This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	forum
	Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Deserved! PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"we need some perspective".One of the most intelligent comments I've heard in a long time on here. If only most of the ANI wiki gods had a good perspective of what is important.. Lack of perspective that we are actually an encyclopedia not a law court is probably one of the biggest site problems in my experience. If they cut their crap and started actually contributing to articles we'd be many times richer as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The perspective that I find is most missing is that the editor behind the online avatar is a real person with feelings and human frailties. It was a real joy to meet Malleus a few months ago, and to experience what a jovial and interesting character he is. How badly this project is let down by those who can't see past their screen and appreciate the other human beings they are interacting with. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The missing perspective seems familiar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope you are well.PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Get back to work, Mally; you're welcome in Our House ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Our House ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Celebrate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

... good sense every now and then (see below) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• We hope for good constellations for you, personally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• May we quote you "The TFA people seem to have given up ..."? - Happy river navigation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Our house is building, perspective: quality, it's open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How are you and your family, Mal? PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Things are looking much better now I'm glad to say. Thanks for asking. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Family is number one. This is just a web site, which too many forget too often.PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I bet your wife liked you adding to wildflowers on this Poppy Meadow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't discussed it with her, but she's a great Eastenders fan, never misses an episode. I on the other hand hate it, and I run screaming from the room whenever the theme tune strikes up. Malleus Fatuorum 05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to imagine you running screaming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought you might find this video of interest, particularly from about 19 minutes in. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. I wish I could find more material on gong farmers. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Why on Earth wasn't he just throwing it straight into the cart, instead of barrowing it up ... the guy's clearly never mucked out a deep-litter barn! Adding: I prefer the part where he's stripping off for a bath. Hur, hur, hur ;P Pesky (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was only horse shit anyway, not ... well you know. So the answer to your question is that human shit isn't usually so conveniently mixed with straw. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a Nexpert in the relocation of shite, it's quite possible to chuck semi-liquid slurry up into a cart! There's a knack to it. And, anyway, wasn't the debris generally mixed with vegetable matter; the carcasses of doomed dogs, cats, and rats; "at least one boot, Three treadless tyres, A half-eaten pork pie, Some oil drums, An old felt hat, A lorry load of tarblocks And a broken bedstead ...!"^[ref] Pesky (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The original Tudor gong farmers weren't street cleaners; their job was to get into cess pits and dig them out. Malleus Fatuorum 08:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm off so no need to call your pal and his mother. Haldraper (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good choice, although I've got no idea who my "pal and his mother" might be. Malleus Fatuorum 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hal Draper was a fine librarian and an internationally recognized meticulous scholar and translator. A name like "Haldraper" should only be associated with edits of the highest quality.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cowboy playing poker with dog; "You seem to win a lot, pal!", "Yes, it's my pedigree, chum." (attributed to Robert Thompson). Ning-ning (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping with Poppy, I cant believe it got on the main page so quickly! Your comment at Poppy's talk made me laugh too, so this is for that too; as well as your amazing edits to Poppy, and really sticking with the article throughout the FA reviews! Thank you so much! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. A couple years ago you really helped me out with copyediting Supernatural (TV series) articles for FAC, and greatly improved them. After a two year break, I'm back to creating articles and am now finishing up Supernatural (season 3). Whenever you get the chance (it's not submitted for FAC, so no rush), would you mind copyediting the article? I should be finishing with the episodes section tonight or tomorrow, so if you want to copyedit it and start before then, you can begin with the Writing section. Thanks! Ωphois 23:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you've finished and I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Episodes are done. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help! Ωphois 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the initial troubles. It's now ready. Thanks. Ωphois 02:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

For a minute there I thought I'd snook that link past you. I should have known better! :) Would you object to me putting the name of his company back, minus the link? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me to be bordering on spam. What does it inform us about Alice Nutter? Does David Palmer not have an article, where the name of his company could be included? Malleus Fatuorum

He doesn't have a bio article yet. I'd create one, but there won't be enough source material and he could do with winning an award. I can't argue that not trying to offer the guy a little bit of promotion (times are hard don't you know), but if I was being really pedantic, does it matter who unveiled it? At the same time I wouldn't want to damage my only local GA. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As we're talking about the statue, not the sculptor's employer, and Bobby Elliott is clearly notable, then I think that who unveiled it is relevant.

PS. The witches are an FA, not a GA. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically your previous comment should read "the structual engineer's (a lot cheaper than a notable artist) company" as apposed to "sculptor's employer". But it's fine, for now I'm going to suggest that he updates his website with a bio and some detail on the "making of" --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also (and totally unrelated), do we know if it was this Westby Hall? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

It might well be, as by then Gisburn was in Lancashire. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW I'm fairly sure that Gisburn only moved into Lancashire in 1974. A google search for Westby Hall also led me to Westby-with-Plumptons nr Preston. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gisburn was definitely in the West Riding of Yorkshire until 1974 along with most of the towns and villages that side of Nelson and Colne. BigDom 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may well have been the Westby. I'll have to check Porter (1878). Laycock seems to have spent most of his time on the Fylde, at one time at Mowbreck Hall, Wesham. But that's quite a way from Gisburn (even though not far as the broomstick flies,of course). Maybe Lister was on his travels. Else there may have been a Westby Hall nearer to Gisburn. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All I'm sure of is that Thomas Lister's Westby Hall was somewhere around Gisburn, but it's quite possible that it no longer exists. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Westby Hall Farm is still there. It's at BB7 4LL - if you use Google Street view you can see the farm track with sign on the A628 Burnley Road - it's on a lane called Long Causeway! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooop's I should of mentioned that there is a Westby Hall Farm about a mile SW of Gisburn, off the road to Blacko, just not the one in the Haydock article IMO --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Google maps incorrectly labels it as Shuttleworth Hall, and people say we're full of errors!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lister family, of Westby Hall, is mentioned here [1]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you are mad, but could you please try not to use the word "fuck". Sorry for your current troubles, just saw this. TBrandley 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, letting you know that you are at WP:ANEW. TBrandley 06:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded at the ANEW—injecting a little reality check and context into the issue.

