How can one be given a final warning, when no others have yet been given? And anyway, I cannot even see any incivility, let alone an "attack". '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User:Aiken drum|<span style="color: blue;">Aiken</span>]] [[User talk:Aiken drum|<span style="color: black;">♫</span>]]</span>''' 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
How can one be given a final warning, when no others have yet been given? And anyway, I cannot even see any incivility, let alone an "attack". '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User:Aiken drum|<span style="color: blue;">Aiken</span>]] [[User talk:Aiken drum|<span style="color: black;">♫</span>]]</span>''' 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:Hey now, not all of us IPs are "hiding", trying to keep our edits from being linked to our account. Some of us are retired. Or are at least trying to be. [[User:67.136.117.132|'''67.136.117.132''']]<sup>[[User Talk:174.52.141.138|Also 174.52.141.138]]</sup>22:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey now, not all of us IPs are "hiding", trying to keep our edits from being linked to our account. Some of us are retired. Or are at least trying to be. [[User:67.136.117.132|'''67.136.117.132''']]<sup>[[User Talk:174.52.141.138|Also 174.52.141.138]]</sup>22:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:20, 19 August 2010
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. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
Hey, Mal. I didn't want you to feel all alone and stuff in the uncivil accusations. Once I saw a movie with Albert Brooks and I can't remember the name of it, but at one point he just sat perplexed and said "I have no idea what to reply to that."
Incivility has got to be the most widely and consistently abused word in the wikipedia lexicon. What it generally seems to mean is that you've hurt my feelings, so I'm going to tell Mummy on you. Crazy. I particularly like it when the poor wee bairns helpfully provide a link to a policy they plainly have never read themselves, or believe should not apply to them. MalleusFatuorum18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, me. I think I'm hilarious with my ironic assface comment and everyone's out doing something important. Last night I saw a piece of vandalism so absurd and hysterical it made me laugh for 30 minutes. I think the mental unraveling is well underway. --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this review, Malleus; I've replied to most of your points, although I'm unsure about a few (probably me being grammatically ignorant). Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to explain; basically sometimes the King's Bench is treated as plural when "them" is substituted for it, and sometimes as singular when "it" is. I don't have any strong preference either way, probably leaning more to singular than plural, but it ought to be consistently one or the other. MalleusFatuorum19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, got it; I'm in favour of "it" as well. I think that was one of my it's-2am-but-I'll-be-damned-if-I'm-dealing-with-this-shit-tomorrow articles. Now fixed, anyway. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do for me, another nice job. I see you've got a few more in the queue; if they're still there next week I might take a look at them as well. Bad luck. :-) MalleusFatuorum21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another notch on the powdery peg. What think yee? I've tried to make it flow as readily as possible and its probably little fluffier than you'd write yourself. I just need to write a lead. Parrotof Doom19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're rattling through these. Got to pop out now and get a few chores done, but I'll have a good read through your latest oeuvre later. Are you heading for GAN or FAC? MalleusFatuorum19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided, because a good portion of the article is just the Gunpowder Plot, written from a different perspective. Its a similar issue with Everard Digby. Catesby and Fawkes are the two who can stand on their own, I think. Thomas Percy might be another, maybe. Parrotof Doom19:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly "fluffier" than I'd write, but it probably uses a few more words than I would. I think that you probably have a more literary bent than I do, and you enjoy adding a bit of colour. My scientific/computing background and my general Zen philosophy mean that I try to use as few brush strokes as possible. It's just a slightly different way of writing. Anyhoo, having read through dear old Ambrose now I have only one issue to raise with you: "Rookwood had been asked to supply gunpowder to the group about a year earlier, under the pretence that it was for an English regiment in Spanish service, in Flanders—no longer illegal due to a recent Anglo-Spanish treaty". I think you're saying that it was no longer illegal to suply gunpowder to an English regiment in Spanish service, which looks strange enough at first sight (why would it ever have been illegal for the English to supply gunpowder to an English regiment?), but it looks like it could also mean that it was no longer illegal to ask for gunpowder to be supplied etc. That's a pretty small thing though; this is a great addition to the Gunpowder Plot opus. MalleusFatuorum22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my heart sank when I saw all the edits you made but when I looked at the diffs it was only minor changes, so I cheered up again :) I'll have to clarify that whole Spanish thing, if I can't I may just lose the "no longer illegal" bit. What do you think, GA or FA? I don't think there's much else to add to it. Parrotof Doom22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to do it in little bits, makes it easier for you to revert anything you don't like, and I find it easier too. I'd be inclined to think about FAC rather than GAN. What else is there to say about the guy? MalleusFatuorum23:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once worked for a fellow who wouldn't hire anyone (in the entire geographic Division) until they had had a long lunch or dinner interview with me; he said I had the best "Turkey Test". I was once gone from the country for a month for surgery, and he had to hire a guy in my absence-- a decision he regretted for the next three years.
