User talk:Eric Corbett

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

Spat

I don't know if you are are following this. I'm finding it fascinating. If it weren't a serious project, I would consider Wikipedia to be a source of ongoing entertainment. I really shouldn't take life Wikipedia so seriously! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, things seem to be moving again now, hopefully in the right direction. It's been my experience that there almost always has to be a bit of give and take during reviews, such as introducing the attribution as Gguy suggested, and at least the Present day/Location dispute has effectively been settled. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do either of you guys think Andor Gomme would make a good DYK? I've no experience with that, but the origin of his first name is certainly amusing. Geometry guy 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Go for it. Fascinating! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's slightly on the short side though, at 1453 characters. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to reply that I was looking forward to someone insisting on adding inline citations: "Erm, now which source do you think this statement is taken from?" I would reply. However, Peter has jumped in already with the superfluous cites! It looks like I should try and find a second source, so it doesn't look so daft! Geometry guy 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've nominated it! Doesn't the Publications section count? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a single source, provided it's authoritative!! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again. One of the DYK rules is that the hook has to be supported by an inline citation. That's why I provided it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm going to go and sulk 'cos I wanted to write the hook! Just kidding... Yes, I read the rules, but I like to draw attention to bean counting whenever an opportunity presents itself: WP:IAR is policy for a reason! Anyway I've added another source, and the quote, so the character count should be just fine now. Geometry guy 20:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done now, and I've assessed the article for WP:Cheshire as a small contribution towards keeping the project active :) Geometry guy 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems like all's well that ends well Peter.[1] Congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  My congratulations also, but please also respect the good faith efforts by the original reviewer who passed the article. I have long known this reviewer as an exceptionally dedicated and clueful Wikipedian.

  (I provided advice on avoiding personalizing a disagreement already, but the best editors, in my eyes, stick to that principle even when the other guy doesn't.) Geometry guy 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've made no comment at all about the reviewer, who in my experience is generally one of the best, and I don't know why you're suggesting that I either have or intend to. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  I was suggesting no such thing (the imperative was not addressed at you personally, Malleus), but am glad we agree anyway about the qualities of the reviewer :) Geometry guy 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not me - I think he's a menace. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Everyone seems so touchy around here lately, including me I suppose. You may not have noticed, but fairly recently I was called a Grade-D GA reviewer, but I lost no sleep over it. Getting the tone of a review right is a difficult balancing act I think, and nobody gets it right all the time. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Having just now caught up, I've realised the intent behind your imperative, and I'm not sure I like it. It's one thing for the nominator to have a pop at the reviewer, par for the course really, but quite another for the reviewer to make charges like these against the nominator.[2] I'm sure you know what I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  No you haven't, and I can be no more sure about what you mean as you can be sure of my intent. I comment more below as this is an interesting illustration of general problem. Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, and I thought this was all over! So I'm one of the aggressive and selfish few that grab the attention and make things difficult. That's a new badge for me. But if any reviewer reformats a nomination of mine in the future without prior discussion s/he will be treated in a similarly "aggressive and selfish" manner. Perhaps that particular reviewer will keep out of my hair in the future (not that I have any these days!).

I only came across the above when I was about to send my thanks to you for helping to get two Cheshire articles to GA in one day. If I believed in barnstars, and if there were a Cheshire barnstar, I would award you one (but I don't, and there isn't). Now this is the sort of review I like! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a proper look at that link and have discovered that I am rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile as well. Could there be an element of projection here? Thanks to you and Gguy for keeping me in touch with reality. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Gawsorth has made it, so well done, things are back on track. I'd have to say though that I'm unimpressed with what's happened here; an administrator makes offensive remarks about another editor and then instead of reprimanding that admin another comes along and exhorts the victim not to respond in kind. No wonder they've begun to believe that they're invincible. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find adminship at all relevant to this discussion. Nor were there personal attacks. If I wanted to make exhortations, I would have done so explicitly and directly on Peter's talk page. That was not my intention either. Please beware of confirmation bias... Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard a wonderful radio play some time ago. The story was a simple one: the break-up of a long-term live-in relationship (the couple may have been married without children - I don't remember the details). Each 2-3 minute scene was played twice, once from his viewpoint, and once from hers. What made the play special was that the dialogue in the two versions was identical. Small changes of tone and emphasis radically changed the mood of each scene, and the sympathies of the audience.