In the meantime Malleus, if you want to have a laugh in the face of all this silliness, take a moment to think about us poor Aussies with only one gold medal! :-(

GFHandel ♬  06:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's really incredible. I just watched the Aussie's lose again in the women's 3km pursuit. Something's obviously not right. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the host nation is too good this time (and is relegating Australia to silver in many events). GFHandel ♬  20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley there's nothing wrong with the word fuck. Perhaps if Malleus demonstrated the same lack of understanding of regional language differences, he might take offence at your suggestion that he is insane. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I will use the word "fuck" wherever and whenever I consider it to be appropriate, whether you or anyone else likes it or not TBrandley. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever considered Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect"? With link, there is no ambiguity. One could also simply make a recommendation to go commit the infamous anatomically impossible act. Really, sometimes using ten words instead of one is a lot of fun! Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the Wikispeak version: "Most frequently seen in the postings of editors with aspirations to become an administrator, or those who do not have the courage to say I think you're talking bollocks."[2] Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you already saw my previous message and just haven't had time to respond, then I apologize. Anyways, a bunch of people posted to your talkpage at the same time that I had, so just checking to make sure it wasn't lost in the crowd. Thanks. Ωphois 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just been a little distracted by a few other things. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

... some of your stalkers might like my latest creation ;P (Polynerdism is the function of being able to be significantly nerdy in a number of apparently-unrelated areas.) Pesky (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This user is a Polynerd

That "polynerd" idea is interesting, as in truth I've pretty much avoided most articles on a subject I actually know anything about other than what I've read. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find, though, that once you've read all the stuff necessary for the creation / significant improvement on an article, that you've absorbed (and remember) enough of it to qualify as nerdiness in the subject? ;P Pesky (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I hate the word "nerd", a derogatory term used by people who think knowledge and intellect is worthy of derision. Parrot of Doom 07:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, but haven't we adopted it along the lines of Proud To Be a Nerd, Nerd Pride, Nerds are Needed, and all that ;P Also see this. The guy is a genius. Pesky (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Become an antique dealer- that's where "polynerdism" really pays off. Ning-ning (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! My parents did that! Their polynerdism resulted in an item bought for £5 being sold for enough to buy them a new car ... Pesky (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What was the item? LadyofShalott 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

maybe this Ning-ning (talk)

This is a note to let the main editors of Gregorian mission know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Gregorian mission was the missionary endeavour sent by Pope Gregory the Great to the Anglo-Saxons in 596 AD. Headed by Augustine of Canterbury, its goal was to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Along with Irish and Frankish missionaries, they converted Britain and helped influence the Hiberno-Scottish missionaries on the Continent. In the late 6th century Pope Gregory sent a group of missionaries to Kent, to convert Æthelberht, King of Kent, whose wife, Bertha of Kent, was a Frankish princess and practising Christian. Augustine was the prior of Gregory's own monastery in Rome and Gregory prepared the way for the mission by soliciting aid from the Frankish rulers along Augustine's route. In 597 the forty missionaries arrived in Kent and were permitted by Æthelberht to preach freely in his capital of Canterbury. Soon the missionaries were able to write to Gregory telling him of their success and that conversions were taking place. A second group of monks and clergy was dispatched in 601 bearing books and other items for the new foundation. The exact date of Æthelberht's conversion is unknown but it occurred before 601. Before Æthelberht's death in 616 a number of other bishoprics had been established. Although the missionaries were unable to remain in all of the places they had evangelised, by the time the last of them died in 653, they had established Christianity in Kent and the surrounding countryside and contributed a Roman tradition to the practice of Christianity in Britain. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already whined to friends. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The daily offering of an article to the puling masses? And on such sort notice (not Ucucha's fault, either)

tip: Advisor.js will readily hose Image/File usages with names containing " - ". I always check each one. I've fixed this and added "_" as protection (although "helpful" drones will often undo this). I'll watch the article for idiots, today. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the kind of thing that so depresses me about Wikipedia. You bust a gut to produce an FA, but then it needs to be obsessively "improved" by those too ignorant and lazy to have done the work themselves, or to improve any of the supporting articles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Malleus, I like your tits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"But if you know it's definitely wrong, you should be getting the Witchcraft Acts article in shape yourself" - obviously you're not a true believer Malleus. How dare you not bother improving an article, who do you think you are? ;) Parrot of Doom 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I found that to be quite astonishing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not looking for more trouble in your life, but I would be interested in your opinion as an experienced FA person on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10. --John (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. My opinion is that this FAR is quite improper. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I take it you reviewed the talk page before commenting? --John (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello, and good wishes,

Though you have a reputation as a fierce fellow, I come to you (as recommended by Drmies) to ask most humbly if you might be willing to look at some of my work, and possibly give me some advice on whether some of the articles I've worked on might qualify for Good Article status. I list many articles I've started or expanded on my user page. Though it is difficult for me to pick favorites, I will mention a few that I feel a bit proud of and would like some help improving if other editors such as you feel that's needed: Harry Yount, Sierra No. 3, They Call the Wind Maria, Chris Brown (dancer), 1970 Memorial Park riot, Ford Hunger March, Norman Livermore, Leon Jordan, Ethan Russell and Al Qöyawayma. I will also mention the major expansion I did on George Meany, a major U.S. historical figure which was an inaccurate and pitiful stub when I started on it. These articles all have shortcomings, I know, and I tend to be very self-critical, but I believe them to be useful contributions to this encyclopedia. Your comments on even one or two of them would be appreciated. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalker butting in, as usual ... Malleus isn't really "fierce".. Not per se. Neither is my eight-foot boa ;P (who is called Cuddles) Pesky (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But the very mention of They Call the Wind Maria, which is the most maudlin, overwrought, piece of crap show tune in all of human history is giving me twitches if not PTSD! Malleus, at least slap an NPOV tag on that piece of fluff! Better yet, give it your own special treatment, full-roar! I've got your back! Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is, Montanabw, the song itself isn't a big favorite of mine. My tastes run to hard rock. But I had this DVD laying around for years of Paint Your Wagon and I like both Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, so I finally watched it. Not the greatest movie ever made. That caused an ear worm of They Call the Wind Maria, which I got rid of by writing this article. If you think my article doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say about the song, feel free to add any other you can find. The song is notable, I think we can all agree, even if it isn't quite A Day in the Life, which is one of my favorites. I was surprised there was no article about it here, so I wrote one. Cheers! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• link — Ched :  ?  00:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to give me that ear worm again, Ched? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would never do such a thing. :=) — Ched :  ?  01:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ricardo Montalban's mullet is as frightening as that horrid creature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

After tremendous rain, even bad fog always goes. Ning-ning (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Paint Your Wagon was damn funny, but that song! SOMEWHERE there has to be at least one negative review of it! Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fierce, I'm simply uncompromising. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day. -- do you think it would be a good idea to lock down the FA while it's on the front page? Or is that one of those perennial proposals which gets shot down every time it's brought up. Nobody Ent 18:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page stalker here - the point is to bring in new editors. The point is not for established editors to impose their biases on TFA - that can be done on another day. New editors only have the single chance, so no articles shouldn't be locked down. Established editors should behave better. Period. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