Your talk page is the best Turkey Test on Wiki. The good folk congregate here and the Turkeys show up here first, and reveal their colors. It saves me SO much time :)
Sounds like you had a great job there Sandy, reminds me a bit of how I got my first computer programming job. I answered an ad in the local paper and turned up with God knows how many others on the appointed to take an aptitude test. The test papers were taken away to be marked, and one by one we were called into an adjoining room to be told whether we were in or out. That was just the start of it though. Those of us who passed were sent to London for five weeks training and assessment, which involved being taken to a pub where the beer was free all night. The idea, we were told later, was to see how we behaved while pissed, as part of the job involved socialising with customers. MalleusFatuorum22:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes ... my Turkey Test was administered with scotch ... in places where you counted how long they poured, and if you couldn't make it to 18, it was a short drink! Amazing what people reveal when they're blitzed and can't handle a tall scotch. Or that they never realized that I always set up the waiters in advance, to keep filling my glass with ice under the guise of adding more scotch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... now everyone who has posted on this page has to work out whether they're one of the turkeys or one of the good guys and gals. At least I'm usually sober when I do it - there again, did I write anything after the pub last Tuesday......? Richerman (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think mine was broken when it arrived. I've always thought that AGF is largely a logic bomb deployed by idiots in a vain attempt to justify their idiocy, but that's probably just me. Why should I be expected to assume anything in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? I'm speaking generally of course, although I have noticed the discussion on your talk page SandyG. Don't know what to say about that really, except that it's a good thing that you have no aspirations to become an administrator. Prospective administrators must always be obsequious to the point of squeakiness, and must always preface any potentially confrontational remarks with fluff such "with all due respect" and other similar Californian civility popcorn. MalleusFatuorum00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, whatever it is. I fondly recall being recruited to teach 4th graders while blotto with a scotch in one hand and beer in another. Anyone want to guess if I passed? Speak softly of California today. I'm rather fond of it...until it does something stupid. I'm feeling rather sentimental about where I got married. --Moni3 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That must have been a pretty rough area if even the 4th graders were on the sauce. The only US states I've been to are California and Nevada, but what from I've seen of the others perhaps Vermont is the one where I'd feel most at home. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. One thing I do commend California for is its attitude towards marriage. We're starting to catch up here though with civil ceremonies. For those in a long-term same-sex relationship, not being able to make a legally binding public statement of commitment to a partner, which is what marriage really is, must put some strain on that relationship. MalleusFatuorum00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was immeasurably moved by the ceremonies performed in 2004 for the two weeks it was legal in San Francisco. Mrs. Moni and I made arrangements to go get hitched then, but it wasn't the right time at my job, and as soon as we made the decision the ceremonies ended and were voided. I think that's pretty much the way to go: marriage should require people to sit on the sidewalk for four days in the rain, not knowing when or if you will get called, sleeping in a wet sleeping bag covered with a torn garbage bag. There should be no glamour in a wedding. It should signify sacrifice, as if to say "This is what I would do for you." I saw today a gay-related bridal magazine and I thought "No, that's the wrong way to go." --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will forever find it incomprehensible that administrators like Rodhullandemu, on a project to build a free encyclopedia, have so little regard for those actually doing the writing instead of the really important stuff like checking to see if some images held on wikipedia are duplicated on Commons. MalleusFatuorum01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
