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.
Do you have any good sources on Commodore's early days? I feel like doing something completely different and working on Commodore PET. I have a few contemporary manuals and programmer's books, I may even be able to dig out a couple of old reviews (before my mum chucks the old magazines away). Parrotof Doom23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that working on the Pet is a good idea; it so often becomes a bit of nightmare working on articles here, and that one ought to be relatively quiet with any luck. I'm amazed that we got away unscathed with getting Maggie back to GA, touch wood. MalleusFatuorum00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait for TFA day on that one, especially if it is run right after Maggie goes off to the House of the Afterlife Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of not protecting TFAs passes me by, as all the present approach ensures is that readers are guaranteed to see a vandalised version of the article for a significant part of the day. It would be for others to decide, but I'd not want to see Maggie on the front page, although I suppose it's inevitable that she'll appear on ITN soon enough. MalleusFatuorum14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, as I see more and more of my FAs take hits on TFA day, I'm starting to agree. Let me put it this way. I've never seen an article better at the end of the 24 hours than at its start.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a certain satisfaction if the article's subject is generally unknown, and if the article becomes popular, knowing that some people will have learnt something from it. Wife selling suffered a lot of vandalism until it was protected but you know a good lot of people read from it and learnt something about history. Parrotof Doom17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone somewhere (Google it) was selling the entire back-archive of PCW on CD-ROM. If you can rustle that up from somewhere, that's probably your best bet. (If you do, look for the spoof advert for Wild Bill's Computer Rodeo in the April 1982 issue. It still makes me snigger.) – iridescent17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My dad had every copy of PCW between the late 70s and mid 80s. All in the bin, a long while back. They would have made an excellent source. I'll see if I can "find" the CDROM from "somewhere" ;) Parrotof Doom18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for looking. I'm going to hunt down a half-decent book on the subject I think. I spent my formative years messing around with Commodore's products, and many frustrating hours trying to tape-to-tape games :( Parrotof Doom19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of "this is what a computer does!" books by Robin Bradbeer in the late 70s/early 80s—they may be worth tracking down; Manchester may be one of the few places where the libraries actually hang on to such things, thanks to the legacy of UMIST. (Bradbeer went on to greater things, writing Sinclair's instruction manuals.) – iridescent19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I must say I really disagree with your promotion of this article to a GA. I don't mean to be a spoil sport but it really fails "broad in coverage" criteria for a good article. It is a far from being of an acceptable coverage in scope in my view. Its not even B class. Its a start class article at 7.5 KB.. I've opened a reassessment page on it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
King of Micro Stubs eh? Better than being a D grade article reviewer who is more interested in boosting his number of GA reviews than actual quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you stop now, before your mouth runs away with you entirely. You have behaved like a complete pratt, and I'd prefer that you did it elsewhere, out of my sight. MalleusFatuorum14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I had a very valid point about you promoting an article with six sources and less content than many of our start class articles as a good article. It is you who has shown yourself up as unwilling to accept criticism of your reviews. If you can't accept the occasional questioning of your article reviewing and a reassessment without insulting me as a "King of Micro stubs" then don't pass yourself off as a credible reviewer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Looking at a version of the article from the 24th, I can not find any weight your position that the article is not broad in coverage. It seemed to cover all the information a person would want on the subject. A simple counting of sources can't show what the article says. --Guerillero | My Talk02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus you have my word of oath on this I genuinely didn't even look at who reviewed the article and it didn't even register who you were (even after posting here initially) until I saw your response on Dana's page. Sure I'd heard the name but I really am frightfully ignorant of what other people are up to on wikipedia and know very little about you. Actually I regularly view recently created and promoted content, DYKs and recently promoted Good articles as it inspires me with good faith at how the project is developing and that other people genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia to a level of high quality. I honestly don't look at who reviewed it, I am more interested in what the article has to offer and the passion of the people who write them. I think its exciting to see good quality across a diversity of subjects. I was viewing the recently promoted GAs rather idly but the Jutland horse article stood out to me because it seemed unusually short/low on number of sources than I am generally accustomed to seeing and a Jutland horse initially seemed a subject I was convinced could be covered in much more detail. It seems though that in this instance the main/core most important details are already present in the article and that is sufficient for a GA. If you think I'm going to make a habit of picking holes in every review you do and intentionally finding in fault in you in particularly and having some kind of grudge against you, that really is the last thing I'd do. I want to make it perfectly clear that we need as many people who are passionate about Good articles writing and reviewing as possible. After all we seem to be having an increasing demand for reviews. So long as you review to the best of your ability and use your experience I would be the last one to impede your progress. Note though that how I treat others is always a reflection of how they treat me. If we had a mutual respect for each other as competent individuals who are genuine assets to the project rather than the trolls and people who are genuinely time wasters, hampering growth on here by causing trouble, then I'm certain we could be on much better terms. Best of luck editing.