Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 30 September 2012

"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."

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

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 May June July August September October November December
2012
January February March April May June July August September
Molon labe!

GA Review Carr Hill

Hi Malleus

Just wanted to post a couple of little things now that the GA review on this one has now closed (and I figured here is better than a completed review page).

Firstly, and contrary to your closing comment, I actually don't think you were being especially harsh. As it happens, I much prefer thorough GA reviews, because no-one but me ever adds a thing to my obscure, Gateshead-y articles so a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome because I tend not to pick up silly errors that I make. And I agree that the article is better for it, especially now that I have a reliable source for climate data. Additionally, I would eventually like to get at least one of these articles through WP:FAC, so a comprehensive GA review helps a lot.

Secondly, as regards our disagreement re:WP:UKCITIES. As you said, for the purposes of the review now concluded, the point was moot, but your reading of the guideline is genuinely new to me and isn't one I would have even considered to be honest. This is important to me as I tend to concentrate my wiki-efforts on articles like Carr Hill and I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future. I am not a 'wiki-expert' – I concentrate mainly on editing and offering the occasional review – so I have no idea how I might be able to clarify this point, and wonder if you have any suggestions?

Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I always tend to look at well-developed articles like Carr Hill – and it was well-developed – with an eye to FAC, otherwise GAN just becomes a rubber stamp, which I don't think is very productive. I also prefer to fix the easy things myself rather than clutter up the review, as you may have noticed. So far as our differing interpretations of WP:UKCITIES is concerned, I'm certainly not in any way trying to prevent you from having a similar discussion in the future; my comment was localised to this specific review. I'm not sure there's any general answer to your question though, maybe it's horses for courses, but has it never struck you as odd that an article such as Montpelier, Brighton has extensive coverage of church buildings without ever mentioning the religions of its residents? For me, that's a clear breach of GA criterion 3a, but no doubt other reviewers will have their own interpretations. So basically I have no right to stop you having whatever discussion you wish wherever you wish. If you go on to FAC though the rules change, and you have to satisfy all the reviewers, not just one old curmudgeon like me, which is quite a different game. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted your "... I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future", when what you really meant was "I would like to know whether you are right, to prevent my having the same discussion again in future". If that's so, a good place to kick off the discussion would be WT:GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why it has never struck me as odd because I have never considered it a requirement of WP:GAN. The failure to include that information in my view would certainly preclude success at FAC (something I tend to know a lot about, annoyingly) but my reading of 'broad' precludes 'comprehensive'. As you say; perhaps it is horses for courses?

I am going to raise the issue at WT:GAN, simply to ensure that I don't end up crossing swords with a future reviewer– if it should be in, I'll include it in future articles– and also as I have dipped my hand into reviewing over the summer and it would help me provide better reviews I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN's "broadness" criteria obviously isn't well-defined, for obvious reasons. Should be an interesting discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I know an editor's keen, I'll try to give a article a big a shove as possible towards FAC....aaaah and I've now seen Sherriff Hill. I am reminded of a scene in Green Wing where they decide to do an operation in Geordie....but my accent would be atrocious I think...apart from "alreet" and "howay then".....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I did try to give a big shove; maybe the issue is whether I shoved too hard with this particular article. Reviewing, especially GA reviewing, is a pretty lonely and thankless place by and large, but all we can do is the best we can do, and I did the best I could. If that's not considered good enough then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that Sherriff Hill FAC will be mmarginally less lonely. I've left Meetthefeebles some stuff to do. I'd be intrigued to see what else you come up afterwards with as I do like reviewing villages and towns but not hugely familiar with it like plants, mushrooms and birds...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that Sherriff Hill was at FAC. I seem to make almost as many enemies there as I did at WT:RFA; I expect that'll be the topic of my next arbitration case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooh err, I hadn't realised until I read this and I've been up there weilding my pruning shears after it popped up on my watchlist. :-( J3Mrs (talk)

I expect I'll be doing a bit of pruning too. I notice immediately that there's nothing on climate ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

... and I see you're not the only one with the pruning shears out. Hamiltonstone's been having a good go at it as well. On the face of it this nomination looks to have been a little premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And no Public services. It does need a really good copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs)

