dare to call me boring!) – ιριδίζων 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Waters was either a lucky guess, or you've been looking through my security profile. He's only 65 though, whereas I'm 103 and three quarters next week, so you'd have to make allowances for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate it when a conversation leads me to click on a link to find an FA in need of cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're in that mood, can I work Hellingly Hospital Railway, Broadwater Farm and Railway stations in Cromer into the thread somehow? – iridescent 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor Sandy... your work is never ending... Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for not taking Jennavecia's block seriously and failing to create User:James Blood before it was co-opted.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, your imaginary block log is getting ridiculous. You got pretend blocked before your other pretend block had even expired. We're really going to need you to improve your behavior here... we don't want you pretend banned. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I could always just pretend to improve my behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Or you could pretend to care... but I did have to respond to this---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<---General comment. This thread has done nothing to help me picture what Malleus looks like (at least from the neck up). John Ratzenberger??? As Cliffy the mailman or as Hamm the piggybank?. Or maybe one of the other CG characters. From the neck down, I've made my mental decision. Keeper ǀ 76 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind. – ιριδίζων 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So which one of those swaddled little babes do you think looks like Malleus? Keeper ǀ 76 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell, because we don't have any mirrors in the house that work. I think the last time I saw my reflection was in about 1762 ... so long ago ... so hard to remember. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Croatan

Nope ... that would be a fair and accurate description!!!! Thanks for the heads up --- hope its not one of mine doing the editing! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair and accurate perhaps, but not encyclopedic. Anyway, good luck with your project. I think it's a great idea, and I hope it goes well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

your hanging comment

Malleus, if your comment was in humour, it's not clear. Looks as though you support the moratorium proposal. Tony (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was in humour, obviously so I thought. Anyway, I'll revisit and try to make it clearer that I think the moratorium is a time-wasting exercise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Medal of Merit

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I award you this medal for your dedicated and excellent work in reviewing more than 100 articles for GA sweeps! You are instrumental in upholding the quality of our GAs, and have remained focused during a difficult task. Keep up the good work, and I hope to see you pass my total (no pressure!). Happy reviewing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats's very kind Nehrams, thanks. I think your total is quite safe, can't really see anyone getting even close. :-)

Congratulations indeed. I note your comments about Dubh Artach, which I will address asap. I have a question - at what point did GA's require page numbers? I don't think I have ever been asked for them before and I can see an entire weekend's work looming to find them all. Ben MacDui 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since about August 2007, I think. Criteria 2a) refers specifically to citing sources, which does recommend include page numbers where possible. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, although I noticed yesterday that Staffa already included page numbers. There's no rush with Dubh Artach though, I'm quite happy to leave it on hold for as long as it takes now I know you'll be dealing with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm dreaming! God knows what I thought I was looking at yesterday, but on looking at Staffa again I see that it doesn't include page numbers in the citations at all. Ah well, if you ever have another spare weekend perhaps you could deal with that article too. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Rock is now done. I will have a peak at Staffa asap. Much tho' I approve of our improving quality standards, this is all rather a bore. I guess I have a GA for every month of 2007 and few will be up to snuff. If your eagle eye should espy any more (and they are not hard to find) I'd appreciate it if you could wait until I've finished re-acquainting myself with Fingal's Cave before spanking it. (It doesn't look too bad actually). Am I wrong in thinking that Wikipedia is be-devilled by our non-ability to communicate these things? For the past x months I have been bumbling away happily distinguishing between GAN and FAC targets on a spurious basis. Come to think of it, what actually is the difference, other than people grumbling about image licences? I think I'll have to go and block someone to make myself feel better. Any of your friends below you'd like to not hear from for a while? :) Ben MacDui 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Black Rock looks great now, and I'll close that review. I was just about to post a message on your talk page about this very subject, as I don't want you (or anyone else) to think that I'm hounding anyone over this. The list of articles being checked is here, and there are a few other Scottish Island ones amongst them. They all look great, except for this citation issue. I'm going to leave them all alone for now, lots of other articles to look at anyway, so no pressure on you to do anything. As for the difference between GAN and FAC, take a look at [2] Samuel Johnson's FAC] if you've got some time to spare. Or, for a real eye-opener, check out the various FACs for the Roman Catholic Church. The difference between GAN and FAC I think, when both are done well, is simply one of degree. They both demand pretty much the same things, but one is more tolerant of imperfection than the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. So far as your offer of blocking is concerned, I think that James Blood ought to be a prime candidate. ;-) He's clearly only here to upset me, and to cast doubt on my veracity. Block him I say! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta. I had my thruppence worth at Boswell's chum a while ago. I am aware of the different level of scrutiny, but there were different criteria too at one point. Its not the criteria that I mind it's that they change all the time. Here's another example. You just amended Dubh Artach's refs and notes. I had two FLs using this system, but when it came to my first FAC, it was disallowed. Is it now allowed, and if so, how is anyone supposed to know? Ben MacDui 07:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC) PS I am watching Blood for you. Once false move and he , she or it is toast.