never gonna happen. fact is TFA get edited a lot, and by regulars, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As Truthkeeper and Br'er Rabbit said, it just ain't gonna happen, although I do think some changes seriously need to be considered. As a minimum I'd like to see all TFAs semi-protected (in fact all FAs and GAs semi-protected as well); I really fundamentally don't agree with the "anyone can edit anything" ethos. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be pending edits/flagged revisions.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I predict that will prove to be a disaster, just as it was last time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same after every TFA; it's really no kind of a reward. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be some way to opt-out. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the option out is not to put it up for FA. (Raise it to FA-quality, but don't nominate it.) I know that isn't what you meant, Mark. LadyofShalott 22:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's one option. In reality there are certain types of article that I would never consider submitting to FAC anyway, even if I was utterly convinced they met the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What sorts? LadyofShalott 12:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles on controversial politicians such as Margaret Thatcher for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm too much of a "star chaser" to ever do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point of posting FA on the main page was primarily to "showcase" Wikipedia's best work, rather than as a trivial token reward for the work put in. At the same time, aggressively targeting the FA while on the main page is, imo, a particularly insensitive form of negative reward – especially considering that the primary reward for serious Wikipedia work is surely the intrinsic job satisfaction. —MistyMORN 11:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Nobody Ent 22:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN for this and many other proposals that never get implemented. The flip side of not locking is new users also see massive vandalism--not wiki's best side.PumpkinSky talk 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The days of routine "massive vandalism" to the front page article are long behind us. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be less than before, but it's hardly gone. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My rule of thumb used to be that if it was impossible to make a useful change to the front page because vandalism-revert edits made it impossible to get a word in edgeways, then the article should be protected. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of any article being hit that hard (but I don't do vandalism patrol these days). Mr Stephen (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"you must be new" ORLY? I've been around longer than you and have about 110K edits. How is that new?PumpkinSky talk 11:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You missed the smile on my face when I typed that ... Mr Stephen (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I kinda noted that in my edit summary too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually if you don't count that break of 9 months or so, it's coming up on 7 years. PumpkinSky talk 11:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there we go. You were smiting vandals when I was learning to Wikilink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, they're more sophisticated now. They put penises in obscure templates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Or less than obscure ones... --Guerillero | My Talk 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Timing

Just do it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  but it's not an election, it's an assignment ;) Oh well, mebbe Brian... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK. If we elect you, and you don't serve, exactly how are we worse off than with the status quo?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're not, but I am. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I last (and I do mean last) offered to help with some of these routine tasks well over four years ago now, only to be told that I'm basically unfit for anything other basic comma shifting. I think that whoever steps up to take on this role really ought to be able to edit the protected blurb, and that will never be me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But you'd be creating the blurbs and editing them as you see fit. They would only be protected once you were done with them, a bit prior to going live. And we should have someone summarily make about fifty admins, including you (summarily take at least half that many bits, too). Just Do It! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But I couldn't respond to issues on the day, or even the day before, so the answer is still no, it's not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus - I guess it's courteous to let you know about this thread, if nothing else, because I've linked to a post citing an off-hand remark [3] you made which struck me. I hope I've made it clear in my disclaimer that I've no interest in aggravating any personal issues or disputes but rather discuss a very real issue: the question of how to prevent driving away highly capable editors who've put they're backs into bringing pages to a level which can showcase the best work of Wikipedia . Best, —MistyMORN 20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am not asking for compromises but rather some frank advice. If you are too busy or uninterested, I certainly understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

If I had to pick one (and it appears that I do) I guess that I will say Harry Yount. This is a thoroughly American topic. But on the other hand, he did befriend Brit James Eccles and it was a question from a British editor about Eccles' time in Wyoming that motivated me to delve into Yount, who I called "a real character" in that initial exchange among two friendly editors. This article was what I call a "miserable stub" when I started, and I believe is much better now. However, I have had relatively little feedback from other editors though it was popular at DYK, so I am sure that other uncompromising eyes will identify many areas for improvement. I think that the biggest shortcoming is that I only found one really outstanding reliable source - Supernaugh - although there are many sources that mention Yount in passing. So, the article is perhaps over-dependent on one source. I find the man fascinating, though you may or may not agree, but what I seek here is honest unvarnished criticism and perhaps advice about how I might improve the article to bring it up to "Good Article" status. If you feel that this article is undeserving for whatever reason, I could suggest others. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, then, I eagerly await your biting criticism. Thanks in advance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Malleus; following our disagreement a few months ago, and although I suspect we continue to disagree on many subjects, I am sincerely and honestly glad tro see you back actively editing.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep. Barely notable, really. I toyed with "if" but "when" felt better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm notifying you (as the #2 editor to the article) that Serpentine (lake) is up for GA review. Chris857 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

...now a featured article in two other countries and a good article in another. A bit like Wife Selling. Quite pleased with that. Parrot of Doom 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I really want to make a featured article around the burning of women at the stake but I've had problems finding decent source material. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough, I don't know, but it seems to me an extremely important part of our history has received scant attention. I won't even bother trying to sort this out. Parrot of Doom 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that many women really were burned at the stake were they, at least not alive? In (I think) all the witchcraft cases I've looked at everyone has been either hanged or garotted before their bodies were burned. What is it about burning women in particular that catches your fancy? Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about witches in general, but Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. I think her crime was changing her mind about her testimony. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know they were almost all garotted and then burnt. It's the bizarre "we can't be chopping up women, that's indecent!" that interests me - the notion that burning a woman's corpse was more "decent" than allowing it to be seen naked. That and the treatment of women through history. I have strange interests, like Cat-burning. Parrot of Doom 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Heretics (in which witches were included) were generally burned for religious reasons; the doctrine of the RCC (and its successor in England the CoE) was that burning prevented any possibility of the body being resurrected or re-animated. (This belief had a very long tail - the most recent documented case in Europe of the deceased's heart being burnt to prevent evil forces resurrecting it was in the dim, distant dark age of 2004). If you wade through Foxe's Book of Martyrs you'll find enough burning's-alive in the 16th century alone to keep you going for months - I came across a few when I was writing St Mary's Church, Chesham. – iridescent 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2004? Ack. Of course I can see why, though - we're still seeing witches turn into goats this year[4] - those witches are tricky. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we may all be possible members of the coven! Uppity, challenge authority, nonconformist... you get the idea! Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ssshhhhh, Montana ... they may be onto us! How's the Animagus training coming along, now? Pesky (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to Parrot (or anyone else thinking of taking the topic on); if you're looking for material on witch-burnings, rather than searching on death by burning (the physical act), search on auto-da-fé (the actual religious ritual of which the burning-alive was just one part, albeit possibly the most noteworthy from the point of view of the burnee). You won't get all the false-positives from people accidentally dying in house fires, and ADF is the term that the religious histories will use. – iridescent 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll also find plenty of references to women being burned to death in any discussion of petty treason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'm massively busy with work right now but I've taken note of your suggestions. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was being helpful with that edit to Pendle witches (I don't expect you wish to retain Mr Griffith-Jones's regular spaces after the hard spaces in the dates, which look awful and defeat the whole point of hard spaces) but I guess I went too far with those capitalisations in the template syntax. I guess I couldn't resist doing that. Anyway, could you (or someone else) please explain to this referencing novice what the differences between ((Harvnb)) and ((Sfn)) are, other than the need for "ref" tags? I don't understand why both are used in the article; their result looks the same. Waltham, The Duke of 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of changing all the ((Harvnb)) templates to ((sfn)), which is why there's temporarily both in the article. The major difference between the two is that ((sfn)) automatically collates citations, whereas with ((Harvnb)) you have to name them to achieve the same effect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see... It makes sense: less clutter and less hassle. Thank you for the explanation.