( Locally-putative turkey, here. ) Malleus, re "perhaps Vermont is the one (state) where I'd feel most at home", it might amuse you to learn that Vermont is the only one of the United States where both state residents and non-residents can carry a concealed handgun with no registration required or even possible, i.e. there's not even the provision for voluntary registration that other states employ. And residents of the state are certainly famous for being outspoken, as I'm sure you know, so it might be a great fit if you ever decide to emigrate. Besides, turkey shoots are a celebrated event there, every autumn, and from the contents of this thread, I can't but imagine you'd have fun at that. ;-) Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Did you know… that Simon of Southwell was treasurer of the cathedral chapter of Lichfield Cathedral in 1203?" Some topics are inherently boring; if you really want a DYK in these cases, the only thing you can do is play it as self-parody and pick the most boring thing you can find, and trust that people will then click-through to see if the article's really as dull as it sounds. Doing this can actually generate a surprisingly high volume of traffic. – iridescent16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some trickery vis a vis "canon" and "cannon"? Or perhaps overuse of interesting Latin like "magistri"? Surely that'll grab the attention of some RPG nerds, yes? "Did you know that Simon of Southwell, described as a magistri mei in scholis, was a lecturer in canon law at Bologna?" ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, hope you're good. I'm thinking of taking this article to FAC in the near future (once I've sorted out the lead, and its had a copyedit) but I was wondering if you might take a quick look at it and tell me if I'm crazy to do so. I know you're busy so don't worry if you don't have the time (or just don't want to!). Thanks! Tom (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the dashes and just have a couple of points since this isn't a peer review; I'm not going to go over the top. In the lead, Specialist Music Colleges should just be Specialist Music College. In the table of headmasters, the notes "First headmaster" and "Longest serving headmaster" (which I think should be "Longest-serving headmaster") don't really serve much purpose as both can be reasonably assumed from the table itself. Also, the quote "an extortionate sum" needs a citation either after it or at the end of the sentence. Also a question: should subjects that are not proper nouns (ie. Art, Chemistry) be capitalised? Maybe they should in this context but I don't know; I'm sure somebody will tell you though. That's all from me for now. BigDom07:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dom, much appreciated! I've removed the entire notes column on the table. Regards the subjects, I'm really not sure. Anyone know? Tom (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You commonly see subject names like "Chemistry" capitalised in school and university prospectuses, but I think that's wrong. If you check with a dictionary, "chemistry" isn't capitalised, and neither is "art". MalleusFatuorum16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malleus. Indeed the school website seems to capitalise them all, but I think I've changed them all, except from languages (which should still be capitalised, right?). Tom (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malleus. I'm going through The Judd School with a fine tooth comb now, imagining it was written by Carlos Tevez. I was going to wait for your views before nominating, but I keep a close eye on your talk page and I wasn't sure how active you were these days. For what its worth, I think you should stick around; I haven't been on Wikipedia long, but I've been around long enough to that your one of the finest editors going, and you've always been really helpful to me so thanks!