Yeah, I do understand the problem, compounded by the fact that reviewers' interpretations of the criteria are not always consistent. That refs and notes style is pretty commonly used now, and I've got several articles through FAC using it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Staffa is pretty much done now. Ben MacDui 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Staffa is perfectly safe from me now, and it's flagged as having been through A GA Sweeps Review. Just one small thing; I noticed a couple of op cits in the Notes section. I've seen those cause trouble before at review time, so probably best to get rid of them before going on to FAC. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks. Ben MacDui 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resting

Malleus. If you're resting and would like something to do, maybe you could have a look here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Child's play. ;-) What would you like the title of the graph to be? Something like "Value of trade carried on the Bridgewater Canal between 1806 and 1871"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, now the tricky bit is explaining the spikes and dips. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The first and third dip coincide with the climax of the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war, respectively, and the second coincides with the 1832 cholera epidemic. Do I get a point? – iridescent 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No iridiscent, you get a piece of advice; nobody likes a smartass. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One click... – iridescent 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW is it just me or does that picture look just like Viv Stanshall? – iridescent 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just you. BTW, I think an IP block is going a bit far, but so be it. My army of sockpuppets has been commanded to scour the globe for open proxy servers, so all resistance is ultimately futile. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's great. The big dip in the early 1830s coincides with the start of railway competition and the attempts by the superintendent Robert Haldane Bradshaw to cope by cutting prices (thus reducing profits). He had a stroke in 1831, the Duke of Sutherland died in 1833 and Bradshaw did not get on with his successor Frederick Egerton (or many people by that time). He was persuaded to retire in 1834....I've only got that far in the book! Many many thanks: that will be great for the article. Your title sounds fine, unless anyone has a better idea. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether the figures were of value of goods carried on the canal, or the profit generated by the canal. But the graphic can easily be changed to match whatever you decide. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the figures represent profit rather than the value of goods carried. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll change the caption. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the graph to the article. What do you think? I've added the reference but not sure it works as it is. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes, notably moving the title from the image to the image caption, where I've also put the reference. That's also got the advantage that the image can be more easily used in the Lithuanian version of the article. Which reminds me of the Chester Cathedral plan ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better now. Many thanks again. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message

This was tagged as DFU, because I was disputing if it needed to be FU at all. Thankfully now resolved by another contributor :), Will remove the TWINKLE artefact...

Thanks for querying this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheddar Gorge

If you had a minute could you take another look at Cheddar Gorge (yes it has been moved) and see if your comments at Talk:Cheddar Gorge and Caves/GA1 have been addressed or if there are other improvements you think are needed. Thanks— Rod ^talk 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - could you also take another look at Avon Gorge?— Rod ^talk 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral plan

I looked at the diagram and notice you were the uploader. The box and plan look excellent, with one problem. The labelling of the plan is neat, orderly, top-to-bottom logical. But it defies the usual method of labelling any cathedral or major church. In fact, to an inexperienced person it wouldn't be apparent which parts actually constituted the cathedral, because the list commences with the subsiduary buildings rather than the really significant one.

The numbering usually begins with the cathedral itself and proceeds from west to east, and north to south.