With regard to the article, I take it you are not a fan of hard spaces? Or just inside citations? (There is admittedly little point to those.) The code is a bit intrusive, but I find the functionality useful. Waltham, The Duke of 20:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I use hard spaces quite often, and I agree they're very useful between number and units for instance. I hadn't noticed Mr Griffith-Jones's daft spaces after the hard spaces, so thanks for pointing that out. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also an "i.e." changed to "i. e.", and a space before the note "a"; I notice these things largely thanks to wikEd's diff tool, which is usually far better than the standard diffs at showing what has actually changed between versions. Even if you don't want wikEd, you can activate wikEdDiff alone through the Preferences (Editing section of the Gadgets tab). Waltham, The Duke of 21:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used wikiEd, but it conflicts with something else I use, can't remember what that is right now. I'll take a look at wikiEdDiff. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally have a soft spot for ((nowrap|blah blah blah)) thing, as it makes reading in the edit window a bit easier, and is much easier to use when there's more than one hard space needed. Pesky (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you hadn't spotted User talk:Drmies #Human baby :) --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a great one for babies, there are far too many of us here already, and I have a passionate loathing of hats. Not sure whether the two things are related, but congratulations to Drmies and his missus nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you've got to have them. They're the only things that keep teachers in a job. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Another good reason not to have them IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Babies rock! Although ours seems to be developing a drinking problem. She won't explain what happened last night, and she needs ever greater quantities to get the desired effect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC) (small 14:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Does she throw fits and display symptoms of withdrawal, such as insomnia and extreme crankiness when cut off from her supply? VolunteerMarek 01:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More signs of a drinking problem! Now I'm worried! :D

She is very understanding of our limitations. She cries inconsolably only when she is about to use the diaper as more than a fashion statement. At first, we did not understand what she wanted when we went through breast, diaper, daddy's burping/hugging, and nothing worked. Our friends using cow-milk infant-formula have much more difficulty, because their baby cries all the time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus, your gift of a Baby bum fan arrived safely, and I thank you very much for it. Kiefer, breast milk is the best non-human invention ever, if only because papa doesn't have to get up at night so often. I hope you (MF and Kiefer) and yours (Mrs. Kiefer, Wolf jr., and especially Mrs. Malleus) are doing well. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Malleus_Fatuorum,

Three points:

1. When I carried out my revision here, I removed all the "no breaking space" templates, which were subsequently replaced by "His Grace"s' editing, and seemingly have caused you a whole heap of trouble since, I am confused as to why you made this comment – clearly addressed to me – in one of your subsequent edit summaries here?
2. I always use the 'spaced-n-dash' template – as used here and above in 1. – when copyediting. I had expected wikEd to do the same. Sorry!
3. I like your solution to my concern regarding The Lead. It reads well now.

Sincerely,

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I fear you are mistaken, Mr Griffith-Jones, at least as far as your first point is concerned; you may have removed the hard spaces (not templates) preceding en-dashes—which were subsequently restored by Malleus—but instead of replacing all the other hard spaces with regular ones you added the latter next to the former, negating the function of hard spaces but not without creating unsightly double spaces (e.g. 20  August 2012). All I did was to remove the superfluous spaces, and for consistency add hard spaces to a couple of dates lacking them, but I did not substantially reverse your edit, and in any case I was promptly reverted myself. I do not know if this error of yours was the result of an automated or semi-automated tool, but I recommend examining your changes more closely before saving. If you do use wikEd, you might as well use its excellent diff component (which I have already praised in the section above).

Furthermore, your addition of spaces before all the citations (e.g. Cited text. ^[1]) might have been acceptable five years ago but it has long since become obsolete as an editing practice in the English Wikipedia. I can see some grounds for frustration there; how each person is inclined to express it is another matter, of course (and I cannot claim to speak for Malleus here), but at least I hope you are no longer confused about its causes. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the trouble you have taken here. Your pointing out the error in my revising is most welcome. I did use wikEd in conjunction with AutoEd and wonder if doing so caused the feature you have described above. Might that be the case, do you think?

Yes, I have appreciated wikEd's diff for many weeks – an excellent addition. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot answer your question; I do not use AutoEd and out of wikEd's tools I use mostly the preview and diff tools, as well as the automatic edit summaries, the undo/redo functions and the find (and replace) tool. I also greatly value the formatting and various coloured shades it shows in the edit box, which help make it more legible; if I tend to add empty lines between things like headings, hatnotes and images, I do it to make things easier for the majority who click on the "edit" button only to be confronted by featureless blocks of text. Waltham, The Duke of 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all you say here. All I can add is that the two tools are sympathetic with each other and AutoEd is accessible from both the article and the edit page. Thank you for your interest. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus! Just stopped by on a slow Monday. Didn't quite uderstand your message. I suppose Pedro wil need to delete me from his list, though. Cheers! Dlohcierekim 00:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether he's fallen out with you recently or not. So much for open to recall. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a 'light' wikipedian (not very active, better Wikisourcian). But in Italy (and sorry for my disrupted English -out of train you know). I'm interested in railways history. And found this image File:Chatmoss.jpg that seem to be uploaded by you, years ago. Since I noticed a strange detail could I ask you a strange question?: "Is the photo the exact reproduction of the painting? I mean It is no inverted like in a mirror isn'it?" Please you can simply answer No or Yes. (And I thik the answer will be "No, it isn't mirrored"). For me it will be enough to understand. Thanks a lot. Bye! --Silvio Gallio (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to ask me a question and then try to constrain my answer, particularly if you ask more than one question and demand a simple "No or Yes". Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If your question is "Why is the train running on the right, when British trains today always run on the left?", the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in its early years didn't operate like a modern service. It had four identically spaced rails; trains with wide carriages would use the central pair of rails, and trains with narrow carriages used one inner and one outer rail. After the fiasco of its opening led to the death of the guest of honour and Manchester erupting into full-scale rioting, subsequent railways left a wider gap between tracks to leave a clear space between passing trains (and thus reduce accidents). As the railway network developed beyond a single line, the "drive on the left" convention was introduced. The L&M was later rebuilt into this new configuration and adopted the same ways of working as other lines, but in 1833 (when this picture was painted) it still operated on the principle of "use whichever set of tracks is available". – iridescent 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Writing an article on a building that's no longer there is easy enough ... heck, people write articles on buildings that have never been there. I'll probably start something off later this evening if nobody else has and we can take it from there. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, done now. See what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good start – I can't find anything much to add from online sources at the moment so I'll wait and see what there is at the library in a couple of days time. BigDom (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