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, I'm happy to accept that. Let's never mention this episode between us again. :-) BTW, I've posted an addendum on AGK's talk page, as I really don't think he had any reason to threaten you, even if you had posted here in the last hour or so, which you didn't. Best of luck to you as well. MalleusFatuorum16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Thankyou Malleus for your message to AGK. I am sorry if I caused any offence and upset. I've also learned a lesson about the GA article process and the true requirements and that is it better to speaker to the reviewer/article writer personally in future if there are any concerns rather than inflaming the situation unnecessarily with a sort of threat of delisting. Let the fact Malleus that you've never had a single one of the reviews thrown at you reversed to date as you say, so that should hold you in good stead and give you some sort of positivity that you are doing a good job.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that maybe GA ought to have a rule similar to the one recently introduced at FAR, so that any concerns have to be raised first on the article's talk page, and the GAR initiated only if they're not dealt with satisfactorily with a week or so. At least for community GARs anyway, as there are obviously some shocking promotions that ought to be reversed on sight. MalleusFatuorum17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed be a better solution. I had no previous experience of GAR but in this instance a lot of things could have been avoided if discussed first without a threat of delisting.. It is certainly something you should propose, and I'd fully support you in doing if you let me know once you've done it..♦ Dr. Blofeld17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up proposing changes here, on anything. I'm not the most patient of people, and the ensuing interminable discussion just bores me rigid. People can find more reasons not to do something that you could ever possibly imagine. MalleusFatuorum17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "reversing on sight" anything that has gone through a considered process. That doesn't mean that process was not wrong, or that the article should not be de-listed in the end. Maybe even that some people can tell on sight that it should get delisted. Doesn't matter. Given that the thing went through some time-intensive process, the nomination to delist ought to be substantive (in its own content). The de-list procedure should have some hurdles in it (the talk page discussion is fine, and also requiring a substantive [long] and good faith [this is the work plan to fix it] review).
This damned project spends so much time chasing its tail. We need more content and better prose. Less debates. I see this on MOS talk all the time. People will fire from the hip with their take on some style question, but can't be troubled to take 10 minutes and do a google search and read some web articles on the topic and dash off a summary of the different schools of thought. And I really don't want 56skidoo tossing in paragraph-long FARs on all the turtle articles maliciously.
I don't know the Good Article as opposed to "good article" requirements, but it wouldn't hurt "Jutland (horse)" to dig into the Danish sources. When we cover small topics or foreign ones, it just becomes necessary to go to greater efforts of research to "get the story".
But yeah, expect a bunch of low value (we've already discussed that) or (we don't do it that way) objects to any change.TCO (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing on sight is occasionally necessary. Quite recently I delisted a GA after it became apparent that it had never gone through a proper GA review, or apparently any kind of a GA review. I'd expect the number of cases like that to be pretty low though, admittedly. MalleusFatuorum17:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dig into the Danish sources for the Jutland horse by all means, any article can be improved, even the best. But once again I come back to the law of diminishing returns. Has anything added to the article since this storm-in-a-teacup blew up really improved it all that much? Did the lack of it really mean that the article didn't meet the GA criteria? Obviously you can probably very easily guess what my opinion is, but just in case I think we're now chasing trivia, like "the biggest horse statue in the world". Really? What exactly does that tell me about the breed? MalleusFatuorum17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you don't like the statue. However, it's a notable statue within Denmark--first reaction of our Danish editor. It was listed as one of the two most famous statues by the artist who had a 100 year career and specialized in horse statues. It has ove 100 flickr photos. Species articles are not purely biological.
If it is a Danish topic, we need to dig into Danish sources. Especially if it is an obscure one. Keep the plus sign, I don't care. You could say of any topic, what do we really want to know and then just favor articles that were lead sized. However, given we have a system that uses leads, the article below can go into more substantive coverage.
