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. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Supernatural copyedit

I apologize if you saw my previous message and just haven't gotten around to replying, but I thought it might have gotten buried in the other conversations occurring on the page. Anyways, per your request, just giving a friendly reminder about No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural). Thanks. :) Ωphois 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through and made a few changes. I either didn't notice or had forgotten that it it was at FAC. Anyway, a few comments:

• "As Bobby blesses a waterline running to the sprinklers of Lilith's house ...". Lilith doesn't have a house does she? Isn't this the family home of the young girl that she's possessed?

• Yeah, the family home. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• You need to say that then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Sam insists that he will be saved, but Dean feigns reassurance as he hallucinates a demonic-looking Sam." I can't quite make sense of that. For one thing, how can any feign reassurance? Dean could pretend to be reassured of course. It seems like a strange conjunction as well; he's pretending to be reassured at the same time as seeing a demonic-looking Sam? Quite an act I'd have thought.
• Here is a fan-made transcript of the scene:

SAM: Look, we're cutting it close, I know. But we're gonna get this done. I don't care what it takes Dean. You're not gonna go to hell. I'm not gonna let you. (DEAN looks over at him) I swear. Everything's gonna be ok.

(DEAN looks at him, taking it in. Before he says anything his facial expression changes as he looks at SAM, he suddenly looks very scared. The camere cuts to SAM and we see his face completely distorted, flinging to the sides at a rapid pace. Then he changes back to SAM again, showing that this was just a hallucination.)

DEAN: Yeah, ok. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to the ten-day process as the 'Hell Shot'." What 10-day process?

• The process of rendering the HD video and adding visual effects. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• That needs explaining then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would this work? "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to their portion of the sequence—a ten-day process—as the "Hell Shot"." Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... the episode was originally intended to feature the return of Samantha Ferris as recurring hunter Ellen Harvelle." What's a "recurring hunter"?

• I'll change to "recurring character". Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as the grandfather is killed appears to be shot from inside one of the houses ...". The plot section mentions nothing about a grandfather being killed.

• Oops. Think it would be okay to add in an explanation to the filming section?
• "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as Lilith kills her host's grandfather—he had tried to request help from his neighbors—appears to be shot from inside one of the houses, the actors were actually standing on a two-story scaffolding across the street, looking through fake windows." Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I instead added it in to the third plot paragraph. Ωphois 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive", and Ackles was asked to sing off-key ...". I've never seen this programme, much less this episode, but I'm assuming that Ackles wasn't asked to sing off-key as part of the scene itself, i.e., as in Sam says to Dean "Hey, why don't you sing off-key?"