It does. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing seems to have been learned from the Carr Hill GAN. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have passed Sherrifs Hill as a GA, so I've had to oppose its promotion. Maybe the work required can be done within whatever time remains at FAC, but it's getting towards the bottom of the queue now, so I'm dubious. Basically, it ought not to have been nominated in that state. I actually think that Carr Hill would stand a better chance at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To cut the editor a bit of slack, I was "precious" about my prose until I learned it was better to be precise but I was lucky in that it was frequently improved by an expert, and though I'm still incredibly sloppy, I do try to keep a simple past tense and use as few words as possible. I'm working on another of my "masterpieces". The important thing is learning the lesson not carrying on regardless. J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm lucky I guess, in that I've always found writing easy; maybe a consequence of having read so voraciously as a kid. But the problem with Sheriff Hill isn't just the prose, there's far too much detail on stuff that just doesn't matter at all, unless you're writing a tourist guide I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been there too! I've removed some things that were plain wrong too, about the turnpike and the colliery. (see edit summaries) I tried to copyedit it before but some just got re-added in a different way.J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Have just read this. Wow. Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I guarantee that your Sheriff Hill article has got no chance at FAC until you start to listen, and take on board what you're being told. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not some wiki-expert and nor do I think I am. I have learned in the two years I have edited here that there is a difference between writing here and writing, say, academic journals which is my usual domain and area of expertise and where my natural verbosity is considered 'flair' and is actively encouraged. I struggle with anything other than basic HTML and things like the 'cite-web' template and ndashes cause me endless editing problems and which often results in my making daft drafting errors which I don't spot as I would in a normal word document. I have no problem with any of that, none at all, and I always try to take on board constructive criticism where any of these, and other areas, are concerned. I have never discouraged more experienced editors from edit 'my' articles (J3Mrs has done some work in the past and helped me with this sort of thing, in fact) and very rarely revert (frankly, I don't even know how to revert) or amend those changes. That is why I spent hours considering the suggestions made by others in the FAC and making a lot of changes, because I do want to make the articles better. Check every single GAN or FAC that I've nominated and you can see that, where a reviewer leaves detailed comments, I consider all of them and make amendments accordingly nine times out of ten. Your review of Carr Hill was fine, because you provided detailed examples of things to consider/correct. I like that approach and generally react cooperatively to it.
What has caused my reaction, which I am annoyed at about because I never act like that in real life, let alone online, is that your comments in the FAC read as extremely confrontational. I have no idea whether or not this is deliberate (and I'm assuming good faith) but statements such as "I would have hoped that the nominator would have applied the same fixes to this article as were applied to Carr Hill, but obviously not.", less than 24 hours after the first review had been completed do not help me improve the article in the same way that hamilton and the other comments do. The same can be said for "looks like it was written by an estate agent." Additionally, your final response to J3Mers above comes across as patronising; again, you may not intend this to be so, but it does nonetheless and is even more so in light of the fact that I research, write and teach (in a non-encyclopedic environment) for a living (which you probably didn't know or less care I'd suppose). Look at your last comment at the FAC and tell me that this doesn't read as confrontational? And, for the record, I erroneously missed one word from that sentence which was otherwise taken from the example provided at WP:UKCITIES.
When faced with that type of approach I react badly, because I have less to work with and it feels like I am fighting a losing battle. I spent hours, and I mean hours, considering Hamilton and Casliper's comment and making substantial amendments/corrections/removals/paraphrases, then when I was done you simply dismissed them with a "we will have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand". Can you see that this is going to frustrate a far less experienced editor who is trying to make an article better?