Your point about diminishing returns is a good one and if Dana wants to work on other breeds that are in worse shape, more power to her.
I don't see why reversing on sight is "necessary". It's not like we are talking about a BLP concern or someone putting Tubgirl vandalizing in. What's it gonna hurt if it carries a plus sign a couple days longer? We have procedures to make a hurdle to granting the plus and should have procedures to delisting the plus. (Or at least for FAR, my concern is there.) If you allow delist on sight, then it will not just be used for articles that deserve it but for those that don't. And nothing would have stopped you from writing a longer delist nomination. It's just work. And the instructions for review say it's supposed to have a purpose of fixing the article. I think the gravitas of the delist requires at least the level of detail that I would give someone who asked for a friendly "how do I upgrade this piece of meat" review. TCO (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see why it's sometimes necessary then you weren't at the little green blob battles a few years ago; it's a matter of credibility. GAN depends on a single reviewer, unlike FAC. which makes it necessary in very clear cut cases like the one I was referring to. MalleusFatuorum18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're asking about FAR, I no longer take part in it. I was talking about GAR. And in this particular case the editor of the article had decided to add the GA icon him or herself without ever nominating at GAN. MalleusFatuorum18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, man, I wasn't being sarcastic with the "maybe", I was ready to take it on faith...the maybe was positive. I was asking about FAR as the situation might be different, but the problems similar.TCO (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then speaking of FAR, of course any proposals should be solidly based on the FA criteria. Just as any GAR proposal should be based on the GA criteria. Not sure what you mean by "solid initial review" though. To become an FA the article would have been reviewed to the satisfaction of the delegates, so almost by definition it's had a solid review. If at some time later standards change, or any editor has good reason to believe that the article no longer meets whatever are the FA criteria at that time (or even perhaps never did, as the reviewers missed something) then the proper thing to do is to initiate a discussion of the perceived weakness(es) on the article's talk page. If after a reasonable period of time no progress has been made towards addressing those concerns, or it seems unlikely that the concerns are going to be addressed, then a FAR becomes increasingly inevitable. It's not necessary for the FAR's nominator to carry out another complete review of the article though, just to express his/her concerns succinctly with a few examples. MalleusFatuorum20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robust disagreement
This is wonderful:
I'm not some delicate flower that needs to be protected from a bit of robust disagreement. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That quiz is fixed. It told me I was a Canna, but I know that we're all mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start looking through tomorrow, but don't worry, I'll be gentle. We've both had enough grief here recently, neither of us needs any more. Besides, I'd have Ceoil at my back anyway if I stepped out of line. MalleusFatuorum01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry. I'm mostly only around on weekends now. I do think we have had our fair share of grief around here, but you know that I'm open to fairness. I actually thought the previous review was almost funny. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After wife selling's April 1 appearance last year I got a reputation as a mysogenist, but nothing could be further from the truth. Hey, I'm married to a woman after all. Anyway, I popped into my local library today and bumped across a great book, Brilliant Women: 18th-Century Bluestockings. I'll redeem myself yet. MalleusFatuorum03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the bluestocking idea. Re Olivia - one of the things that struck me was that she came from a fairly well-to-do family and was given money in trust when she married, but had no control of her own money until her husband's death in the 1920s. We forget how restrictive society was at that point - particularly in the late Victorian/early Edwardian period. So, yeah, I may have belabored the point a bit, but it intrigued me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that and I was just looking through to see if everything else had been resolved as well. I still don't understand the plot of Uncle Hilary though, as I've just said at the review page. MalleusFatuorum00:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, even I can understand that now. Just one more thing, "Olivia's final novel, Uncle Hilary, was published in 1910 and is considered her best work ... Harwood considers it her best writing and best book before ending her writing career." Two things: isn't "before ending her writing career" redundant? Second, it seems to repeat that it's Olivia's best work. MalleusFatuorum01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were done but the lead was rewritten during the night. I've changed the factual inaccuracies but left the rest in a rewritten state. Do you mind having a quick look, now that you're familiar with the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are working to get List of U.S. state reptiles ready for FLC. Love to have you stop by and contribute and help. In particular, my third para in lead (on genuses) am not satisfied with. Even considering cutting whole thing. Talk page has a list of what we (think) we need to get done before FLC. Come join!TCO (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am ploughing through a book about miners in Lancs & Ches and thought you might be interested in a reference to a Wigan miner who attempted to sell his wife for 4/6d in 1875. My husband is speculating about how much a Bongs lass would fetch. I doubt it would have registered but for your that article! PS It follows in an interesting account of "shin purrin".--J3Mrs (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To our modern eye wife selling seems barbaric, but we have to remember that it was the only practical method of divorce for ordinary people, even if it wasn't entirely approved of by the law. MalleusFatuorum23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry if this seems pushy but I've never used the WP email notification system before, sent you (I think!) an email per your request about the Who Was Who entry and am now wondering whether or not it turned up at your end?
