Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:48, 17 August 2012 view sourceMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 editsm →More Pendle witches: hah!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,813 edits Happy Holidays! 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}}
{{quote|text="It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."|sign=<small>Extract from Giano's retirement statement</small>}}
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}-->
<!--<center> <!--<center>
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">
''''''</div>--> ''''''</div>-->
<!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}--> <!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}} }}
{{sidebar with collapsible lists
{{archive box | 1 =
| outertitle =
<div style="font-size:smaller; padding:10px;">
| topimage = ]
<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2007</div>
| bodyclass = hlist
{{flatlist |
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;
| expanded =

| contentstyle = text-align: left;

| heading1
| list1name = 2007
| list1title = 2007 archive
| list1 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 22: Line 32:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

}}
| heading2
<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2008</div>
| list2name = 2008
{{flatlist |
| list2title = 2008 archive
| list2 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 37: Line 49:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

}}
| heading3
<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2009</div>
| list3name = 2009
{{flatlist |
| list3title = 2009 archive
| list3 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 52: Line 66:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

}}
| heading4
<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2010</div>
| list4name = 20010
{{flatlist |
| list4title = 2010 archive
| list4 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 67: Line 83:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

}}
| heading5
<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2011</div>
| list5name = 2011
{{flatlist |
| list5title = 2011 archive
| list5 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 82: Line 100:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

}}<div style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;">2012</div>
| heading6
{{flatlist |
| list6name = 2012
| list6title = 2012 archive
| list6 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 92: Line 113:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
}}
* ]
</div>
* ]
|search=yes}}
* ]


| heading7
== If you're interested ==
| list7name = 2013
| list7title = 2013 archive
| list7 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading8
I'm sure you are not looking for more trouble in your life, but I would be interested in your opinion as an experienced FA person on ]. --] (]) 10:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
| list8name = 2014
| list8title = 2014 archive
| list8 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading9
:I've replied there. My opinion is that this FAR is quite improper. ] ] 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| list9name = 2015
| list9title = 2015 archive
| list9 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading10
::Thank you. I take it you reviewed the talk page before commenting? --] (]) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
| list10name = 2016
| list10title = 2016 archive
| list10 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading11
:::Of course. ] ] 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
| list11name = 2017
| list11title = 2017 archive
| list11 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading12
::::I was interested in your comment "The issues so far identified seem to me to be relatively easily fixed and in some cases arguably in areas where reasonable people may reasonably disagree". My issue with the article is its completeness and I found the editing community utterly unreceptive to the inclusion of any non-positive material regarding the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden, or indeed any other matter. When you say "relatively easily fixed", do you mean that the article is actually OK as a Featured Article without such balancing material, or do you have some other mechanism in mind for addressing the completeness of the article? Other concerns I have are related to the dodgy employment graph and to the lack of inclusion of any mention of drone attacks, something that will likely be seen in future as a key feature of his first presidential term. If it was possible to negotiate with the regular editors in talk I would certainly have done so. There is a tremendous resistance to change there; while I certainly appreciate the political reasons for this, I really do not think the article meets FAC at present. Whether a time will ever come when regular editors there will agree that "the time is right" for a review remains to be seen. Meantime, the article's status has not been reviewed since 2008. I understand, as I said when I messaged you, that there may be very compelling reasons for you to wish to avoid getting into controversy. The sad thing (for me) would be if the Obama article (an extremely important one) was to remain in almost as bad a condition long-term as the 9/11 one, and for similar reasons, and yet continue to show the little star. Thanks in advance for any further thoughts you may have. Are we still due to take the Melford Stevenson article to FA? I have some ideas for this. --] (]) 12:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
| list12name = 2018
| list12title = 2018 archive
| list12 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading13
:::::If it proves to be impossible to negotiate with the regular editors then that's the time for an FAR. Yes, I think we ought to be thinking about Melford for FAC in the near future; what ideas do you have? ] ] 20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
| list13name = 2019
| list13title = 2019 archive
| list13 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| content35 =
== A request for assistance ==
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}/
break=no
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}
| navbar = none
}}
{{-}}