Different people can perceive the same series of events very differently, as we all come with different past experiences and have different goals. Such differences are even more likely on Wikipedia, as text communication conveys even less information about motives and intent than real world interaction. Peter rightly suggests an element of projection, yet simultaneously projects "some people are somewhat rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile" entirely onto himself. The reviewer came to the review with preconceptions (as we all do), and the initial comments he makes that "But why is it that people get so heated over minor issues? And behave so inappropriately?" are likely post-perceptions of the communication breakdown in the review. There is likely disagreement over the word "minor" and what is "inappropriate", but Peter has himself acknowledged getting angry. From "some people..." onwards, however, SilkTork is clearly (in my perception) speaking in generalities. Everyone needs to vent sometimes, and part of assuming good faith is about cutting others a little slack, not taking things personally, and not jumping to conclusions, because we don't all perceive the same events in the same way. Geometry guy 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators would do well to remind themselves of that before reaching for their block buttons with such monotonous regularity for the slightest of perceived "personal attacks". Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the "citation needed" for "with such monotonous regularity" I agree :) Geometry guy 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus. Please don't get on at Gguy. I've no idea whether he is an administrator or not; that's irrelevant. He sorted out (for me) a situation that should never have arisen. For that I am very grateful, and have given him my thanks. And that's the end of that.

What is not irrelevant to me is Silktalk's rant. I obviously started it off. If it's not directed at me, at whom is it directed? Was I wrong to understand from it that I am not somewhat rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile, aggressive and selfish? If it's not me, who is it? I must have problems with self-perception because I always considered myself to be respectful, considerate and engage with the notion of collaboration, to be intelligent, cultured, co-operative and tolerant, and one of my life-long faults is that I have a craving to be respected and admired. Oh well, sooner or later I realise that self-realisation has to hit the fan!

By the way, I would rather write articles, compile lists, etc than waste time dealing with all this cr*p.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gguy is making excuses for Silktork, a fellow administrator, and I was merely pointing that out. Perhaps when you get blocked for using a word like "sycophantic" you'll understand how I feel about the evident double standards at play here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(post ec) There's nothing to deal with. "At whom is it directed?" you (Peter) ask. "Some people" is the obvious answer. It is an aggregate opinion based on multiple experiences, all but one of which were past-experiences which have nothing to do with you.

Similarly, Malleus has multiple bad experiences with admins and he brings this to the table whenever he interacts with an admin. I don't take it personally: that chip is on his shoulder not mine, and he needs to let off steam too. Identifying SilkTork as a "fellow administrator" is an example of that. I don't identify at all with the some notional admin corps., and even though Malleus must know that by now, he still brings it up. Any collegiality I share with SilkTork is as a fellow reviewer, whom Malleus notes above is "in my experience is generally one of the best". Yet he still tolerates an unambiguous personal attack (as a "menace") on this reviewer by another editor in this very thread.

Another answer (continuing reply to Peter) is that SilkTork's comment was addressed to me personally, and sympathetically, as is clear from the edit summary, so treat it as an email. I like the openness of user talk, but it is still in essence a discussion between individual editors. You have also been sympathetic about the efforts involved in resolving a dispute and bringing an article back on track, and I am very grateful for that.

According to the proverb, a single piece of straw can break a camel's back, but it would be silly for that straw to worry "what did I do wrong? why blame me?" Geometry guy 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter you're one of the nicest people on here. I stalk some of the articles you write and they're excellent. Ignore anyone who thinks otherwise. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PoD. I really appreciate that.

Can we now bring this section to a final close.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When I'm good and done.</joke> There's nothing else that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eagle.