BTW, it has been suggested to me that the Churchill Machine Tool Company article be put forward for GAN. This is also a new process for me: if I get stuck then could I possibly query you about what is going on? You seem to have experience in such matters and are involved in the Greater Manchester project. Best. Sitush (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might have swept it up inadvertently with the vast quantities of spam I get every day. Send it to me again and I'll look out for it. Yes, of course I'll help if you need it with your GAN. Hopefully it'll be a straightforward process though. MalleusFatuorum14:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in this article about Matrix Churchill and the Iraq situation. The subject was in the news at the time so suggest a look through google news of early 90's time(archive option in google news) and maybe also check hansard as it was discussed in Westminster at the time. Regards, SunCreator(talk)23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA reviewing
I was wondering what your thoughts are on a time limit for reviewers to keep a nomination open for without making a final decision? Shouldn't there be some sort of time limit, especially if all the issues the reviewer has highlighted have been addressed?♦ Dr. Blofeld18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've occasionally kept GA reviews open way longer than the nominal seven days so long as issues are actively being adressed. If everything's been resolved though, then I think it's only polite to close the review promptly, and if the reviewer appears to have gone awol, then it's only fair to the nominator that the review is brought to some kind of a conclusion. I'm not sure I'd be in favour of any kind of strictly applied time limit, but I probably wouldn't object to one either if there's a real problem that it would solve. MalleusFatuorum20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on the article. But if the issues have been addressed and the reviewer himself has said it meets GA requirements then I don't think the reviewer should rightly keep the nomination open for days upon days and should either pass it or fail it...♦ Dr. Blofeld21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that myself.. I think he wanted to be doubly sure the images met requirements but those images were approved days ago.... But a lot of things Tony the Tiger mentioned during the review were really not necessary for GA... Clint Eastwood as it stands passed GA yesterday but it certainly took a major effort and time to do so!!♦ Dr. Blofeld12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This thread caught my attention yesterday, and I agree with Malleus that the length of a GA review, hold period, etc., should be flexible and adaptable to the best interests of the article/review, and I've encouraged that perspective for some time. Reviewers going AWOL should be brought up at WT:GAN.
PS. Speaking of article size, Malleus, you may be interested to know that I revisited Joseph Moir recently: this was an article that you failed as not broad, and the subsequent GAR endorsed the fail and also found close paraphrasing. I went back to fix the paraphrasing (on my to do list), but got carried away, and expanded the article threefold! An interesting character...