== TFA ==
Hello, and good wishes,


{{User QAIbox
Though you have a reputation as a fierce fellow, I come to you (as recommended by Drmies) to ask most humbly if you might be willing to look at some of my work, and possibly give me some advice on whether some of the articles I've worked on might qualify for Good Article status. I list many articles I've started or expanded on my user page. Though it is difficult for me to pick favorites, I will mention a few that I feel a bit proud of and would like some help improving if other editors such as you feel that's needed: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. I will also mention the major expansion I did on ], a major U.S. historical figure which was an inaccurate and pitiful stub when I started on it. These articles all have shortcomings, I know, and I tend to be very self-critical, but I believe them to be useful contributions to this encyclopedia. Your comments on even one or two of them would be appreciated. Thank you. ] ] 03:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg
:Stalker butting in, as usual ... Malleus isn't really "fierce".. Not ''per se''. Neither is my eight-foot boa ;P (who is called Cuddles) ] (]) 08:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
| image_upright = 0.8
::But the very mention of ''They Call the Wind Maria'', which is the most maudlin, overwrought, piece of crap show tune in all of human history is giving me twitches if not PTSD! Malleus, at least slap an NPOV tag on that piece of fluff! Better yet, give it your own special treatment, full-roar! I've got your back! ]<sup>]</sup> 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
| bold = ] · ] · ]
:::The funny thing is, Montanabw, the song itself isn't a big favorite of mine. My tastes run to hard rock. But I had this DVD laying around for years of ] and I like both Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, so I finally watched it. Not the greatest movie ever made. That caused an ] of ''They Call the Wind Maria'', which I got rid of by writing this article. If you think my article doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say about the song, feel free to add any other you can find. The song is notable, I think we can all agree, even if it isn't quite ], which is one of my favorites. I was surprised there was no article about it here, so I wrote one. Cheers! ] ] 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
}}
* — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 00:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::Are you trying to give me that ear worm again, Ched? ] ] 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::: I would do such a thing. :=) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 01:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Ricardo Montalban's ] is as frightening as that horrid creature. ] ] 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::After tremendous rain, even bad fog always ] (]) 06:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::LOL! Paint Your Wagon was damn funny, but that song! SOMEWHERE there has to be at least one negative review of it! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not fierce, I'm simply uncompromising. ] ] 03:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi Malleus - I guess it's courteous to let you know about this thread, if nothing else, because I've ] to a post citing an off-hand remark {{diff|Talk:Manchester Ship Canal|503195779|503194065}} you made which struck me. I hope I've made it clear in my disclaimer that I've no interest in aggravating any personal issues or disputes but rather discuss a very real issue: the question of how to prevent driving away highly capable editors who've put they're backs into bringing pages to a level which can showcase the best work of Misplaced Pages . Best, —]] 20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages's contempt for those who write its best articles will ultimately be its downfall. ] ] 03:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

::I think the top 10-15 content contributors (who will accept the job), as a group, should be in charge. (To completely rewrite, if necessary, policy & procedure affecting article quality, maintenance, and growth. Simple reason: they know best; they are in position to know best.) I suggested this idea to Dennis Brown, he had no words about it, when I pressed him for opinion, he said the idea was so radical he didn't know what to think. (A cop-out. 'Course, their first decision might be to strip all admins of their powers. But no one knows that.) This "radical" idea is so simple & so right, IMO, for sure it has been suggested elsewhere by other(s). (Do you know? Where can I propose this idea, if not.) Respectfully, ] (]) 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't waste your time proposing it anywhere, as it will inevitably be vehemently opposed. It's difficult enough to get a consensus on something as trivial as whether an open date range should be represented with an ndash or an mdash for God's sake. ] ] 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Ain't that the truth. ]] 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

== Main page appearances ==

Hello, Malleus. There's a discussion about main page appearances on Wehwalt's talk; I mentioned your name, and a recent event you were involved in, so I thought I should let you know. ]. Regards, -- ] (]) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