1. West front (or facade or west door or west porch if there is one)
2. North west tower
3. South west tower (Consistory Court. The structure which contains the court should be labelled on the plan)
4. Nave.
5. (North nave aisle) if significant
6. (South nave aisle) " "
7. South porch
8. Central tower (or crossing)
9. North transept
10. South transept
11. Chancel (or its parts listed separately- as Choir and Presbytery)
12. Lady Chapel (if located further east)
13. (north choir aisle chapel)
14. (south choir aisle chapel)
15. (vestibule if one exists)
16. Chapter House
17. Cloister
18. (Refectory or other significant buildings) If a significant old building is reused for a different purpose, eg bookshop, cafe etc then the building can be listed with the latter in brackets.

Would it be possible for you to reorder the numbering on the plan? Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious about the value of making such a change, and there are many other things I'd rather be doing instead. If you or anyone else would like to do the work then I'll be quite happy to forward the original graphic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels peer review

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, listen, I want to ask a favor. I wanted your input/feedback on Shawn Michaels' article, since I'm trying to aim to Feature Article status and I want to know what needs to be done first. If you have time, I would appreciate your comments a lot. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to be very short of time to do anything very much for now, but good luck with Shawn Michaels. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the stuff you did include in the article and thank you for your support. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your continued dedicating to finding the little errors on the Johnson page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

When will it ever end, when will we be put out of our misery? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon....? :) Pedro :  Chat  22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly beginning to feel that way. On a somewhat tangential note, I have started to wonder what the point is of writing anything here, as it simply condemns you to defend it against falling out of whatever classification you've struggled to get the article through. I'm thinking of estimates of computer programmer productivity which suggest that after their initial productive period they then spend the bulk of their time doing maintenance. I don't have the actual figures to hand, but from memory it's something like 2.4 years on average before they become maintainers rather than creators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackdown Hills

Hi, I've just put Blackdown Hills up for GA. If you had a few minutes to check my prose for ce that would be great - unless of course you might be the reviewer.— Rod ^talk 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Would you have any further thoughts on the singular v plural discussion at Talk:Blackdown Hills?— Rod ^talk 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, If Blackdown Hills passes GAR, I'm going to nominate "Geography of Somerset" for a Featured Topic which includes many articles you have contributed to - see User:Rodw/Sandbox/GTnomination - would you have any objections?— Rod ^talk 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson lead

Are you around? I'm going to try to make the suggested changes to the lead; will you look it over and smooth it out when I'm done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Let me know when you're done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

grrr ... Ottava listed some info on the FAC, but I don't know if it's 1955 or 1977 Bate. I'll assume 1977 and ask him to check. I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, that's the best I can do. With my stinky prose, it may all need to be reverted, but I wanted to respond to the FAC comments as quickly as possible.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm beginning to wonder if there's any point, but I see what I can do nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everybody's got something on Johnson :-) But I think it's best to try to address things quickly. Hope I didn't completely botch it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked pretty good to me, well done. I made a few minor tweaks which you should feel free to untweak if you don't like them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I goofed that one; that's better. Will wait for Ottava now. I just noticed that Davemon did revisit a few days ago, and continues the (strange) oppose. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time this nomination was closed, one way or the other. Davemon's opposition may have merit, it may not, but someone has to step up to the plate and decide, because it's clearly not going to go away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope my name never goes on a nom again; methinks that's not good for the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re - your 2p worth

"Go out with all guns blazing", or go in with guns blazing and go out "not with a bang but a wimper" (T.S. Elliot, Hollow Men, presaging dark energy causing the big freeze at the other end of time from the big bang.) EricDiesel (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do not go gentle into that good night ... Rage, rage against the dying of the light." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent quote responding to above citation of Elliot. Unfortunately my mother just died a horrific death of raging pain with bone cancer. Given the circumstances of Thomas writing these lines for his dad, not the greatest quote for me to see right now. Oh, well, back to Irridescent below. EricDiesel (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it only me that is permanently tainted by an awful American movie with Rodney Dangerfield that your quote above has no merit? Keeper ǀ 76 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. I've found Do not go gentle into that good night one of the most energising things I've ever seen written as poetry. I would have to admit to being quite a fan of Dylan Thomas though, so I may be biased. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what this conversation is about, but for apt Wikipedia analogies you can pretty much pick any line from The Second Coming. Particularly the first verse: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/are full of passionate intensity" could serve as a motto some days. – iridescent 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