True that. But perhaps the problem is you're like the kid in The Sixth Sense -- "I see derisible people. They don't know they're derisible." Nobody Ent 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see that as my problem. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I expanded the article a bit and split the discussion about the name into its own section. See what you think of it and feel free to chop and change anything. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some nice additions there BigDom. I'm amazed we've managed to unearth so much with so little to go on, and I very much doubt there's a better account of Malkin Tower anywhere. So I'm starting to think that with a little bit of reorganisation we could even make a GA out of this. Any thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 11:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's great we've managed to write so much. It's definitely more comprehensive than anything they have at the library and I agree, there's no reason why we can't get a GA with a little bit more work. There's a bit more I could add about why Douglas thinks Newchurch is the likely location (although I'll have to go back to the library - forgot to write that bit down). We could probably move what's in the lead at the moment into a "Background" section and then write a proper lead that summarises the article. BigDom (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas's thoughts on why Newchurch is the likely location is just about the only omission I can see anyone reasonably raising, so if you can add that I think we're pretty much sorted content-wise. I agree with you about the lead, which is the reorganisation I was thinking of. Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, it'll probably be a few days until I get back there but I'll see how it goes. I was trying to think of a clever DYK hook earlier, but nothing really came to mind. So if you or any of your talk page watchers could think of anything, it might be worth putting it up for DYK, what do you think? BigDom (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The obvious one is "... that on Good Friday, 6 April 1612, Malkin Tower was the venue for perhaps the most well-known alleged witch's coven in English legal history?" Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, nominated it here. Forgot how much I hated DYK nowadays, too complicated with all these templates and rules. BigDom (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading that lead (soon to be Background) section again it struck me that the chronology, although correct, looks a little odd, as it deals with the executions before the coven. So I think that needs to be stitched together a little better, explaining that Elizabeth Southerns and Alizon Device had already been arrested and were being held in Lancaster Gaol, and one of the alleged purposes of the meeting was to plot their escape. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps the best way would be to introduce Demdike and Alizon first up like it already does, then mention the coven and how that affected the later trials, which led to the executions? BigDom (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. I'll try tying it all together later today -- got some lino to lay this afternoon. Malleus Fatuorum 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya chaps. I've gotta say I'm pleased with how things are going. I'd definitely like to see more on Sadler's farm, IMO it's far more likely to be the place than either of the other candidates. I've got some stuff to add about it not being Blacko, some of it I'll add shortly, one bit I'm struggling with is that Malkin Tower farm was called Blacko Tower until sometime after the 1840s. I've found a couple of trivial references to it and the LCC Mario site. Look at the OS First Edition 1:10,000 map in historic info. I can't find a way to link directly to that layer so am struggling to use it as ref. Anyone got another source / or any ideas? Also it seems to me that the text repeats when talking about "poor or shabby woman" and then "lower-class woman or slut", but I don't have access to the sources so can't be sure.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We could maybe find a way to combine the "poor or shabby woman" and the "lower-class woman or slut" quotes. I'll take a look at that LCC Mario site later and see if I can come up with anything. BTW, the article is now a DYK nominee, and I think you should be listed as one of the nominators. There is a downside to that though, which is that you're only allowed five nominations before you have to do a quid pro quo review. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never been involved with DYK before and I doubt I'll get to five any time soon. I've found Template:Did you know nominations/Malkin Tower, what do I have to do?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done it. Congratulations on what will be your first DYK. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ta very much. One thing I think we do need to work into the article (time permitting) is how long the search has been ongoing. The Chetham Society’s version of Pott’s was published in 1845??--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone's really mounted a search for Malkin Tower have they? And I'm not sure how they'd know they'd found it even if they did. Malleus Fatuorum Mr Happy ;-) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course, I suppose speculation is a more appropriate term than search? Ha, what possessed you to visit my lonely ass talk page, yours is clearly the place to be? I can’t fault your treatment of me and I presume you’re aware that you seem to have upset that guy, more than a little bit? I don't think however, that is my any of my business. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality news! I've just looked out of my window to discover that someone has "graffiti-ed 1612" onto the side of Pendle hill!! That's got to be noteable, I'll have to get a photo sorted when the weather is better. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've come across a another potentially interesting meaning of Malkin. It's possible that a Malkin field could be one close to the farmhouse when the sick cattle where kept, from the word Kyne. This is the source I found it in [5], anyone got a better one? Given the forest's cattle farming history it seems potentially relevant. Also on the Peel tower front - I've come across this also, but it's very unlikely such a building would of been constructed inside the forest. A nearby example (potentially) would be Gawthorpe hall. IMO a more likely possibility would be a watchtower of some sort but I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest there have ever been any.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally trust anything someone from Barlick says, but it does seem like that could be an interesting idea. However, it hasn't been even mentioned in any of the books they have in Burnley library, but maybe there could be something in it. Also, I don't agree that the building of a pele tower would be that unlikely; the "Forest of Pendle" wasn't a forest as such, just like the Forest of Bowland isn't. That's not to say I think they lived in such a tower though. BigDom (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which meaning of forest are you using? If you mean in the present-day sense, then I agree. But if you mean the original sense of a nature / hunting reserve then I only partially agree. Although it officially lost this status in 1507, it seems the rules were being bent before that. Indeed it seems that a number of vaccaries (medieval cattle farms) had been established by the end of the C.13th, many of which give their name to the booths that can be identified today. The forest would have remained demesne property of the lord / king and the only people living in it would be (in the early days at least) his employees and the odd peasant or outlaw. Pele towers where relatively high status buildings, likely to have only been built in a manor. I wouldn't want it to appear that I'm the world's expert on this, it's just stuff I picked up while working on Honour of Clitheroe last year.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you clearly know more than me about it, so I'll go along with what you're saying. By the way, I've just added a bit more to the MT article and I'm starting to think that neither Newchurch nor Blacko was the original site. Looked in a few more books today, but still no mention of the possible "kyne" derivation. BigDom (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that with a bit of expansion to the lead we're just about ready for GAN now. Agreed? Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say hold on a minute, but I see it's too late :) Do you think the Stansfield tower image needs mentioning in the prose? BTW have you noticed the category in Commons? Shame about the "kyne" derivation BigDom, cheers for looking into it. If it is true we could have lost malkin fields dotted all over the place. I might try to do something with peel tower / other possible tower bit later, but otherwise I think it's looking pretty f'in good!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, it usually takes ages for a reviewer to turn up. So far as Stansfield Tower is concerned, I think the image caption probably says all there is to say doesn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW. To head the reviewer off at the pass, who says that Stansfield Tower is often confused with Malkin Tower? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides User:Immanuel Giel :) Slightly confused do you mean ref the image description? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely looks almost ready for GA now, will probably be ages before anyone reviews it though. Peel & Southern, p.157 says that Blacko Tower was first confused with Malkin Tower in the deeds of Malkin Tower Farm during the 1890s and the mistake emanated from there if that helps. BigDom (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll do nicely, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I’m sure that will be fine as ref, but in terms of the truth it sounds a bit iffy to me. Stanfield / Blacko tower was built around 1890. As I mentioned previously I found an old OS map on MARIO that labels Malkin Tower Farm as Blacko Tower. This map dates from the late 1840s. Clayton (P266) just says “There is little wonder that Blacko Tower has often been confused with Malkin Tower” – not particularly helpful.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not in the business of "truth". Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I shouldn't of used the dreaded T word! Correctness? Accuracy? Factuality? To be honest I just want to get to the bottom of where Malkin Tower Farm got its name from. Without that speculating on other possible locations seems redundant. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That guy who passed the DYK had no idea what he was on about and made me look like I'd proposed an alt hook that was wrong by completely changing it. BigDom (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Very few at DYK seem to have any idea what they're on about, which is partly why I rarely bother with it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mal. I noticed a couple posts recently about babies. I know you made the choice to not bring another child into the world, and I think it's a very reasonable thought. I will say this though. I had a daughter some some 30+ years ago, and there are feelings that go through even the toughest of men that can't be explained. I've also seen you work with young people teaching them things beyond wikipedia - and how to understand life. So I know that you do understand. It's a feeling I can't even begin to put into words, but I wish I could share those feelings with you. In a way, you already know - because I've seen you work with some of these kids. Part of me envies you, and yet part of me wishes you could experience those feelings. Just rambling thoughts that passed through my head, and I wanted to say hi. "Hi". — Ched :  ?  18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have loads of nieces and nephews, and I enjoy their company, but I would have been a very demanding parent. I was (silently) furious when one of my nephews failed his 11-plus exam a few years ago (here in Trafford we still have grammar schools), but he got his arse in gear after that and is now set to study law at university when the new term starts. I'm reminded of one of those motivational posters I once saw; a man and a boy were fishing together, and the caption was a version of this quotation from Pericles: "What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others." Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ched, you're old, man. And I'm tough! yet the things that gushed through me when our latest installment came out, I can't really describe them. Malleus, I'd like you to come stay with us for a while and get my oldest in gear to work on math. So, English teacher story: my oldest daughter (she's 6) is reading Grimm's tales last week, and comes up to me to point out a typo: "left go" which she correctly says should be "let go". Two English teachers for parents--we were bound to produce someone like her. Good thing she's better-looking than me. I! Than I! Drmies (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you could actually make a case for 'left go,' depending on context. "Leave go of ..." is still occasionally heard in northern England, although possibly now somewhat archaic. ("Leave go of me ... you young monkey." Francis Edward Paget, Lucretia, 1868 p205). But top marks to your daughter for questioning it. And congratulations on the new addition. pablo 16:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See, if she was mine, I'd have had her IQ tested and fast tracked, and wo betide her if she let me down by choosing a stupid boyfriend I didn't approve of. Better for everyone if I leave the bringing up kids stuff to others. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you are, at the very least, a great uncle. I don't approve of boyfriends in the first place; I want my girls to be lesbians, which should increase their chances of survival. One day I want to shake your hand, in Manchester. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I thought I was the only one... I'm actively hoping my girls are lesbians too; males (present company excepted, of course) are generally vile, disgusting creatures. There's a possibility I'll get my wish, at least... at 5, my youngest said when she grew up she wanted to marry either Barak Obama or her best friend Olivia, she wasn't sure which yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My oldest, at 5, was going to marry me. And her sister. She did support Obama in 2010 (age 4), because "he doesn't hit". Unlike me, I guess! Drmies (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps she meant "he doesn't hit on me"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't let my teenage self near anyone's daughter, not at all safe. I'm still amazed anyone did. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of parents of daughters that I need to apologize to (I began realizing this only a few years ago). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Just checking in to see if you thought you would be able to copyedit Supernatural (season 3) in the near future? Thanks again for your help. Ωphois 02:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a start, but didn't get very far yet. What's your timeline? Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to have it nominated within the next month. But I'm busy doing research for the season 4 articles, so it's no rush. Thanks. Ωphois 01:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Had a sincere observation and didn't want to bog down or pile on at the RfA. I have an average of 3.54 edits per article, and had a lower percentage of edits to articles, 40%, at my RfA, so I relate to the current candidate. I completely understand the desire to see future admins ability to edit and determine good from bad quality contributions, so I'm not arguing against your criteria. You certainly have the right to any criteria you want and in spite of others' claims, I've always thought yours was reasonable, even if it was different from mine. But at the same time, I recognize that some of us (myself included) are perhaps better admins than we are editors, as our strength lies in helping others, fixing problems, repairing the potholes and taking out the trash. This is why my main criteria for admin is a calm and fair demeanor with plenty of patience, and at least reasonable authoring skills.