== FA lockdown? ==

In the context of ] -- do you think it would be a good idea to lock down the FA while it's on the front page? Or is that one of those perennial proposals which gets shot down every time it's brought up. <small>]</small> 18:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:Page stalker here - the point is to bring in new editors. The point is not for established editors to impose their biases on TFA - that can be done on another day. New editors only have the single chance, so no articles shouldn't be locked down. Established editors should behave better. Period. ] (]) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
: never gonna happen. fact is TFA get edited a lot, and by regulars, too. ] (]) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:As Truthkeeper and Br&#39;er Rabbit said, it just ain't gonna happen, although I do think some changes seriously need to be considered. As a minimum I'd like to see all TFAs semi-protected (in fact all FAs and GAs semi-protected as well); I really fundamentally don't agree with the "anyone can edit anything" ethos. ] ] 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::My preference would be pending edits/flagged revisions.--] (]) 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::{{edit conflict}} I predict that will prove to be a disaster, just as it was last time. ] ] 19:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:: My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. ] - ] 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I feel pretty much the same after every TFA; it's really no kind of a reward. ] ] 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Agreed, there should be some way to opt-out. ] (]) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::I guess the option out is not to put it up for FA. (Raise it to FA-quality, but don't nominate it.) I know that isn't what you meant, Mark. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#008888">of</font>]</font> 22:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::That's one option. In reality there are certain types of article that I would never consider submitting to FAC anyway, even if I was utterly convinced they met the FA criteria. ] ] 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::What sorts? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#008888">of</font>]</font> 12:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Articles on controversial politicians such as ] for instance. ] ] 12:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Good point, but I'm too much of a "star chaser" to ever do that. ] (]) 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I thought the point of posting FA on the main page was primarily to "showcase" Misplaced Pages's best work, rather than as a trivial token reward for the work put in. At the same time, aggressively targeting the FA while on the main page is, imo, a particularly insensitive form of ''negative'' reward{{spaced ndash}}especially considering that the primary reward for serious Misplaced Pages work is surely the intrinsic job satisfaction. —]] 11:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. <small>]</small> 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:See ] for this and many other proposals that never get implemented. The flip side of not locking is new users also see massive vandalism--not wiki's best side.] ] 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::The days of routine "massive vandalism" to the front page article are long behind us. ] (]) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::It might be less than before, but it's hardly gone. ] ] 10:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::My rule of thumb used to be that if it was impossible to make a useful change to the front page because vandalism-revert edits made it impossible to get a word in edgeways, then the article should be protected. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of ''any'' article being hit that hard (but I don't do vandalism patrol these days). ] (]) 11:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::"you must be new" ORLY? I've been around longer than you and have about 110K edits. How is that new?] ] 11:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You missed the smile on my face when I typed that ... ] (]) 13:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::*I kinda noted that in my edit summary too.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::*Actually if you don't count that break of 9 months or so, it's coming up on 7 years. ] ] 11:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::*Well, there we go. You were smiting vandals when I was learning to Wikilink.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::*No, they're more sophisticated now. They put penises in obscure templates.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::*Or less than obscure ones... --] &#124; ] 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

== got a job for you... ==

* ]
Just do it. ] (]) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:*"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." ] ] 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:*: but it's not an election, it's an assignment ;) Oh well, mebbe Brian... ] (]) 16:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::*OK. If we elect you, and you don't serve, exactly how are we worse off than with the status quo?--] (]) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::*You're not, but I am. ] ] 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::::*I last (and I do mean last) offered to help with some of these routine tasks ], only to be told that I'm basically unfit for anything other basic comma shifting. I think that whoever steps up to take on this role really ought to be able to edit the protected blurb, and that will never be me. ] ] 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::: But you'd be ''creating'' the blurbs and editing them as you see fit. They would only be protected once you were done with them, a bit prior to going live. And we should have someone summarily make about fifty admins, including you (summarily take at least half that many bits, too). ] (]) 03:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::But I couldn't respond to issues on the day, or even the day before, so the answer is still no, it's not for me. ] ] 04:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

== Uncompromising ==

I am not asking for compromises but rather some frank advice. If you are too busy or uninterested, I certainly understand. ] ] 21:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

:Is there a particular article that you'd like me to look at? ] ] 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::If I had to pick one (and it appears that I do) I guess that I will say ]. This is a thoroughly American topic. But on the other hand, he did befriend Brit ] and it was a question from a British editor about Eccles' time in Wyoming that motivated me to delve into Yount, who I called "a real character" in that initial exchange among two friendly editors. This article was what I call a "miserable stub" when I started, and I believe is much better now. However, I have had relatively little feedback from other editors though it was popular at DYK, so I am sure that other uncompromising eyes will identify many areas for improvement. I think that the biggest shortcoming is that I only found one really outstanding reliable source - Supernaugh - although there are many sources that mention Yount in passing. So, the article is perhaps over-dependent on one source. I find the man fascinating, though you may or may not agree, but what I seek here is honest unvarnished criticism and perhaps advice about how I might improve the article to bring it up to "Good Article" status. If you feel that this article is undeserving for whatever reason, I could suggest others. Thank you. ] ] 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Harry Yount it is then. ] ] 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Well, then, I eagerly await your biting criticism. Thanks in advance. ] ] 06:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::I've made a few observations on the article's talk page. One thing I haven't done yet though is to check any of the sources; I'll maybe try and look at that later. ] ] 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