I've gone on a bit here, and for that I apologise. I simply wanted to explain why I reacted the way I did. And for my over-reaction to the above, I also apologise. It was wholly inappropriate. Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we all have bad days and better ones. You did though accuse me of "duplicity" because of the discussion in this thread, a thread that you yourself started, and you did start an ANI report, so I don't see much "good faith" being applied there. The thing you have to understand is that FAC is quite unlike GAN or peer review; if I were to list every single issue I see with Sheriff Hill it would likely double the size of the review, which would simply put new reviewers off. So the best thing is to give a few examples and general guidance, which I think I've done. You've chosen to ignore my advice, which is perfectly fine, your choice. The idea is though that articles presented at FAC ought to already meet the FA criteria, but I still believe that Sheriff Hill is a way from doing that. And don't make assumptions about whether or not I might also "research, write and teach". I'd make a substantial bet that I've done a lot more teaching than you have, including beyond undergraduate level, and more paid writing. Now, shall we start again? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very good idea. I've re-read your comments and consequently made what feels to me like drastic changes to the article today. You noticed that I re-wrote the lead and I've now restructured several sections (including removing various subheadings and removing the housing section entirely and incorporating some of that material into the history section) and removed large chunks of potentially superfluous material (notably from the history, religion, education and health sections). Would you be willing to pop over and cast an eye over these and tell me if I am any closer to the mark? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no, as the article isn't on my watchlist. I'll run an eye over it later, but I guarantee that if you listen to what I'm telling you it'll be third time lucky. J3Mrs's advice is good; you're writing a summary encyclopedia article, not the definitive history of your patch. It takes a while to get into that mindset, and I'm sure we all struggled a bit with that at first, even me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About time they found something else to talk about other than me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wondering why there's a lack of reviewers could do worse than read this dishonest nonsense. Why should anyone be expected to put up with that? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At least you didn't get blocked and then unblocked and blah blah. The kids are watching TV, I made some coffee, it's bright and nice in Florida at 7:30 AM: I'm going to have another look at the JSTOR results for your adventure. Drmies (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My first preview comment had a couple of lines defending Malleus, and then I realized he didn't do anything that needed defending, so I left them out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And how many times has that happened? I'm of the opinion that anyone making an ANI report about me should receive an automatic block. Who's with me comrades? Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a trap! You'll be tormenting people just to get them to report you. After all, everyone knows what kind of a person you are based on how many times you've been to ANI... ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you've seen through my dastardly plan. The quote at the top of this page tells its own story: "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." Mind you the tense mismatch there is rather jarring to a pedant such as myself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, your efforts in helping Lisa earned you a page worth of gold stars in my book. It is a shame that too few people notice those things, and only focus on the imaginary negatives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite used to that by now. Lisa's evident delight at getting that little gold star is its own reward, and now she knows how it's done I'm sure she'll feel confident to go on and do it again. And maybe even help others to do it as well. That comment of Fleet command's about me being jealous and envious because all of "my" FAs are basically crap still rankles a bit though. Good job he and I aren't sitting in the same pub. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fleet command couldn't have written something that stupid sincerely. He must have been amusing himself by saying something ridiculous. Maybe he's a comic account parodying certain editors....? Perhaps he's a fabrication that will make a book on Misplaced Pages more interesting? Sometimes, life seems like a sitcom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I know that editors such as Fleet and Fram go out of their way to try and wind me up, but they ought not to be surprised or go running to Mummy when they get what they deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In Fleet's defense, he came to me admitting he made a mistake, with a genuine concern about Lisa's efforts "going down the drain". He did come with a lot of misconceptions about Malleus, which I corrected, and I think this took him by surprise. He knows I've worked with Lisa, and I unblocked Fleet once a upon a time, which is why I assume he picked me to notify. I think it turned out to be a good coincidence. He really has good intentions from what I've seen but he seemed to be assuming a lot of things, based (again) on the false Truths spread around enwp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as in any way admitting that he made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody wants to discuss my theory that Misplaced Pages is a sitcom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comedy = Tragedy + Time, and you are a bit early. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• So Malleus, I know you dislike talkback templates, but I thought I'd mention that there is a message awaiting your attention on my talk page. I apologize for bothering you again, but I'm due to archive my talk page, and you still haven't elaborated on your comments about my status as "fucking pissy". Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see anything there that requires any kind of response from me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Eric Corbett. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Misplaced Pages:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cresswell