That fits wikipedia pretty well; my allusion to Dylan Thomas was more to do with the attitudes of individual editors. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Irid, what the conversation is about is how to do the old in-out in-out at Wiki. Are the first eight lines of your cite from a Wiki policy page? EricDiesel (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey

Hi Malleus. Just thought you might like to know that Netley Abbey, which you helped me so much on, is now undergoing its GA review. The reviewer has made a couple of good points, notably about wikilinks going to disambiguation pages than where they should go, but in several places he/she has clearly not read the article properly (for instance claiming statements were absent that were present in the text). He/she also thinks the article is under-cited rather than over-cited, which surprised me - I thought I had probably cited more than I should rather than the reverse. I can't say I cared for the tone either. Still, this'll be fun. Soph (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck with the review. GA is a bit of pot luck sometimes. I'll take a look, and see what I can do to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. I just thought I'd let you know that Netley Abbey has passed GA review and is now a good article! I'm so pleased, it's my first one and I could never have done it without the great help and encouragement that you and Peter Vardey gave me. Thanks so much for everything. Soph (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! Now you know how it's done your next one should be a piece of cake. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Humor

Wow, I saw your Badge displayed above were you were awarded the Block for Violating the Rules of Humor Award. Pretty impressive. I've been reading the wrong literature (Mathematics of Humor, Logic of Jokes... blah blah bland bland ) I was collecting "banned perfpormance art" (from riot generating ballets, to physical hacks, etc.) for reproduction at a possible museum in SF back in 2002-4. Is there a collected blocked humor page somewhere I could read? EricDiesel (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got no idea. Probably best to ask a member of the Cabal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of the Cabal; unfortunately, only if you get admin status and can access the long-deleted copyright and BLP nightmare that was Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. – iridescent 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the direction to BJAODN. As an open logical positivist myself, I was happy to see that in WP:Best of BJAODN, the argument that the edifice of logical positivism "vanishes in a puff of logic", considered to be the one of the Best of BJAODN, is both on this page of deletions as a bad joke AND is still in the article on logical positivism! EricDiesel (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

Hi!, my name is William and it is nice to meet you. I have the article Lockdown (2008) under a peer review so that I can get everything fixed to meet FA standards. Would you be so kind and review it, that is if you have the time. It has went under three GA reviews at the sametime (I'll explain later), as well as a peer review and much smaller reviews. Your input will be very helpful and I will be grateful as well. I hate to ask this favor but I haven't got a review yet and it has been under review for a few days now.--WillC 10:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your rename request on Meta.

We're awaiting input from you at Meta:Changing username. If we don't hear anything within a week, the request will be closed "not done". Thanks! Kylu (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Never Quote William Safire

You should add to the beginning of your user page that one should never quote William Safire. I would do it for you, but I have a rule that I never follow any rules, so I am caught in a loop that disables me from writing anything anywhere, including here. EricDiesel (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not instead come and argue about semantics...in a discussion on whether lycanthrope and werewolf are indeed synonymous and in fact should be merged. Figgered you may be interested as you had a witchy occultey name. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Nantwich

Malleus. Do you think it's worth having a go for GA with St Mary's Church, Nantwich? If so, would you have time to pass comments and do some of your most useful copyediting? Many thanks. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do think it's worth having a go at GA with St Mary's. I've only had a quick look through so far, I'll try to look in more detail later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice and improvements. To answer your questions: Raymond Richards produced what is considered to be the "standard" work on the finest Cheshire churches. It is a door-stopper of a book, first published in 1947, with a later edition in the 1970s. Nothing like it has been produced since. Like Pevsner, it is idiosyncratic and opinionated, but really still the best material we have on the subject. He is now dead but his successors own and run Gawsworth Hall. I see that there is now a Wikiarticle on Alec Clifton-Taylor (started in April 2008) so I will have to do a bit of linking. There's more about him in the Oxford Dictionary of Biography (if you have a library ticket). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah

(RE:Meshuggah from User talk:SandyGeorgia#Meshuggah FAC) Good day Malleus Fatuorum! Honestly said, I am not a native English speaker (as you can see), but the Meshuggah article went trough several in-depth copy-edits by several native spekeares already. But anyway, if you have some time, I would be really glad if you can make a further copy edit to the article. I would really welcome your help! Have anice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I simply made a comment. I didn't offer to help. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, but was the comment based on my English on these talkpages or on the language in the article? Can you see some errors in the article?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was simply observing that the prose is tellingly unidiomatic is a few places: "The new lineup recorded the EP None at Tonteknik Recordings in Umeå in 1994 and released the same year.[3][6][9] which had also a Japanese version, including lyrics printed in Japanese". "The band spent almost one year to create the album ...". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright :) I realize that you "didn't offer to help", but I would appreciate if you can fix it, because I can't (I am not a native speaker). Cheers! --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse

Do me a favor and look over the recently failed for GA Horse and tell me if you think it really is THAT bad that it needed to be quick failed? Yes, it doesn't follow the usual "species" articles, but it's not your usual species either. I think the closest comparision would be to Domestic sheep, which also doesn't follow the normal species outline. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that review was rather harsh. There seems to be a growing trend of trying to shoehorn articles into predetermined templates, but in this case I think you're right; the horse has a unique relationship with man, it wouldn't do the subject justice to write another formulaic species article. I think that perhaps some sections go into just a little too much detail, but I don't think that a quickfail was a fair result. I'd definitely take this to WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashton

Hi Malleus - you just beat me to that that last edit as I was trying out different wording for the last two sentences in governance, and just when i got something I was happy with there was an edit conflict and you'd done it. Maybe you can answer a question for me? When I run the Advisor script (which fixes a few common problems) on the article it doesn't seem to like &nbsp, flags it up as an "HTML entity" and wants to change it back to a dash. However if it finds a dash it normally wants to change it to mdash. Do you know if there's an MoS problem with using &nbsp? Richerman (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bug feature. There's no MoS problem with using &nbsp. Sorry I stepped on your toes with that last edit I did to Ashton, but I've been sensitive to that noun -ing thing ever since Tony1 pulled me up about it a little while ago. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'd gone away to check on the proper use of colons and semi colons and when I got back you'd sorted it out - c'est la vie - not la guerre. :) Richerman (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I can help you with that. Whatever follows a semicolon should be a complete sentence. Easy. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I know that now - although the bit before should be able to stand as a complete sentence too. Now while you're in a teaching mood what's thst noun -ing thing? Richerman (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let Tony explain. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, got that. But I only used it temporarily until I thought of something better - honest! It won't happen again. Richerman (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Editor review

And repeat, huh? —Sunday [speak+] 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

See what you think of the changes that have been made. It looks like I was the third editor to come along and try cleaning up and expanding the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Horse

Hi Malleus! I was the original nominator of Horse, which received a bad GA review that you commented on at SandyGeorgia's talk page. There, you offered to review the article if it was re-nominated at GAN, which it has since been. Can I take you up on that offer? There is some ongoing discussion on the talk page about re-organizing the order of the sections in the article to fit with the concerns of several biology specialists, but the content is solid and there is no edit-warring going on, simply talk page discussion.

Thanks in advance for your help. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to do that, although you'll probably have to give me a day or two. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that we welcome a thorough, TOUGH review, so feel free to rip it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth! We have no problem with a tough review, we are simply interested in a fair one! A day or two will be fine, it will give us time to work through the layout issues in the article. Thank you for your help. Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I always feel free to rip articles up during a review. ;-) In any event, an easy GA review wouldn't do the article any favours when it goes forward at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindow Man

I've nominated Lindow Man for GA, I've expanded it a lot recently after seeing Haraldskær Woman at GA. It's still quite a short article and since you reviewed Haraldskær Woman, I was wondering if you could cast an eye over the article and tell me if there are any glaring omissions, or anything you think should be in there? Cheers Nev1 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that, and I was taking a look through it. Good luck with the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you'd already taken a look before I left a message here! It's about time something as interesting as this has a decent article, I'm pretty confident it will do well. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice piece of work. There's just one thing I noticed, which will likely come up during the GA review, and that's that the lead is just a little on the short side. A sentence or two on the possible ritual nature of the killing and the body's possible identity would round it off nicely I think. Otherwise it looks fine for GA to me. If this can't get GA, then I don't know what can. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's always reassuring to have another opinion :-) I've sorted out the lead, I'd been meaning to do that but it slipped my mind, lucky you reminded me! Hopefully this can be Cheshire's next GA. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your addition to the lead rounds the article off nicely I think. At the risk of sounding like Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition, I've also noticed that the lead says: "The body and associated objects are on loan from the British Museum ...". I can't see any mention of these associated objects in the article body though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In none of the sources I've read have any "associated objects" been mention, so I've just got rid of it. I was a bit wary of flowery language, but when there's stuff like a murder confession involved it's difficult not to get carried away. I think it's ready for anything the comfy chair. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian postal code