== The ] ==

Thanks for the generous offer and for the work you did there yesterday. A few more books I'd ordered from the library arrived yesterday and at this point it's simply an issue of getting through all the sources and adding more sections. I've decided to work offline and will try my best to get it done. Frankly at this point it's still a mess, but when I'm closer to being done with adding the content I'll restructure and go through to tidy. There's also still quite a bit of unsourced material that's not very well written that needs to be dealt with, so if I find myself falling I'll yell for help. We'll see how it goes. But wanted to stop by and thank you. ] (]) 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:No problem; I know how easy it is to become discouraged here. I'll leave the Alps in your capable hands then, and get back to trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that was ]. ] ] 17:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just stopping by to turn the tables and tell you what you told me - in other words step away for a while, but don't give up completely. It's incredibly difficult to work on these "core" articles for a lot of reasons: the scope, the research, the structure, not to mention having to deal with the people who feel toes are being stepped on. Add to that the general atmosphere of this place plus a deadline - it's really quite amazing that we've written any of them. So step back, give yourself a pat on the back for what you have done, and then step back in again. If you need help in terms of structure I'd be willing to look it over. ] (]) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

:Two RfCs in one day (have you seen them?) was just about the final straw. But I'll take your advice, step away for a while, and see how I feel in a few days. I've never been worried about deadlines, in fact without them I'd probably never get anything done, but the atmosphere here is just so ... so ... demeaning? ] ] 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

::I glanced, groaned and closed the page. I thrive on deadlines too, but these are big pages and there seems to be more and more to add. I decided not to go to bat against the table in the middle of the Alps because I knew it would take too much time to fight. I just shove in the content and worry about the reactions later. ] (]) 19:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

== Untitled comment ==

Malleus; following our disagreement a few months ago, and although I suspect we continue to disagree on many subjects, I am sincerely and honestly glad tro see you back actively editing.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:I'm absolutely certain there are many more who are not. In fact I could give you a list, headed by and his friends.] ] 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

== More Pendle witches ==

I approach you with some trepidation given your recent derision of #MartinEvans123. But I’ve been tinkering with ] over the weekend. I started it in an attempt form my own opinion on the likely location of Malkin Tower. It’s still in a pretty rough state, but I’ve come to think that it could be turned into a decent addition to the article. Nearly all the data comes from Potts (and a handful of Google searches) and the LCC MARIO map site. If your gonna shoot the idea down / call me a fool, you may as well do it now before I spend any more time on it. IMO it casts doubt on Malkin Tower farm being home of the Device’s, it just seems to be a little far from the action. --] (]) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:I only deride those who've demonstrated themselves to be worthy of derision, so you're quite safe. I share your doubts that Malkin Tower Farm is really the site of the original Malkin Tower (or Malking Tower as it's sometimes known). I don't think an extended discussion of the possible locations of Malkin Tower would be an appropriate addition to the Pendle witches article, but for a while I've pondered whether a separate article on Malkin Tower could be justified, and I'm coming to the conclusion that it very well might. So why don't we work together on a new ] article? ] ] 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

::I’d be happy to contribute, although I should point out that I’m far from an expert on the Pendle witches. I’m unlikely to be able to offer a vast amount of new source material, as I’m too lazy to go to library and too cheap to start buying stuff (although I might make an exception one day). I am however fairly knowledgeable about the geography of the area, and handy enough with a map. I also have a reasonable knowledge of the history of the Forest of Pendle and surrounding areas. I’m intrigued how to go about writing an article on a building that no longer exists, when we don’t know where it was or what it looked like. One thing that I would like to know more about is a passing mention of “fields called Malkin are at Sadler's Farm” in a footnote of the Goldshaw Booth entry in the VCH.

