Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:13, 9 May 2011

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Archives

2007 April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2010 January • February • March • April • May • June • July  • August • September • October • November • December 2011 January • February • March • April

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fine editing

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

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

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

IBM SSEC

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

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

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

Congrats...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update ...

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

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

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

Nailsea GA

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Paisley witches

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

Simon Byrne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scrotal cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffragettes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pigeon photography

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

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

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

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

Barre ...

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

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

Thanks again

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

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

SOGA

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

Five years

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fantastic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Richard Phipson

On 8 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Phipson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Richard Phipson's Victorian church spire at Great Finborough in Suffolk has been nicknamed "Thunderbird One" after the Supermarionation space rescue vehicle? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

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

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

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

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