What, exactly, is wrong with the change? The original Eagle wasn't the only one that had stories, the new one did too. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've already been told, repeatedly, what's wrong with the change, so please stop. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been told, repeatedly, that's it's wrong because Parrot of Doom doesn't like it and he put a lot of work into creating the page. Please tell me the actual problems you have with the changes (and the various compromise versions). It's OK to admit it if you don't know. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find that you get a better response if you can manage to be a little less patronising. To put it simply, the sections where you want to insert your links cover more than the subject of your links, which are therefore inappropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to remind Parrot that swearing at other people isn't on either.

The history of the original comic already had a link to the list of comics for both releases. Totally inappropriate because it's the wrong section and it relates to just one comic. I tried to fix this by making the original release section point to the original comic's list of stories and adding a link to the second release's list of stories. This was reverted.

I tried adding a completely new section outside of the history section which addresses the stories specifically, which I think solves the problem as it is an appropriate place for the link and doesn't need to be separated out. Sure the one sentence section was primative, but I think it would be a good section to build on. But you reverted that.

From my reading of what you've said the "List of comic stories" link needs to be removed entirely... or am I missing the point again? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems to work, others may have a differing opinion. I still think that there's something wrong with the basic set up... the newer series is sort of dumped in the middle of information about the old. I realise it wasn't the success or as ground breaking as the original but it wasn't the failure that the current format implies. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request

No good deed goes unpunished. As you were so good as to help me at PR and FAC with Henry Wood, can I bother you again, with the peer review for Thomas Beecham, which I hope - with the aid of input from Wiki-colleagues - to get up to FA standard? Most grateful if you have time. No rush at all. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really do PR, but as this is such a good cause I'll have a read through and leave a few notes on the review page. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Your eagle eyes are truly superb. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

turtle farming to GA

Malleus, could you take a look at this article and let me know what is needed to take it to GA? Not some formal peer review thingie, just your insights; In particular am trying to think through what content needs to be in there and how to organize it and research it.

Any good model articles for coverage of an industry or people that you know that have written industry overviews?

TCO (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Geometry guy is probably the best person to ask. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't escape V

Book:Gunpowder Plot - hah, it gets everywhere! Parrot of Doom 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I watched V again the other evening, it was on TV, and I'm coming to quite like the film. But apart from the superficial Fawkesian stuff it seems to me to have far more in common with Big Brother and 1984. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So whenever you see it linked with Fawkes, do you think "Die! Why won't you die??!?!", like the scene in the sewer? Parrot of Doom 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A little bit, I must admit, but the book looks rather nice, have you looked inside? And at £13.96 including postage far more reasonable than the silly prices asked for those on offer on Amazon. "Beneath this mask there's more than flesh, there's an idea, and you can't kill an idea with bullets." Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to comics I only have Dan Dare compendiums on my shelves, although I have looked longingly at this, since the TV series was rather excellent. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather more old-fashioned; I have Rupert Bear annuals, some of them quite rare and signed by Bestall. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to read Rupert's adventures in the Daily Express (when I was a wee lad). His article is, unsurprisingly, shite. Parrot of Doom 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It could certainly do with some work. BTW, I wasn't talking about the V comic book, I was talking about the wikipedia book you linked to, a good half of which you probably wrote. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it, I'm often conscious of using up people's bandwidth unnecessarily. Mind you over 600 revisions to HD&Q is probably a bit overkill, sometimes I'm trigger-happy on the "save page" button. I often see mistakes as I'm waiting for the page to update :( Parrot of Doom 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I've generated the book and here it is. Take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's really quite nicely laid out, I like the way the pictures appear. The infobox looks rubbish though. I might put a bit of uber-work into one of my (not an ownership claim!!!) favourite articles and pay to have it sat on my shelf! Parrot of Doom 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd like it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking of comic books did you ever read these by the Pendlebury artist Ken Reid? My mother used to read them to me from the Manchester Evening News and I remember reading Fudge in Bubbleville in the dentists waiting room. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I never did, but then I'm not a real Mancunian. I was born in Cheshire and spent most of my childhood in Scotland, and a good deal of my working life in London. I spent a few years in Manchester in the early 1970s and didn't come back for well over 20 years, and then only because my wife was offered what seemed to be a dream job. Otherwise I'd still be living in west London in a house worth God knows how many millions instead of this shed at the bottom of a friend's garden. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The way property prices are going you probably got the best deal with the garden shed though. --John (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