My perception is that you, as a content creator, are better off with someone who deeply respects content creators and is calm and patient with all editors, rather than someone who is perhaps more creative, and maybe not as tolerant. It is a tricky balance as admins need to be experienced at many things to be effective, jack of all trades to a degree, but in the interest of creating this "kinder, gentler" and more equitable Wikipedia, I think too much emphasis on creation might not be what results in the best outcome. It depends on what you want admins to do, I suppose. Personally, I would rather have exceptional authors focusing on creating content (the reason people come to Wikipedia, after all), and leave the mopping up to those of us with a different skill set and motivations, to support rather than create. Again, not to diminish your well expressed reasons and concerns, it is just a thought I wanted to share. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Brief drive-by comment—without prejudice to the RFA in question, "average number of edits per page" is an awful metric to use as any kind of guide. Anyone who's spent any time at New Page Patrol will have the figure artificially dragged down, as there'll be a huge swathe of articles that one just made a minor spelling or grammar fix to and then never looked at again—my mean-edits-per-page was a mighty 1.53, and the figure can be dragged down even lower if the editor in question does their major rewriting in a sandbox and then posts a huge swathe of rewriting in a single mainspace edit. (I can assure you that Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway took a lot more than 27 edits…) A better metric to use is to look at their 10 or so most-edited articles, and see how substantive their edits to those articles were.

FWIW, I was always taught that one emigrates from, and immigrates to ("Edgar Allen Poe emigrated from London"/"Edgar Allen Poe immigrated to Virginia"). It may well be a British/American English thing, but since the article in question is on a (quintessentially) US topic, the editor in question is correct in using US grammar no matter how jarring it looks to British eyes, in the same way that "Manchester United is an English professional football club" but "The Los Angeles Galaxy are an American professional soccer team". – iridescent 11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is a UK/US thing. "Immigrates to" is jarring to me as well - indeed before today I'd have probably said it was actually wrong - and a quick Google shows that "emigrates to" is around ten times more common in UK sources (in fact, it's probably more than that, because the stats for "immigrates to" in UK sources are often genealogical websites where the content is written by people from the US/Canada looking for ancestors over here). Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An American thing like "I could care less" do you mean, which is completely nonsensical? Re the emigrate from/to thing, either could be correct, depending on the context. For instance, both "he emigrated to America" and "he emigrated from Ireland" would be perfectly acceptable, but nobody will persuade me that "[Jeremy Lin's parents] immigrated to the United States" is anything other than an abortion. So I don't buy the UK/US English smokescreen. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh aye - horrific to me as well, but it does appear to be fairly common on the other side of the pond ... "I could care less" is just sloppy usage, but on the other hand try explaining "I didn't get home while midnight" to an American ;) Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind Americans, my own kids give me stick over that one; we now live Down South, where a lot of the subtleties of the language are lost. "While midnight was doing what?" they chorus merrily. How we all laugh. pablo 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