:::If you want any more help, I'll be going to Burnley library this Thursday so I'll have a look at what they've got about the Pendle witches. It would be interesting to help out on an article about the Tower. ] (]) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

::::OK, let's do it then. ] ] 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Writing an article on ] is easy enough ... heck, people write articles on ] that have ''never'' been there. I'll probably start something off later this evening if nobody else has and we can take it from there. ] ] 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:::OK, done now. See what you think. ] ] 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Looks like a good start – I can't find anything much to add from online sources at the moment so I'll wait and see what there is at the library in a couple of days time. ] (]) 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::True that. But perhaps the problem is you're like the kid in ] -- "I see derisible people. They don't know they're derisible." <small>]</small> 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, but I don't see that as my problem. ] ] 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I expanded the article a bit and split the discussion about the name into its own section. See what you think of it and feel free to chop and change anything. Cheers, ] (]) 09:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:Some nice additions there BigDom. I'm amazed we've managed to unearth so much with so little to go on, and I very much doubt there's a better account of Malkin Tower anywhere. So I'm starting to think that with a little bit of reorganisation we could even make a GA out of this. Any thoughts? ] ] 11:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, it's great we've managed to write so much. It's definitely more comprehensive than anything they have at the library and I agree, there's no reason why we can't get a GA with a little bit more work. There's a bit more I could add about why Douglas thinks Newchurch is the likely location (although I'll have to go back to the library - forgot to write that bit down). We could probably move what's in the lead at the moment into a "Background" section and then write a proper lead that summarises the article. ] (]) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Douglas's thoughts on why Newchurch is the likely location is just about the only omission I can see anyone reasonably raising, so if you can add that I think we're pretty much sorted content-wise. I agree with you about the lead, which is the reorganisation I was thinking of. ] ] 11:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::::OK, it'll probably be a few days until I get back there but I'll see how it goes. I was trying to think of a clever DYK hook earlier, but nothing really came to mind. So if you or any of your talk page watchers could think of anything, it might be worth putting it up for DYK, what do you think? ] (]) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::The obvious one is "... that on ], 6 April 1612, ''']''' was the venue for perhaps the most well-known alleged witch's coven in English legal history?" ] ] 12:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Looks good to me, nominated it ]. Forgot how much I hated DYK nowadays, too complicated with all these templates and rules. ] (]) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Reading that lead (soon to be Background) section again it struck me that the chronology, although correct, looks a little odd, as it deals with the executions before the coven. So I think that needs to be stitched together a little better, explaining that Elizabeth Southerns and Alizon Device had already been arrested and were being held in Lancaster Gaol, and one of the alleged purposes of the meeting was to plot their escape. ] ] 12:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::I see what you mean. Perhaps the best way would be to introduce Demdike and Alizon first up like it already does, then mention the coven and how that affected the later trials, which led to the executions? ] (]) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Something like that, yeah. I'll try tying it all together later today -- got some lino to lay this afternoon. ] ] 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya chaps. I've gotta say I'm pleased with how things are going. I'd definitely like to see more on Saddler's farm, IMO it's far more likely to be the place than either of the other candidates. I've got some stuff to add about it not being Blacko, some of it I'll add shortly, one bit I'm struggling with is that Malkin Tower farm was called Blacko Tower until sometime after the 1840s. I've found a couple of trivial references to it and the LCC Mario site. . I can't find a way to link directly to that layer so am struggling to use it as ref. Anyone got another source / or any ideas? Also it seems to me that the text repeats when talking about "poor or shabby woman" and then "lower-class woman or slut", but I don't have access to the sources so can't be sure.--] (]) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

:We could maybe find a way to combine the "poor or shabby woman" and the "lower-class woman or slut" quotes. I'll take a look at that LCC Mario site later and see if I can come up with anything. BTW, the article is now a DYK nominee, and I think you should be listed as one of the nominators. There is a downside to that though, which is that you're only allowed five nominations before you have to do a quid pro quo review. ] ] 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::I've never been involved with DYK before and I doubt I'll get to five any time soon. I've found ], what do I have to do?--] (]) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I've done it. Congratulations on what will be your first DYK. :-) ] ] 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Ta very much. One thing I think we do need to work into the article (time permitting) is how long the search has been ongoing. The Chetham Society’s version of Pott’s was published in 1845??--] (]) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure anyone's really mounted a search for Malkin Tower have they? And I'm not sure how they'd know they'd found it even if they did. <s>] ]</s> Mr Happy ;-) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