Three left; the oddities, plus whatever I'm missing about ODNB ;) Up to you. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that the ODNB citation is to a web site, not a book. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

bah, wrong direction. I /changed/ it to {{cite web}}. It is still a source and can go in the "sources" section. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The published book version may well not be as up-to-date, and may disagree with the online edition, but fundamentally the material didn't come from the book, it came from the web site. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what the section name is; how about bumping those to "online sources"? But you've tossed too much :/ I'm fine with cite the online version. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• *that*… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  problem solved :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's getting late and I'm getting very tired of this. I know I'm right, but if you're unconvinced ask someone like Nikkimaria, who checks citations at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  one of your edit summaries said let's do it right, and I know you believe in the sfn templates, even if it's with the ‘(’ornaments‘)’. You've taken things backwards and annoyed an ally. And I've little use for nikki's opinions ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  No, you still don't get it. You've annoyed me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Likewise. You seem to think I want to cite the book, and not the website for ODNB. I don't. It was on {cite book} when I got there and am fine with it being cite web. Or {cite book}, which you reverted to using. And I don't much care how the sources are listed; biblio, online, or simply sources. But you've introduce *one* use of {{sfnp}} and reverted the others, which makes little sense to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  You were citing the book by moving the citation into the Bibliography, which is fundamentally what I was objecting to. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  At the time, the section was named “Sources”. I see you've restored most of what I'd done ;/ although you've not linked Turgeon or Woodfall… and there's a loose copy of the De Sola Pinto cite just above the “Political affiliation” section. I think all the full citations should be in a single section, possibly with the books sub-labeled as the biblio. Having most in a biblio section, but some embedded in the footnotes is messy and inconsistent. Oh, and it's back to using {{cite book}} for the ODNB website :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't agree, and I believe I've done this kind of thing a damn sight more times than you have. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  And as it happens I've got some doubts about that Turgeon citation, which I'm investigating; it's not all about your preferred citation style, veracity has to play its part. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Having the sources in a form organised other than by usage-order is useful, and keeping the collated footnotes distinct from the full citations does that. If a source such as Turgeon is dodgy, that's a wholly different issue. I'll certainly leave that to you. And don't be too such how much of this I've done; I've run over forty accounts ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you when you're so clearly wrong. Let me give you one more example; the DNB article wasn't written by Woodfall it turns out, but by J. W. Ebsworth. Getting the citations right isn't just a matter of making them look pretty according your idiosyncratic aesthetics. Now can we please drop this, as it's boring me to tears. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting favour?

Malleus, would you be willing to do me an editing favour? Nikkimaria and I have New Worlds (magazine) up at FAC, and in Jim Bleak's review he says: "Lead is disappointing, doesn't flow well, and only two paras is insufficient for an article of this length". For some reason I found this a particularly hard lead to write, and I am having trouble figuring out what to do here. Would you be able to have a crack at this? I would really appreciate it. Even adding a couple of sentences would be helpful, as that would help me see what I need to do. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at the lead tomorrow. Looks like a pretty comprehensive article, well worth a little gold star. I don't think the number of paragraphs is a valid objection though, maybe they're just not organised in the best way? Anyway, demain. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I rarely see " U.K.", pretty much always UK these days. Is "U.S." still common? Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; I think I would normally use "UK", so I don't know why I did that. I do see "U.S." and "U.K." in the sf template at the end.

Someone just took out all the red links in the lead -- is that a preference these days? Haven't seen anyone do that before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I took out two. Put them back if you prefer. GFHandel ♬  09:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the copyedits! I don't have a strong preference, though I think people undervalue redlinks -- they are a good thing, I feel. I was just curious if there's a general preference these days for removing them from leads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Woodstock Library

Thanks for the feedback on the Woodstock Library article. Happy to address your concerns ASAP. Would you mind perhaps striking or capping resolved concerns so it is easier to differentiate between resolved and unresolved problems? Your time and assistance is much appreciated--I look forward to having an improved article to showcase to MCL staff. --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, THANK YOU for your many improvements to the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to offer it as a model then it ought to be a good model. Have you considered reducing the clutter in the text by converting to list defined references? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am thrilled with the current state of the article and think it makes a great model. Thanks so much for your help, seriously. I always appreciate thorough reviews. Actually, embarrassingly, I am not sure what you mean by list defined references, or if I do I don't recognize it by name. Could you offer an example? I want article to offer best practices, but at the same time provide the best learning opportunities (AKA don't make it too hard on the newbies!)... --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll convert it and you can see for yourself. If you don't like it for whatever reason you can always revert me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from potentially tidying up the citations I'm going to leave the rest of the review to your official GA reviewer; I'm just an interloper. I'd be interested to know how your presentation to the library goes next week though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy sir

Every night when I pick up my book I remember that I forgot to tell you something--the book is Greene's A Burned-Out Case. Quite a good read, really; it's been a while since I read a traditional (FWIW) novel, so thanks for the suggestion. I had a question for you as well. I wrote up a little stub, Leiden Glossary, and searching through JSTOR I find that there's another Leiden Glossary, a papyrus containing some lines from the Illiad. It's a less common use of the term, but I would like to make it clear, in the "not to be confused with" way. I could write a stub on the other glossary, of course, but if I don't, is it worthwhile pointing out in the text that the title can refer to something else? and where do I do that? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As a lapsed Catholic myself Greene's book had a certain resonance for me. As to your question, no, I wouldn't mention it in the text. If there was ever an article on the papyrus then I'd add a hatnote to the top of the article, something like {{for|the papyrus containing lines from the Illiad|Leiden Glossary (papyrus)}} But until the other article exists I wouldn't bother about it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism is a theme through pretty much all of Greene's works. Probably all, in fact. The first that I read was the one about the whiskey-priest in Mexico - The Power and the Glory, IIRC. I'd be surprised if I haven't read them all by now but as an irreligious person I do sometimes find the Catholic subtexts a bit tricky. Still, he is an eminently readable novelist who draws on interesting life experiences, which is more than I can say of John Updike, for example. I just don't get him at all, Great American Novel or otherwise.