In English, words are much more commonly capitalised then in America. So checking a UK website by a school or university will reveal this. Having been away from Wikipedia for a while and now checking in and reading articles feels odd. Odd in the sense that it is like reading a newspaper that was written over 50 years before; so the styling seems old fashioned. Now I'm not sure what this has to do with 'Art' and 'Chemistry', but it's something about the MOS capitalisation that makes Wikipedia seem odd. Malleus is of course correct in that it's written 'art' and 'chemistry' in a dictionary. But somehow, that is not the complete answer but it is the answer within the framework of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator(talk)02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again Malleus for your invaluable help on this. If I can ever help you out in anyway please give me a shout, it'd be a pleasure. Tom (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think if you're prepared to bend a little on the Taylor source you ought to be able to steer this through. For instance, I'd definitely consider dropping that "the Judd School had established a reputation with some of the leading universities" claim, and perhaps look at a few others that you might be willing to lose as well. In general though I wouldn't be too worried about that 1c) oppose at this stage; all you need to do is to counter the self-published claim with the author's credentials. With luck, Ealdgyth or BrianBoulton will be able to find the time to offer an opinion on the sourcing, but I'd still look to prune at least some of the arguably self-promotional aspects that are sourced to Taylor. I believe it's called a compromise. :-) MalleusFatuorum17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Righteo, I'll have a look at it now. To be honest, when I added in the bit about the universities I did wonder, but I was trying to bulk out that section a bit. I've just read Brian's comments and I think he is spot on, I suppose schools are by their nature quite secretive in that the only people that really know whats going on are the teachers and pupils. Tom (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Michael Polakovs
On 15 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Polakovs, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.
I have been trying hard not to bother you. I am struggling to decide which is correct in an article title; St James's Church or St James' Church. I realise I can cover both using a redirect, though I would rather be as correct as possible with the article title. The MOS:Possessives states that either is correct providing one is applied consistently within an article. In this instance, I would rather defer to you than the MOS.
I suspect that the church's official name is something like the Parish Church of St James, hence the inconsistency between "James" and "James'" when an informal name is used, so that's probably what I'd call the article. MalleusFatuorum16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sign writers often make mistakes, and perhaps the church prefers to use its colloquial name on the sign (with the full stop after "St" I mean). I don't think there's going to be a "right" answer here. I'd go with either of "St James' Church" or "Church of St James", and I don't think there's much to choose between them. I might just have a slight preference for "Church of St James". MalleusFatuorum20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is. The full formal names of churches usually begin "Parish church of ...." which of course is no use (same in most European languages) and the clergy/parishioners use whatever common name they feel like at any particular point. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're bored
Jack Ketch was an crap executioner, so crap in fact he once made a public apology. He has a fairy significant ODNB entry which makes for entertaining reading, and there's even a link to Punch and Judy. Apparently a room in Newgate Prison was named after him - the room where they parboiled heads. You should get your chops around that one. Parrotof Doom21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's longer than the article! I wouldn't be surprised if user:Iridescent picked this one up. It would be a great addition to their series on Strange And Intriguing People From Centuries Past. –xenotalk22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I disabled my email I had a message from another editor saying that she too was considering abandoning wikipedia, as "it eats content contributors". Increasingly I'm finding the system whereby children have authority over me to be completely unacceptable, particularly when they come here yelping about "incivility". MalleusFatuorum22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I think you have the patience of a saint. When I'm working on an article, there are moments when I'm extremely grouchy and simply don't want to be bothered. I just want to get on with the work. If I had to put up with the stuff you put up with here, I'd be gone in a second. All that said - Jack Ketch is an interesting character. Might be worth thinking about ... and maybe worth putting up with a little more abuse to crank out yet one more great article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The popular culture section should be dumped. There's not a lot in the page worth saving, so maybe hacking back to a stub and starting fresh would be the best course to take. That's how I'd go about it. Keep it on the back burner. Also, I've been thinking about your comment, sometime ago, about what others have done for you. When I have time, I'd like to have a go at restructuring Workhouse. I've had a look at it, and see how it can be restructured, but am too busy for a few weeks to give it the time it needs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another read through it later. One thing did strike me though, and