It may just be my jaundiced view, but I think there's an increasing trend for GA reviewers to use the arena as a means to get their own way, as opposed to simply assessing whether or not an article meets the GA criteria and offering suggestions as to how it might be improved. MalleusFatuorum23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been a problem, and I don't think it is getting worse. I call it when I see it, at GAR and other fora. I know you do the same, and encourage others to do likewise. Geometry guy23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest I think the reviewer was "milking it" to see improvements he wanted made to the article which weren't even necessary for GA.... I agree there's nothing wrong with keeping the review upon for improvements but in this case I had to address things which even the reviewer said wasn't compulsory for GA. I don't mind that to a certain extent as it holds it in good stead should it be proposed for an FA later but I think he went a little too far with the demands.... The article did improve though and it passed GA eventually....♦ Dr. Blofeld00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I review the occasional article at GA, I have to be honest and say that off the top of my head I don't know what the GA criteria are. I tend to look to see if its well-written, if it tells me what I need to know, if it's neutral, if the sources look reasonably ok. This was the last article I reviewed and it certainly took longer than 7 days, but I don't think that's a problem. Parrotof Doom00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously articles belong to everyone and no person benefits from their improvement more than anyone else... but nevertheless I very much appreciate the series of subtle and well-considered improvements you made to Delphine LaLaurie over the weekend, along with the excellent edit summaries that helped me understand why you were right to make them. Thank you. DustFormsWords (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got an hour and a half to watch that programme. I never knew anthropology was such a sack of ferrets. Liszot did get a (mostly) small statue named in his honour, but maybe not for the reasons he hoped. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easily ready I'd say. I'd suggest nominating it and I'll go through it in detail later. One question, what does the "its" refer to in this sentence: "During the 19th and early 20th centuries the gardens and parkland became overgrown, and the condition of some of its buildings had deteriorated"? MalleusFatuorum15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to you for input because I noticed your opinion at AN/I re: civility versus public attacks. I believe your opinion would be valuable in helping me in the future with these situations. When you have time, please look at the exchange here and provide any opinion(s) you wish to share. Thanks Tiderolls00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with a general assessment that the remarks were, for the most part, impotent static. Also, the user to whom the remarks were directed all but said &%$# it. Was the disruption not important? Tiderolls01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TR, The IP's stated intention to edit-war their version into the article was worth a block to prevent genuine disruption (check their edit history). Blocking for Personal attacks after they failed to obey your instruction to strike their remarks, doesn't put you in a good light. The way to avoid that in future is simply to ignore or ridicule such nonsense on talk pages. Once you've made a demand, you're either going to have to back down or carry through a block (which then could be seen as punishment of defiance). Best not to put yourself in that position. Regards --RexxS (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rexx and Malleus, I agree with you both (I was not going to "back down" as I saw it the IP was not going to back down from their initial post). I ignore threats/taunts/trolling when they are directed at me. I injected myself in this instance to help the editors on that article do their work without interference from someone that, to me, was only going to muck up the place. I understand that any reaction can be seen as improper so I will be most careful in the future. Thanks to all for your input. Tiderolls09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cottingley Fairies appear in a series of five photographs taken by Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths, two young cousins who lived in Cottingley, near Bradford in England. In 1917, when the first two photographs were taken, Elsie was 16 years old and Frances was 10. The pictures came to the attention of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who used them to illustrate an article on fairies he had been commissioned to write for the Christmas 1920 edition of The Strand Magazine. Conan Doyle, as a Spiritualist, was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomena. Public reaction was mixed; some accepted that the images were genuine, but others believed they had been faked. Interest in the Cottingley Fairies gradually declined after 1921. Both girls grew up, married and lived abroad for a time. Yet the photographs continued to hold the public imagination; in 1966 a reporter from the Daily Express newspaper traced Elsie, who had by then returned to the UK. Elsie left open the possibility that she believed she had photographed her thoughts, and the media once again became interested in the story. In the early 1980s, both admitted that the photographs were faked using cardboard cutouts of fairies copied from a popular children's book of the time. But Frances continued to claim that the fifth and final photograph was genuine. The photographs and two of the cameras used are on display in the National Media Museum in Bradford. (more...)