== The radio presenter ==

Forgive me if this is rude or impertinent but, you've been editing that radio presenter's article. Didn't you say you're not going to do that? --] (]) 14:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:What are you talking about? ] ] 14:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::My mistake. I was thinking of . I misread your comment as saying you won't edit it. You actually said you had no intention to edit it. That's a pity. --] (]) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:::I still don't understand what the fuck you're talking about, as nobody has edited that article since the beginning of April. Have you come here in an attempt to stir up trouble by any means you can? ] ] 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Fuck. I misread the dates. Umm. Sorry. --] (]) 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::I trust you won't be surprised to learn that I don't believe you. ] ] 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::I am actually. I revisited that article a couple of days ago in relation to an Andy/Pigsonthewing thread at ANI. I noticed you among the most recent editors and for some reason thought it was very recent. I was surprised and disappointed because I didn't think you'd do that. I apologise for not double-checking. --] (]) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I didn't do it, but let's be very clear; I made no commitment not to edit that article should I choose to do so in the future, and the proposal to topic ban me from it fell flat on its face. ] ] 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::::And when you do, I'll tell you what I think of you. --] (]) 21:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Fair enough, but don't you mean "if I do"? Hawkins is a pretty minor radio broadcaster admittedly, but if he was to up sticks and go work for another radio station I would feel perfectly entitled to add that information to his article whether you, he, or God Almighty disapproved. ] ] 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Yep. Barely notable, really. I toyed with "if" but "when" felt better. --] (]) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

...now a featured article in two other countries and a good article in another. A bit like Wife Selling. Quite pleased with that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:Very good. Those translations look like quite a bit of work. ] ] 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::I really want to make a featured article around the burning of women at the stake but I've had problems finding decent source material. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough, I don't know, but it seems to me an extremely important part of our history has received scant attention. I won't even bother trying to sort ] out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure that many women really were burned at the stake were they, at least not alive? In (I think) all the witchcraft cases I've looked at everyone has been either hanged or garotted before their bodies were burned. What is it about burning women in particular that catches your fancy? ] ] 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Dunno about witches in general, but Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. I think her crime was changing her mind about her testimony. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::::As far as I know they were almost all garotted and then burnt. It's the bizarre "we can't be chopping up women, that's ''indecent''!" that interests me - the notion that burning a woman's corpse was more "decent" than allowing it to be seen naked. That and the treatment of women through history. I have strange interests, like ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::Heretics (in which witches were included) were generally burned for religious reasons; the doctrine of the RCC (and its successor in England the CoE) was that burning prevented any possibility of the body being resurrected or re-animated. (This belief had a ''very'' long tail - the most recent documented case in Europe of the deceased's heart being burnt to prevent evil forces resurrecting it was in the dim, distant dark age of ). If you wade through ] you'll find enough burning's-alive in the 16th century alone to keep you going for months - I came across a few when I was writing ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::2004? Ack. Of course I can see why, though - we're still seeing witches turn into goats this year - those witches are tricky. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Personally, I think we may all be possible members of the coven! Uppity, challenge authority, nonconformist... you get the idea! ]<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

{{od|::::::}}Note to Parrot (or anyone else thinking of taking the topic on); if you're looking for material on witch-burnings, rather than searching on ] (the physical act), search on ] (the actual religious ritual of which the burning-alive was just one part, albeit possibly the most noteworthy from the point of view of the burnee). You won't get all the false-positives from people accidentally dying in house fires, and ADF is the term that the religious histories will use.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
:You'll also find plenty of references to women being burned to death in any discussion of ]. ] (]) 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks all, I'm massively busy with work right now but I've taken note of your suggestions. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

== GA Review of ] ==

I'm notifying you (as the #2 editor to the article) that ] is up for ]. ] (]) 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

== Reasons to be cheerful (part 1) ==


==Io Saturnalia!==
Just in case you hadn't spotted ] :) --] (]) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
:I'm afraid I'm not a great one for babies, there are far too many of us here already, and I have a passionate loathing of hats. Not sure whether the two things are related, but congratulations to Drmies and his missus nevertheless. ] ] 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}

Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024

2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive
2012 archive
2013 archive
2014 archive
2015 archive
2016 archive
2017 archive
2018 archive
2019 archive

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Jersey Act, introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)