...leading to the (possibly urban myth) tale about the level crossing sign that had to be changed in Yorkshire because it read "Wait here while lights are flashing"... Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From Latin we have both

dum, conj: 1. provided that. 2. while, as long as, until

and

donec, conj: 1. while, as long as, until

Try pointing that out to the kids of today, and they will no doubt reply 'People called Romanes they go the house'? pablo 08:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I recall once reading a comment by a British newspaper about fans who "rushed onto the pitch" at an "American Football derby", I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what an "American Football derby" is either. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I've figured it out. It's a local derby between American football teams. We never use "derby" in that sense in the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Average number of edits per page" may well be an "awful" metric, but it's no worse than many others. My own average (I just checked) is 12.77, and obviously I've got a pretty good idea of what proportion of my time is spent working on articles vs. NPP for instance. So it seems like a reasonable first approximation to me. I would not have opposed only because of that though if there had not been other issues. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My average is 2.22 edits per page. Should I be worried? --John (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if I see you at RfA. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, so if I get desysopped I won't ask you to nominate me. --John (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never nominated anyone, and I can't imagine myself doing it anyway unless dementia strikes. Besides, even if I nominated the Archangel Gabriel he'd probably get at least 50 knee-jerk opposes from the slavering Mr Angrys I've upset over the years. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your understanding of the use of these words. Per the derivation from Latin (and use in contemporary sources), "emigrate" is "from" a place, while "immigrate" is "into" a place. Examples: "They emigrated from Russia"; "They immigrated to the USA". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, even when it's clearly mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I haven't read the article - so my question is a general one. Would it be (im)proper to drop the "e" and "im" to simply say: The X-family migrated to/from? — Ched :  ?  18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be to duck the issue by losing precision? Let me ask you a question, as an American. Does "His parents emigrated to the United States from Taiwan" look odd to you? Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks wrong to me. I'd use "migrated" there. I was taught Axl's version in Australian primary school. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And did your teachers drill the "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'" nonsense into you as well? Or the idea that you mustn't start a sentence with a conjunction? Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Apparently that "i" before "e" thing is statistically false. I feel very betrayed over that. In year 5 they relaxed the conjunction thing a bit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would merely point out that not only is "emigrated to" used over twice as often on Wikipedia than "immigrated to", it is used over five times more often than "emigrated from". We should clearly be using the construction that the majority of people understand as correct. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either "emigrated from Russia to the United States" or "emigrated to the United States from Russia", but I most definitely draw the line at "immigrated to the United States from Russia". Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As an American I can tell you this: it's consistently used incorrectly. It should be emigrated from - as you say above. Most Americans are immigrants who emigrated from elsewhere. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of us Brits are from immigrant families as well, in my case probably from northern France, getting on for a thousand years ago now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of evolution goes a long way. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea that we might all be Martians. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that "ABC emigrated from X to Z in (year)" is often verbose because it's clear from the context where the person was to begin with. Thus much of the time you only need "ABC emigrated to Z in (year)". In this case "ABC immigrated to Z in (year)" is clumsy because the point of the sentence is that they left X, not that they arrived in Z. The only time I can see "immigrated to" being useful is when you've got a large group of people arriving in Z from a number of different X locations - and even then it can be rewritten to use "immigrants" instead. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely the point I've being trying to make all day. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think (and pardon me for barging in) as a British person recently returned from a few years in the US that this is an ENGVAR issue. It's one that particularly grates on my ear too when I hear it, but that is how they use the language over there. I suppose it is because historically "immigrate" is a far more common verb there than "emigrate". I notice too that (like the Irish) they use "take" and "bring" differently from us as well. They use "bring" in a lot of contexts where we would use "take". Two cultures divided by a common language, eh? --John (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  There does seem to be something of an ENGVAR issue, but my take on that is this: not all Americans abuse the language by misusing the words "emigrate" and "immigrate", and given that "immigrate to" is grating for non-Americans, whereas I'm assuming that "emigrate to" isn't grating to Americans, we should settle on the proper usage of those words. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm an American, and one of my college history instructors pointed out early in the quarter that substituting "immigrate" for "emigrate" was not acceptable. While most Americans use "immigrate", it is still substandard English, not just regional variantions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not strange that Americans use "take" and "bring" like the Irish, we derived a lot of our dialect from the Scots-Irish. I'm also told that we preserve a lot of pronunciations and usages from earlier English history, especially in the Appalacians. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "gotten" springs immediately to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also "fall" for autumn and "hog" for a pig, if I remember correctly. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I immigrated to Marlboro County. Ning-ning (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said to Newyorkbrad elsewhere, there's an implication in that construction that you're posting from Marlboro County. Which I suppose you may be in a sense if you're a smoker. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is interesting. Make sure the pull-down menu above the search box is set for "Br. & World English" and enter "emigrate". Then click the link marked "Definition of emigrate in US English dictionary" at the bottom. It's right there in black and white: rampant illiteracy on the west side of the Pond. (Or the southwest side, in any case.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