Not sure why I am writing this: I guess I just felt like being human after a demoralising first day of fettling Aurangzeb. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

what's ya problem??

1. the walls in question are in the south eastern part of the city 2. st martins gate was built to facilitate the building of the ring road, if there was no gap where would the road go? Accommodate means to provide "Provide lodging or sufficient space for." the road went through it not between it

Not grammatically correct pah? What do you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.250 (talk • contribs)

A great deal more than you, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh really? So the Eastern sections of wall which is usually meant to be the stretches between the Kaleyards and the Newgate now includes Barnaby's Tower? Likewise an image of Morgan's Mount which incidentally has just been refurbished after a 10-month restoration project isn't worth a simple mention in an image caption? BTW that image is now out of date as the new tower has window glass. So it should have a date added to it. 109.151.218.250 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you been blocked yet? Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If any one of you had warned them while it was going on they would have been, yes. :) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Lady (film) poster image

since you have a fair use concern re the thacher film poster, i mention that i got the img from this article: The Iron Lady (film) and maybe there's rationale there --or maybe there's another image you can remove. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no justification for using that image in Thatcher's article, and I'm quite happy to have no image at all in that section. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New Worlds?

Hi, Malleus; I don't want to nag, but since it's a FAC I don't want to leave it stagnating for long if you're not going to get to it -- let me know and I'll take a crack at it myself. I'd really appreciate it if you do decide to take a look, as I think you could really improve it, but if not, that's fine too. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, I keep meaning to take a look and keep getting diverted into something else. I'll have a shuffty now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There you go, hopefully enough to satisfy those dreadful FA reviewers. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Much improved; and Jim has switched to support. I appreciate it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have blocked you for one week for this edit summary. You obviously know better (or should, by now). --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Utter crap. I have already asked the admin to explain themselves. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite, why not reverse this? Ryan Vesey 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I probably will do, but I will give the blocking admin a chance to do it themselves. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not bothered either way; it's Misplaced Pages's loss, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're very clearly a dishonest idiot Bongwarrior, who ought to be desysopped without delay. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)VERY bad block People in primary school playgrounds go unpunished for MUCH worse than this! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Just the way it is here, we're all under the cosh, and it's completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And cue the cries of "Wheel Warring"! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have unblocked you and posted at AN. Ping me if there's an autoblock kicking in (I can't find one). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I think I'm autoblock immune. Let's hope you don't find yourself in one of the inevitable lynch mobs that gather whenever I'm unblocked. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever will be, will be. I've just got back from a trip to Bristol to watch Leeds win, and am sitting watching the mist fall over the moors whilst trying to work out a good speech for an interview on Monday, so there are more important things. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are indeed. I'm still in mourning about Man United's performance today; that's a pretty crappy defence. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the goals (I got home just as MOTD was showing Sunderland v Wigan) but it certainly sounded pretty painful. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Spurs at Old Trafford woo hoo! :)))))))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think Rio Ferdinand was wearing the wrong colour shirt, well past his sell-buy date. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mark apologized for being utterly out of line, and he will take his lumps.
• Most of the early respondents behaved like hall monitors finally able to complain about the popular kid. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of the hypocritical and insulting nonsense here. I want to see Bongwarrior desysoped and my block log cleaned up. That's the deal. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to add more to your worries, but you are being discussed on Jimbo's talkpage . I see that AQFK did not alert you to this. Ripberger (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How strange. Obviously it's too much to expect civility from those who so stridently demand it of others. Malleus Fatuorum 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was because of the British spelling of arsehole?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Americans (3:20-4:20) do have issues with Brits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Malleus, thought as I was in the area () I'd drop in and say hello. I have been a gnat's whisker from editing today; I've been working on a big country house plan and thought I had been away long enough and it was time to upload it and expand a page; but then I say all your problems (and those of Bishonen's) and felt the blood starting to boil again. Nah! it'snot worth the agro.Idiots do my head in! Bes wishes to all the old crew. Giano | talk 10:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)