that's from the sub's description (slow, unable to stay submerged for long, tendency to broach or dive suddenly after firing a torpedo) one gets the impression that it wasn't a very successful weapon, and yet UB-10 and UB-16 appear to have caused significant losses to enemy shipping. How did they manage to do that if they weren't fast enough to catch a steam ship on the surface and couldn't stay submerged for more than an hour or so? MalleusFatuorum16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is actually quite obvious, Allied shipping anti-submarine techniques were wither non-existent in the Adriatic and Flanders or were horrible. Remember, this was the first was with submarines being widely used and no-one knew how to detect or escape a sub attack. So even though the UB-1s were rather bad at their job, they succeeded nonetheless as the measures to prevent them (Otranto Barrage for example) were equally bad at stopping them from reaching vital shipping lanes or from sinking or damaging them altogether.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have no moral authority to indent the votes of anyone you take a dislike to. The user was not blocked when (s)he voted. What is happening here is corrupt and dishonest. There is no "disruption" caused except the sanctimonious like yourself, who just have to get their knife in. MalleusFatuorum20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus is right. IMHO with the exception of proven SPA's all comments at RFA should stay intact. Having a less than 100% perfect vote at RFA doesn't give you a few less tools or something after all. Pedro : Chat 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion that the user was "blatantly trolling", not a proven fact. (S)he may simply have been trying to get other editors to think, an uphill battle on this site. MalleusFatuorum20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Married women could not own property in their own right, and were indeed themselves the property of their husbands.[10]" - that comes from a Caine and Slug, 2002. Do you still have the source? I wondered if it elaborated at all on the status of wives. I need something along those lines to help explain why a wife murdering her husband was considered petty treason, and not just murder. Parrotof Doom20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience there will be no shortage of sanctimonious twats helpful souls offering you their advice. My advice is to ignore them, especially those who consider themselves "your betters" as in this case, and just get on with it. MalleusFatuorum11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, he was such a gentleman not to mention, what he thought was, your lapse of memory but not enough of a gentleman to apologise when he realised he was completely wrong. Don't you just love it when people who consider themselves "your betters" make a complete dick of themselves? Of course, you would think such an experienced editor would know that there is no need to reference something in the lead that is already referenced elsewhere in the text. Richerman (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(re Richerman) you make a valid point that I too wanted to make, that there is no need to reference something in the lead that is already referenced elsewhere in the text. As I am still a relatively new editor, I was unsure of my facts. WP:LEADCITE seems clear. If the subject is controversial, it needs to be cited, even in the lead. In this case, I had hoped that the proper citations in the body covered the lack of such citations in the lead. I was wrong. My own personal remaining view on this subject is that the addition of two citations in the lead now adds undue weight. I am cool though; I have had my hot black Earl Grey; back to Senra/St James' Church which is taking me far too long :( --Senra (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never cite things in the lead, it just seems messy to me. Even extraordinary claims, if they're in the body then I think that's fine. Parrotof Doom16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - the lead should really be a summation of the text so why cite twice? if someone wants to argue about what's there just point them to the cited information. There are occasional exceptions where something merits a brief mention in the lead but it's not really enough to be worked into the text again later - such as here - then it needs a citation, but generally I think the lead is better off without them. Others may disagree, of course, but really there are no hard and fast rules about these things. However, a double citation in the lead for something that's cited later is, as you say, giving it undue weight. Richerman (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally do so for naming variations that aren't enough to merit a long discussion in the body, but that are something like a spelling variation. Classic example would be Thomas Becket, where the variant names merit a discussion in the body, versus Walter de Coutances, where the different names aren't that odd and not really worth an explanation in the body. Ealdgyth - Talk23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange article: "One of Thomas's father's rich friends, Richer de L'Aigle, was attracted to Thomas's sisters. He often invited Thomas to his estates in Sussex." If he fancied Tom's sisters, then why didn't he invite them to his country pad? Sounds more like he fancied Tom to me. MalleusFatuorum00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gods, I know. I know I should be working on Becket, but... I just can't summon the energy. Frankly, Becket was a nutter and just a bit ... insane, at least in my opinion. And the main definitive biography of Becket is written by one of my less-favourite writers, so .. he languishes. Of course, the same thing is happening to Anselm of Canterbury and Lanfranc - the folks I don't like much just don't get any attention! Ealdgyth - Talk00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must be mistaken Ealdgyth. I'm reliably informed by the Guardians of the WikiTM that the project is now in its maintenance phase, everything now pretty much having been written. So yours and my services are no longer required. What we need is more administrators, to guard the Holy Grail. MalleusFatuorum00:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now, Malleus. Administrators don't guard the holy grail. They are strictly tasked with guarding each others' backs and ability to block the lowly. :-) Keeper | 7602:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