I will be working on it (even though I never edited this article before). Give me a few days. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great. There's no rush, as you know. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk me out of this

I am tempted to promote aXXo even though it does not meet the GA criteria. My reasoning is that Wikipedia, if it really intends to distribute free DVD's to kids in Rwanda with laptops, should have articles that kids would be interested in. Someone on the GA review page has threatened to delist it immediately, if it is promoted. I understand his point as he is right, although the editor who wrote the article has reasonable reasons for those citations that do not meet WP:V. I know that just because an article is the best it can be is not a reason for promoting to GA. I know I should not promoted it. Tell me to resist the temptation to try to make Wikipedia relevant to the younger generation. (I found the article quite informative and an insight into an area I don't know about.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am done with Wikipedia and am barely editing anymore - just finishing up some lingering GANs. FAC is too depressing, and the articles I pass for GAN are starting to end up there. All the arguing and bickering about Mos is getting to me, never mind the FAC clique and snobbery. I support articles for young people now, rather than the academic sort that are better in paper versions where they can remain stable and not be nitpitted over MoS breaches. Anyway, editors spend more time socializing on their talk pages, or arguing policy, or mustering arguments for arbitration than they do editing. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that I can't do much to talk you out of whatever course of action you've decided to take, partly because I'm rather disenchanted with wikipedia myself. However, on the specific question of the aXXo article, you know as well as I do that it's not even close to being a GA. Doesn't mean it's not a "good" article, just that it's not a Good Article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you are right about aXXo. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) May I comment after eavesdropping? I apologize. I suggest this: This is a case for WP:IAR. Don't be overly bound by the rules of content review; fix the article if you think it's important. If you feel guilty about Passing it after you've fixed it, then ask a friend to review it. Better yet, ask an enemy, so it won't look like collusion. :-) But the key point is, Just Fix It. There, you see, then the satisfaction with Wikipedia returns— you have done something you believe in!!! Please add three Giggy-style smiling faces to that; the smiling faces are real, genuine and non-sarcastic. I'm plowing through the painfully mind-killing process of AWB'ing 30,000 article that will be on the CD version, because I want to present somethng that's just a little better after i came then it was before. If you get discouraged with Wikipedia, then improve the content that you think will help other people. I am so very serious. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head I think. For me, the aXXo article is a hopeless case for GA/FA, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. On the broader issue, you're quite right; all any of us can hope for is that wikipedia is a little better because we came along. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Which planet did you post that from?"

.. and here I thought I was the resident sourpuss. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're doing OK, but you've got a way to go yet. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC/IRC discussion

Just a suggestion: The concession has already been made. Let's leave the guy with a bit of dignity, as there's little doubt he was acting in good faith. Perhaps not the most informed good faith, but good faith nonetheless. Please? Risker (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've lost no dignity. I understand that many Wikipedians are against this IRC channel that they have never joined, nor seen. And also, I suspect the owner of The Cabal had something to do with the mass amount of opposition to such a minor and insignificant event. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, very nice comment, Julian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up! It was a joke. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Very funny. Well, this is Malleus's talk page, so I'll take it up elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find that comment very funny either. Let me me know where you're taking this up and I'll be sure to let Julian know exactly what I think of his lame attempts at humour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be light-hearted, as it seems everybody has been tied up in knots about this. I apologize, and have stricken my comment. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Julian, even as I write this, I am logged into an IRC channel. I speak from some experience that decisions made and advice given in these channels are nowhere near as well-considered as decisions made and advice given on-wiki and can in fact be quite harmful to the project. If people have to stand behind their words and actions, they are much more likely to consider them carefully. To you, it's minor and insignificant. To those of us who have cleaned up after one or more of the previous IRC messes, it's a much bigger deal. Please grant us that. Risker (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you are a Cabal owner, too? I had no idea! We should do lunch. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in my robe now, but I just had my evening ice cream. How about tomorrow, when I'm coifed and dressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pics, plz. :) I had my evening icecream after lunch today instead... I have Milky Ways tho... mmm. O, yea, tomorrow is good. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Me, pics? Now when have you ever seen such a thing from me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, which is why I've requested them! The Bathrobe Cabal awaits. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