and I'm sure the gentle drizzle of Manchester must remind you of your youth in Scotland - or was it more of the horizontal rain where you lived? It's a pity those comic strips never got syndicated. I think I once had on of the Fudge annuals - I bet it would be worth a few bob now. Richerman (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never really understood the "it always rains in Manchester" thing. The west coast of Scotland is very pretty, but it's bloody wet and those damn midgies can't half bite. In contrast, when we moved up to Manchester from London there was a hose-pipe ban in place for most of that summer. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the total amount of rainfall isn't remarkable I think we get a lot more wet days than the south of England. It's nothing compared to parts of Scotland though - no wonder the Guy that wrote "Why does it always rain on me" came from Glasgow. Richerman (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Y chromosome needed

For the moment...and I'm going to lose my feminism card I was about to lose someday anyway by asking this, but pursuant to this discussion (skip to today's posts starting the 17th), is there something testosterone-related that I'm just really, really missing? Is it a male way of communicating that my lack of gonads is perceiving to be inefficient and unnecessarily confusing? --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

At first sight that looks like a crazy proposition, but it's getting late here now and I'm to lazy to read it all; a summary would be good. In these kind of discussions I'm always reminded of the Spartan's respect for their women as equals but different. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In summary, there's a statement in the lead saying that men have historically shaped the standards for what is acceptable in love, sex, and family for women, and lesbians have been invisible because men have not been a part of these relationships, viewing them as invalid. An editor removed it despite at least 14 cited statements in the article--and two of those "statements" are actually entire cited sections--backing it up. I'm just confused. Either the editor has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or there's some kind of code he's using. I just don't understand what his reasoning is. He seems to think it's my personal opinion maybe that I believe this. Dude, I don't know really what his point is, but the article has a NPOV template and all he can do is respond in tree-falls-one-hand-clapping replies. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence I was watching a TV programme about Peter Wildeblood the other evening, whose trial was one of the UK's most notorious since Oscar Wilde. I doubt he'd agree that homosexual men had historically shaped anything, but once again I'm reminded of the Spartans. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at an article created by the editor, the low standard of English in that article, and the use of a mobile phone for a macro photograph (interesting "old-fashioned" visual quality) to illustrate the article, I smell troll. Ning-ning (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that I'm being trolled. I'm unable to believe people are this dense and can work a computer. In re Malleus, let me ask: does the statement, or whatever I said...nevermind, let me rephrase: what did I say that made it seem as if homosexual men have shaped women's sexuality? Or was that something different? If there is a genuine misunderstanding about this sentence in the article, I am interested in resolving it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Crossed wires probably. I don't find anything at all contentious about the statement that "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships ...", seems self-evident really. I was simply musing that homosexual men have also suffered because they did not conform to a standard for respectability in love and so on imposed by heterosexual men, so it's not all men. Except perhaps in the Spartan military, where I believe homosexuality was pretty much mandatory. By another curious coincidence a female friend of mine recently decided that she was gay (she's in her mid to late twenties). The only person who really batted an eyelid was her boyfriend, with whom she was sharing a house. He wasn't at all amused. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Spartan military, or even especially the Spartan military - a variety of ancient Greek societies viewed male homosexuality as normal or beneficial, with the Sacred Band of Thebes being the military unit where homosexuality was specifically a requirement for membership. The Romans also had more tolerance for male homosexuality than most later societies, although (ignoring the Greek examples which they were very much aware of) they regarded it as a cause of effeminacy. As another coincidence, the author of Oranges are not the only fruit turned up at WP:BLPN yesterday. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not for Cheshire