From the "Daily Times" of Pakistan- "Latif said, Sodho had been immigrated to India voluntarily..." Ning-ning (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can speak from first-hand experience when I say that the Pakistani newspapers are uniformly dreadful, as is most of the rest of Pakistan's infrastructure. But there's an interesting nuance to the construction of that quote ("had been immigrated"), which is that the subject didn't emigrate (i.e. go willingly), but was immigrated by a third party, (i.e. left unwillingly). You can't say you emigrated someone, but you could say you immigrated someone. In any event I remain convinced that the alleged US use of the word "immigrate" is an abomination and ought not to be tolerated. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a usage note in my American Heritage College Dictionary (3e, 1993) which says: "Migrate, which is used of people and animals, sometimes implies a lack of permanent settlement, especially as a result of seasonal or periodic movement. Emigrate and immigrate are used only of people and imply a permanent move, generally across a political boundary. Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure: After the Nazis came to power in Germany, many scientists emigrated. By contrast, immigrate describes the move relative to the destination: The promise of prosperity in the United States encouraged many people to immigrate." LadyofShalott 20:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd largely agree with that, and what's telling there is the phrase "encouraged many people to immigrate", when we can't say where they emigrated from as they came from many places. But in the specific example that sparked this hoo-hah we're talking about two specific people who emigrated from Taiwan to the United States. It's black and white as far as I'm concerned; they didn't immigrate to the United States from Taiwan. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the examples address the to/from usage. I do find your objection curious (and honestly don't understand it). I had also learned the immigrate to/emigrate from rule, which seems logical to me with the e/im prefixes. I just looked in my reprint of the 1926 Fowler, and there are no entries relevant to this discussion. LadyofShalott 21:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I on the other hand can't understand the support for a construction that to me is an abomination. If I should ever tire of the UK and and choose to live elsewhere then I would be emigrating, not immigrating. I can't put it any more basically than that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my view, yes, you'd be emigrating from the UK. I'd say though that you immigrated to Country X. Would you use emigrate for both those sentences? LadyofShalott 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But which did I do first? Emigrate or immigrate? How could I have immigrated if I hadn't emigrated? To me it's a bit like saying "I baked a cake, and then I put it in the oven". Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No argument that the emigration had to precede the immigration. I suppose I think of it as a matter of emphasis. If, for instance, we want to start a new paragraph about life in the new county: "In 1965, John Smith immigrated to Newlandia. There he met Jane Roberts, with whom he worked on [their spectacular feat...]" LadyofShalott 21:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That might be justifiable if you didn't know where he'd emigrated from, but I simply will not buy the "immigrated to ... from" construction. It's a barbarism. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Almost as barbaric as the way the English pronounce "garage"! As for which you did first, emigrate or immigrate, I think they're simultaneous. Think of it as analogous to walking through a doorway: you're effectively exiting one room at the same time you're entering another. Since the threshold isn't infinitely small, it is arguable that you do exit before you enter, but that split second in the doorway is unimportant. Rivertorch (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not always that easy. Maybe that's why that article name has been redirected. But I was thinking more of the many Irish "emigrants" who never became immigrants as they died of starvation during the crossing. 109.153.195.92 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You said, "But if you'd like help with making sure that what you add doesn't breach any of Wikipedia's arcane rules then I'd be happy to help." OK, are you interested in learning more than you ever wanted to about stuttering treatments? :-) The article I want to edit is Stuttering therapy. I've written a new article to replace it. My new article is at [6]. Tell me what I should do.--TDKehoe (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What you shouldn't do is to replace the existing article with your own version; you need to integrate the two. Try writing something in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus. Another editor has mentioned your name in a thread at ANI so I thought I'd better let you know. It's Wikipedia:ANI#Dispute on Jimmy Henchman page. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• While you're at ANI you may note, in passing, this rare moment of insight. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  If you're pointing me to what I think you're pointing me too I'd say that it has more to do wiki-friendships than insight. I'd also say that I too see a big difference between calling someone a "fucking cunt" and saying "fuck off and die", a very big difference. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is indeed. But we live in a strange world, and the current generation of students has an odd attitude. They typically condemn Oedipus for killing Laius (as if he could have done otherwise), but relish in Aeneas killing Turnus. On a side note, I thought of you today while teaching Business and Professional Writing--I brought up style guides, and paused for a few minutes to show and discuss Fowler (Google Books is a really useful tool for quick perusal in class). I'm still searching, BTW, for a decent and affordable little handbook for business writing. Do you know of any? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  As you know, I'm still very much a fan a Fowler. Anyway, off the top of my head I can't think of anything that might fit your criteria (maybe you ought to write one?), but it might be worth asking Tony1, as that's pretty much his area of expertise. "Business writing" is a broad topic though; Siemens once sent me on a week-long course on how to write reports, and when I subsequently set up on my own I had to go on another course to learn how to write business plans. And then of course there's all the marketing bullshit. But I think the most useful writing course I ever went on was the one that taught me how to write a decent CV. Worth its weight in gold. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I know, and that's why I thought of you. Writing CVs is an important part of the class, yes--it's the only class where I can genuinely say "I make a difference" (that's common American parlance, of course). Maybe I should write one... I will ask Tony, thanks. This is my textbook, by the way. Thanks Malleus, c ya l8er, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, I ran across a site I thought you might enjoy having a look at. Not that I'd use it as a reliable reference or anything, but perhaps you'll chance a gander at it.

• http://www.quora.com/

— Ched :  ?  17:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA. If our paths should cross, I hope I can earn your trust in me some day. I would love to be able to leverage your expertise of the English language. Best regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do just fine. But let me share something with you. I rarely look at RfAs these days, little point, and if I hadn't seen what Newyorkbrad posted on the talk page of the first person to oppose yours I wouldn't have looked at yours either. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For a quid I'd be daft not to, so I've downloaded this book and shall study it over the weekend (while I'm working, long boring days). Parrot of Doom 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking of getting a Kindle for some time now. I've decided I just couldn't bear looking at the state of Oliver Cromwell any longer, so I've been chopping away at the inevitable "In popular culture" section; I fully expect the usual squawking to begin any time now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You can read kindle books via a reader on your computer. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I've got one, but I want to be able to read away from the computer. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a HTC One X, I was reading it today on that while I was supposed to be working. It's quite a good book, actually. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There's too much nonsense going on that that article's talk page right now so I thought it'd be better to post this here. Do you think this is worth a mention?

After that he was sent to an army medical admissions officer for possible conscription. Brady found the concept laughable, ludicrous. He told them he had just spent two years in jails marching up and down the square. They were totally wasting their time, as he had no intention of spending another two as a bottom-rank squaddie doing pretty much exactly the same thing (punctuated no doubt with learning to polish boots, peel potatoes and whitewash coal).

Personally, I don't; I think it leaves questions unanswered, and it may stem from Brady's mind (the author doesn't make this clear), making it unreliable. There's also a section on how, while at Hull, Brady was shown the hanging apparatus, but again I think it's a bit too anecdotal to be of use. Parrot of Doom 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My "saintly" self doesn't think so, no. I'm constantly amazed by the tolerance for dickheads around this place. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. BTW its a good book and doesn't show Ashworth in a good light. For instance, two severely critical reports have suggested it be shut down, but nothing has happened. Parrot of Doom 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On 27 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Malkin Tower, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on Good Friday, 6 April 1612, Malkin Tower was alleged to be the location of a witches' coven? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Malkin Tower. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I complained about that crappy hook at the nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the hook may be crappy, but the article was not. I've left some comments on the GA review, all of which are fairly minor. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've passed the article as a GA, good work. Think you'll try for featured with it? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's up to my compadres, at least one of whom thought I was a little premature in going for GA. If it were down to me alone I'd let the article settle for a couple of weeks and then tackle FAC. What's your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't try and tackle FAC in a couple of weeks' time. Like I said before, this is the most extensive piece about Malkin Tower that I've ever come across. Well done to all involved in getting this to GA. BigDom (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's do it then. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A malt kiln in Barrowford. Ning-ning (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider me totally willing to defer to greater experience and happy to be along for the ride! One tiny thing, do we prefer “17th century” or “17th-century”? Also Clayton P268 says that there is a Kiln field near Saddlers farm. Seems relevant, but I assume hasn’t turned up in any of the other (and probably more reliable) sources?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the books may have had something about a "kiln yard" near Sadler's so I can check that at the library. Also we use "17th century" as a noun e.g. in the 17th century and "17th-century" as an adjective e.g. a 17th-century house. BigDom (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree this should have a good shot a passing FA. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus. What do you think about this article? I came across it because of edits made to Runcorn by User:Plantation1926, who had added someone called Jamie McDonnell-Griffiths as a notable person from the town. An article about J McD-G has been deleted; he is the supposed creator of "Eluzé Living". I have expressed my misgivings on User talk:Plantation1926. I suspect that Plantation1926 is Jamie McDonnell-Griffiths, and is using WP for advertising. What do you think? If you agree, what should be done? IMO Eluzé Living should also be deleted. I am reluctant to get involved personally because I am easily identifiable in Runcorn, as in my naivety (a long time ago) I used my real name rather than an e-pseudonym as my user name. (Plantation Close is a block of flats in Runcorn New Town.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above, it appears that action is being taken elsewhere, see this. Sorry to trouble you but it needs to be sorted. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the "secret undisclosed location" of this supposed epicentre of the glamorous lifestyle is Plantation Close, Runcorn, make your own mind up. 78.149.155.81 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for popping by my new article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)