I said it would happen: Now that the GorillaWarfare has ended and X has zapped the proficiency bar, there is a veritable stampede at the admissions door.--Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was further amazed by Kingturtle's (crat) comment that prospective admins are not expected to have any experience of the RfA process. If they had, they would be more convincing, better prepared, and come across as less naive. I hope that the cratship criteria are not going to be turned into a joke as well. .--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody else noticed that we're running six RfAs, the lowest of which is at 85% while simultaneously holding "Adminship is too hard" and opposer hate threads on the talkpage? Coincidence? I think not. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus. How are you? :) I noticed your edits to Maggie Roswell and just thought I'd drop by to say thanks. Where do you think the article is in terms of quality? I'm thinking about nominating it for Good article status sometime in the near future. Kind regards, Theleftorium(talk)22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty good and would probably stand a good chance at GAN. Parts are written a little too informally for my taste, such as "The company people do everything they can to fire her because they do not want to pay her retirement benefits, which are about to kick in", but I don't see anything major. You've even got a good and properly licensed picture for the lead, which is a nice touch. MalleusFatuorum22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that picture was actually uploaded today. Mrs. Roswell was nice enough to donate it to us. I'll try to make some parts of the article a bit more formal before taking it to GAN. Thanks again! Theleftorium(talk)22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since actor equity rules require actors to change their name if the name is already taken by another actor, my question actually relates to whether she was born with that name, or had to change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ex met Roswell in LAX. They were both flying to Denver and no seats were left. My ex gave up her seat because Roswell was fairly anxious to get back to Denver. In return, Roswell gave my ex (not a particularly fervent Simpsons fan) an autographed script of "Hurricane Neddie". I thought it was neat. So did her business partner at the time, who took the script and never gave it back. Bitch. --Moni3 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been so lucky in Kansas; instead, I went to CVS at midnight for ... oh, never mind, I don't want to offend MF's sensitivities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the coding on the article. Wiki-markup is doubtless something that will take me a while to learn and master. Best wishes, Jusdafax04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. And pretty much doesn't qualify as an EL either. While I'm sympathetic to the concept of not running off editors, neither should we be promoting bad sourcing. Too many of Wikipedia's articles use bad sourcing and we shouldn't give an inch on this, while certainly we should be polite in educating new editors. Ealdgyth - Talk12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which comment has troubled you? How can a comment be disruptive in any case? Which editor do you believe that I have attacked? So many questions. MalleusFatuorum20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "attack" in rather a curious way, so I'll have to assume that your first language is not English. Let me try to explain. It is not an attack to disagree with another editor, or to state an opinion that some action of that editor or others might be considered to reek of dishonesty, it's a difference of opinion. If you still don't understand the difference then I'll be happy to try and explain it to you again, using words containing fewer syllables if that might help you. MalleusFatuorum20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was this one, then I suggest that you take a few minutes to read all of your blue links and come back when you can distinguish between an opinion and an attack. Please consider this to be your first warning for disruption and incivility. MalleusFatuorum20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly curious that an IP would issue such an imperious final warning in defence of a bureaucrat with whom I disagree. Presumably his intent is to shut me up. Fat chance. MalleusFatuorum20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should be quaking in your boots, Malleus. The civility police will be here any moment to block you based on the templated npa4 warning from an IP address. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read the H. G. Wells short story "The Country of the Blind"? I'm guessing not, because it's a pretty good analogy for what's wrong with wikipedia. Only those who embrace the status quo are allowed to climb wikipedia's greasy pole, the rest have to be cleansed of their heresy. MalleusFatuorum22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can one be given a final warning, when no others have yet been given? And anyway, I cannot even see any incivility, let alone an "attack". Aiken♫22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.