You have helped previously with copyediting the text in lists of conserved churches. This is the latest, the longest, and the penultimate in the series, and I should like it to join its sisters as a FL. There should not be too much to do. The first two paragraphs are identical to those already "accepted" (but brought up to date with 2010 figures); the rest of the lead parallels the others; and the blurbs are fairly short. If you can help (again) I should be very grateful. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I find this interesting, following the Spat discussion above. I wrote an article on St Peter's Church, Sudbury, to populate the list above, and rated it (myself) at C. It was then nominated as a GAN by another editor (without reference to me) and, with a deleted ref and a minimal expansion of the lead, it has been accepted as a GA! Now compare the quality and the broadness of this article with St Mary's Church, Astbury, and spot the difference(s)! I have no quarrel with the Sudbury church being accepted as a GA (and I will take the credit for it as I did 99% of the work, so please don't take any GAR action). But I am enjoying the comparison between my struggle over the Astbury church, and the ease with which the Sudbury church passed. Happy days (could it be red nose day or something?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the luck of the draw I guess. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies like this are in the nature of GA processes; if GA were Microsoft, it would have a huge advertising department to explain that this is a "feature" not a "bug". GA does not always get it right the first time: an individual review can only be as good as the individual reviewer. Consequently, GA processes are set up so that it is as easy to reassess an article as it is to assess it. If you believe a listed GA, even your own nomination, is lacking with respect to the GA criteria, you can ask for reassessment. GA aims to achieve consensus and article improvement through multiple reviews, rather than through a single action. Personally, this approach appeals to me, as the encyclopedia is constantly evolving. Geometry guy 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Flying Dutchman

Well, the book I ordered from the library has finally arrived, just have to collect it now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking to one's self is the first sign of madness. Parrot of Doom 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the second, talking to someone who isn't there? Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was very tempted not to respond to that but the joke would pass over most people's heads. :) Parrot of Doom 21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always been told, "Talk as much as you can to the most intelligent person in the room."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Still talking to myself I suppose. I've collected the book and it's very interesting, but despite its title there are only three pages on the Flying Dutchman. The book's subtitle is "and other folktales from the Netherlands", so I might instead irritate the new page patrollers and ingratiate myself with those who believe that wikipedia is systemically biased towards UK/US topics by creating a whole new slough of articles. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Traft ihr das Schiff im Meere an?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

iLoo

User:Bob Castle did a copyedit of the article. Have your concerns been addressed? Out of curiosity...what did you mean by "I am completely unconvinced by this article"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that after reading it I still have no idea whether this was a seriously half-baked proposal or a late April 1 spoof. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Speedy

Thanks for the support, and excellent copyediting, too. The best part of the deal was getting Benea back, she worked so hard on this, and it's fantastic to see so many people applauding her work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just about the best ship article I've ever read, and a jolly good read it is too. Everyone involved deserves a pat on the back. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Capel Lligwy/GA1

Thanks for your copyedits here (and elsewhere) on the Anglesey church series; I think I'm ready for you to take another look, so as and when you get the chance, please stop by. Bencherlite^Talk 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll hopefully be able to get back to it a little later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ack!

Where/who was the pirate bishop you wanted me to look at? I've lost wherever the conversation was... and am high as a kite on sinus pills since it's spring and the pollen is sky high here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of Pirate Kings, but Pirate Bishops? Forsooth!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my mate Wimund. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's a Scot! I'll drop a note on Deacon's page, but I honestly don't have many sources on Scottish history, it's not something I felt like studying (no matter that I married a McBryde...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have dim memories that there is a monk involved with the Battle of Sluys during Edward III's reign... although our article on that battle sucks so badly that I couldn't tell whether or not I'm right. I remember reading it in Thomas Costain's works on the Plantagenets when I was very young (those books and Van Loon's books were what got me hooked on history... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across Wimund via William of Newburgh, who is one of the only two nearly contemporary sources for the green children of Woolpit. His story of a pirate bishop seems no more fantastical to me than his story of those kids. And somewhat less fantastical than the later suggestions than they were extra-terrestrial aliens. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scottish food

(seeing your edit summary that "Scottish history sucks")...Scottish food doesn't (...excepting Jugged Hare). Would it be possible to for you to obtain a photo of a bridie? That article needs one as well as any contributions you might be able to make to it...very welcome there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in Manchester now, so I haven't seen a bridie for heaven knows how long. Nor a fried Mars bar either. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
Message added 02:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.