Joys. And I've got someone helpful who insists that you can't say "Name (archbishop)" but it must be "Name (bishop)" because some obscure naming guideline says something silly. I love Wikipedia sometimes. I'll try to keep an eye on the article for you while you're sleeping. Ealdgyth - Talk20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got a soft spot for the fairies, it'll be hard watching them get vandalised. And of course there are the inevitable rants from the Mr Angries to look forward to: "it's ridiculous that this article got through FAC without mentioning some film, video game or other". MalleusFatuorum20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I just noticed from The Signpost that you've succeeded in getting the Gunpowder Plot to FT. That's a great piece of work, far more than I'd ever have had the patience or commitment to undertake. MalleusFatuorum23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking through the whole thing again, and on looking at the image licensing I think that ought to be beefed up just a little bit, but as I'm sans tools I can't do it. For instance, although the lead image was taken in 1917 it wasn't published until 1920, which as I understand it is when the copyright clock starts ticking. It doesn't make any difference to the copyright claim, but still ...". MalleusFatuorum02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Template:PD-US-1923-abroad is more specific than Template:PD-US, but the latter is acceptable as it includes the former. These are for images published before 1 January 1923, if it's any help. You could always prod Bishonen to beef up the licensing sometime in the next 21 hours, if you really felt it necessary – and it wouldn't cost you anything more than an amusing image for her talk page in return :) --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the licensing is fine, I'm just irritated that I can't edit the lead image's details until after it's appeared on the main page. Still. of all the frustrations here that's definitely a very minor one. I'll just wait. MalleusFatuorum03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, could you change the description to "Taken in 1917, first published in 1920 in The Strand Magazine", and the Permission from {{PD-US}} to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}? I know I'm fussing like a mother hen, but I can't help it. MalleusFatuorum04:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's galling not to be able to fix little things like that, but I've come to terms with the idea that I'm not trusted here to do anything very much. MalleusFatuorum04:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're trusted enough to write that which is our welcome mat for 24 hours. I'm trusted to block the idiots who put "poop" on top of it and to not somehow delete it in the process. I know which one we really need more of... Courcelles04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know me, I stick to my nice safe little corners of Wikipedia, so I'm not often confronted with less than optimally done articles but something on Johnbod's page piqued my interest so I looked at George Washington (bust by Houdon). I don't want to AfD it, it's apparantly written by a fairly new user (see Johnbod's page for a bit more detail) but since when is a plaster cast of an older work .. notable? And take a look at it before I cleaned on it. I really need to get out more. This isn't meant to have one of your TPSs bite the newcomer, I just .. was amazed that someone thought that was notable enough for a wikipedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a few minutes watching all of the new pages being created here you'll start to believe that one is an exemplar. Try adding this to your js profile if you don't believe me:
I spent a couple of days over the weekend doing "hit random page, fix anything I see right off, tag if needed"... it was .. enlightening, and scary at the same time. We have entirely too many stub articles on obscure villages. And footballers who played one professional game. At least my small stubs on bishops .. they were a BISHOP, and there were only at most 16 of them in England throughout most of the middle ages. Ealdgyth - Talk03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much given up on trying to get anything much deleted here unless it clearly fits in one of the CSD categories. I did start an AFD on this earlier today, but I have no confidence that it'll stick. MalleusFatuorum03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an unresolved tension in wikipedia between those who believe that even the slightest of micro-stubs on any dot on any map, or any sportsman however minor, somehow adds to "the sum of all human knowledge", and those who believe that to add anything worthwhile takes more than an incoherently written sentence or two. There are large parts of wikipedia it's just best to avert your eyes from; pro-wrestling springs to mind. MalleusFatuorum03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the small stubs Ealdgyth has been creating on these minor and long-forgotten figures known as bishops. They simply don't compare in notability to footballers who played one professional game: I mean, there were at most 11 such players throughout the game, not nearly as many as 16, and they received global coverage on Sky. The bishops don't even have any product endorsements! Geometry guy20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)PS. Did someone mention pro-wrestling?[reply]
(blushes). I spent today on cleanup. Another snow day for the kids tomorrow, I may lock them outside for a few hours just to get some peace and quiet! Ealdgyth - Talk04:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stretch, pluck, chop
Ever so slowly I'm managing to pull The Sentence part of this into some kind of semblance, but I'm wondering what to do with the long list of people killed in this fashion. I have a feeling its best to get rid of most of it (moving sections into the subjects' articles where those articles are in poor condition). What do you think? I reckon if I can get hold of some more of the sources used in that essay I'll be able to pull together a very good article on this. Parrotof Doom15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be coming together very nicely. I can't see any long list of people killed in that fashion, am I missing something? Strikes me though that "The sentence" isn't really the best section title, as the sentence is what's passed in the court after someone's found guilty. Which is in fact the way the word's used later in the article. MalleusFatuorum16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Use in England" just smells a bit...funny. I don't know, I keep thinking that I could work the most obvious examples into the "Sentence" section, and lose the rest. Parrotof Doom16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean. Is there a list article somewhere you could farm most of that stuff out to? The more I look at it the less happy I am about its organisation by royal dynasties ... it's obviously far too long in any event. MalleusFatuorum16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a charming fellow! No, the with-hunter isn't done yet either; I'm finding it hard to settle to anything substantial here, just dipping in and out doing little bits and pieces here and there. I haven't really written anything worth spit for months, motivation tank's running on fumes. MalleusFatuorum18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight .. you blocked him 10 hours after that diff? When nothing else seems to have occurred since then? Good heavens, that looks punitive. Ealdgyth - Talk13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