JoJo (singer)

We are probably going to lose a GA article here, it's in real poor shape, I can't imagine you listening to JoJo for some reason...anyway, so if you can help inprove it or add comment's to the reassessment it would be good. Cheers. — Realist² 01:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, I've never heard of JoJo, and I doubt I'd be interested in her music even if I had. But, to the point, her article is a basket case. If ever I saw a candidate for a quickfail, that's it. How many requests for citations are there? Twenty? Thirty? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs it too, that's the scary part. The whole thing is unsourced, how it passed in the first place in concerning. Sheeks! — Realist² 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GA is variable, depending on the reviewer, as SandyG often and quite rightly says. The counterbalance is that GA reviewers are encouraged to be bold, and to delist without undue ceremony when clearly justified, or to initiate a review where there may be some room for doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is horrible. It was promoted about 2 and a half years ago. About the time GA was first starting to get together some criteria; when articles were tagged because they were liked. To it's credit, it didn't look this bad then. This is not an article that should go through GAR. It should be speedily delisted. I'm off to do that now. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Saved me having to do it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just pwnd the article. Haha. Glad to help. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a C-class rating, maybe even that is too generous though. *Shrug* — Realist² 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In its present state it looks more like a candidate for AfD than GA. Hopefully someone will come along and sort it out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

No rush, you can ignore this if you don't feel like it, as it's just an informal request for opinion. I was wondering if the reference style of Heavy metal music was up to standards for an FA. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The only obvious objection I can see to the style is that there are some links to foreign language sites, which ought to be flagged as such. I'd prefer to see the sources after the notes as well, but other than that I think the citations look OK. There possibly aren't enough of them to get through FAC today though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Another GA issue ?? Talk:Ficus maxima I don't get it; perhaps I really don't understand the standards, but GAs don't have to be FA quality, otherwise, why do we have GA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the same reviewer I note. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Horse is in good hands, I'm unwatching now; please ping me if anything comes up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about good hands, but I think it'll be fine now. If anything crops up I'll let you know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ficus maxima was not GA quality. Period. It had a major prose issue: almost every sentence was written kind of backward. Once the nominator saw that, my quick fail was a non-issue. --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't do peer review, but I wish you the very best of luck with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Random question number 432

I've been asked about 'war' in the MBB review and thought you might be a person to know this - from the British point of view, was the American Revolutionary War a foreign war, or just 'a war'? The question is asked from the pov of an American. It certainly confuses me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reviewer's asking you. It was a war fought in what was then a British colony, so no more "foreign" than a war fought in The Falklands. I think your rewrite's clear enough, but I do think that calling the British participation in the American Revolutionary War an "involvement", is classic English understatement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

heh, it does rather sound that way doesn't it? He's happy now anyway. On a side note I like to wind up some forum discussions by referring to the USA as 'the colonies' :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I thought that under WP:RS or somewhere (can't find it now), there is a policy that Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference source. I took this to mean that footnotes could not reference solely other Wikipedia articles. However, I find that in TV episodes, for example, it is accepted to reference another Wikipedia article. For example, from Homer Simpson, a FAC:

"...and would gladly sell his soul to the devil in exchange for a single doughnut.

So, this is fine and accepted practice? (I gather it is from looking at cite episode. It just seems strange.) —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lurking. I think that this footnote is actually referencing the episode. They included a courtesy link to the wikipedia article so that users could get more information about the episode. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in my read, that's what they are doing also. They give all the episode information (and even use {{cite episode}} so they seem to be referencing the actual episode, not the wiki article on same. Personally, I wouldn't link to the wiki article, just to avoid confusion, but that's not somehting I can say they shouldn't do. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What they said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)