• That is why it says Ackles, not Dean. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• What this currently says is that "On their drive to New Harmony ... Ackles was asked to sing off-key", which isn't right. He was asked to sing off-key for the scene in which Sam and Dean drive to New Harmony. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. Would this work? "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive". To mask Ackles' "very impressive singing voice", Kripke asked the actor to sing off-key." or "Kripke asked Ackles to sing off-key to mask his "very impressive singing voice". Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Either works for me, but I'd probably prefer the first. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just checking if the copyedit was complete? If so, thanks for your help on the article. I really appreciate it. Ωphois 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said I think in a few places the language is a still a little too informal, but perhaps the subject matter justifies that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that since it's a television article rather than a historical one, the language tends to be a tad bit different. Also, if it's not too much to ask, would you mind looking over Taare Zameen Par within the next couple of weeks? You don't have to copyedit it or anything if you don't want to, but rather just to give your opinion on whether the prose can handle a FAC? Either way, thanks again. Ωphois 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is just my opinion of course, but I think that the prose would take some flak at FAC, if only because it seems strangely unidiomatic in places and a bit forced. Which is a shame really, because it appears to be a pretty comprehensive account of this film. Perhaps someone else will offer an opinion as well, as I'm by no means always right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean India-related idioms, or in general? From my previous experiences and comments received, I would think that it would seem informal/unencyclopedic? Also, what do you mean that it sometimes feels "a bit forced"? Ωphois 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean things like "tells the story of an eight-year old child (Darsheel Safary) who suffers greatly until a teacher (Aamir Khan) identifies him as dyslexic". There's something about "suffers greatly" that just doesn't work for me; I can't really imagine a native English speaker saying it in that context. "Eventual exemption from the entertainment tax by the Maharashtra government briefly strengthened ticket sales in Mumbai." What does that actully mean? That the Maharashtra government imposed the tax or that they exempted the film from it? "Taare Zameen Par garnered near-universal praise". Wouldn't you agree that the hyphen looks strange? "Though it was India's official entry for the 2009 Academy Awards Best Foreign Film, Taare Zameen Par failed to make the short list. This loss stirred debate in India ...". What loss? "... he perpetually fails his tests and exams". Perpetually is an awful long time. "He also lacks motor coordination skills, even finding it difficult to throw a ball in a straight line." It's exceedingly difficult not to throw a ball in a straight line unless you can Bend it Like Beckham. "Ishaan's internal world is rich with wonders that no one else seems to appreciate". How could anyone possibly appreciate another's internal world? "Ishaan's father ... is a successful, shrill and busy executive". What does "shrill" mean here? He's got a high-pitched voice? I could go on and on. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So is your problem mainly related to the plot section? Someone else wrote that section, and I haven't really analyzed it in detail. Ωphois 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I went through and tried to correct any of those instances in the plot section. Coincidentally, the other user working on the article just redid/trimmed a lot of the lead that contained the instances mentioned above. Ωphois 01:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the plot section was definitely the worst, but there are some problems in other areas as well. For instance "He discovers that Ishaan is dyslexic and helps him to excel". Excel at what? Everything? "Excel" seems a strange choice of word here. Also, "The film initially was to retain the short story's title due to Ishaan's inability to achieve the high jump in gym class"; we're told this too late, in the previous section we're told that the story was originally called "High Jump" without explanation. It would be best to put these two bits together. It should be "... because of Ishaan's inability" in any event, not "due to". "He decided that his primary cinematic technique for the film would rely upon relatively little camera movement because he believed that the audience should not be aware of the camera." This seems a bit muddled; what was this primary cinemtic technique that he relied on? Wasn't the "relatively little camera movement". the technique itself? Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed all those instances except the last. The cinematic technique phrasing is based on comments made by the director. Do you think it would sound better to say that "his primary cinematic technique for the film would involve relatively little camera movement"? Or "He decided to allow relatively little camera movement because he believed..."? Ωphois 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably try something like "his primary cinematic technique for the film was to allow relatively little camera movement". Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I relistened to the commentary, and he doesn't say "primary cinematic technique". With this in mind, would "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that would allow relatively little camera movement."? Ωphois 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that involved relatively little camera movement" might be slightly better. BTW, isn't there now a symbol for the Indian currency, like there is for the pound sterling and the dollar? Should the article be using that? Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the change regarding the cinematic technique. As for the rupee, there is now a symbol for it. Right now, though, I think Wikipedia just uses a small image of it rather than regular text. Ωphois 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the redemption line that you just changed... Another user and I were debating the wording of it with regards to the commentary. A discussion on that and a quote of the commentary can be found on the talk page. Ωphois 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just making a suggestion, feel free to change it to whatever you think is better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. But do you think the sentence makes sense as "Ishaan's 'strict, hard, dominating father' who does not accept failure in his children, but is ultimately redeemed for this behavior by his change in outlook."? Ωphois 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To be completely honest no, I don't. I'm not the final arbitrator on anything here though, so perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ye sneaky letter-writer

Half-way there now. I've nominated it at GAN, would you give it a quick read over to see if there's anything important I've missed? I've approached this from a different angle than the others, leaving much of the "fleeing through the Midlands" stuff out. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that Tresham wrote the letter? I'm inclined to believe that Salisbury wrote it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its odd. Re-reading the sources, what we have is Tresham's confession, which is pretty much a "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I tried to stop them, I really did" so that can be disregarded as the whole truth, although if he did author the letter, then why not say it then? That might have been a beheading for him, rather than a full HD&Q, so that counts against him writing it. Then again, he did book himself a ticket abroad, just in case the plot succeeded. Sitting on the fence methinks? Tresham was hanging around with the plotters for several months beforehand but claimed to have been introduced to the plot at a very late stage. Either his fellows didn't trust him, or he was lying. I'm inclined to believe the former, given that he was the first to be suspected when the letter became known - although we have him apparently pleading for Monteagle and Stourton's lives (from Fawkes's and Wintour's confessions), and being rebuked by Catesby (which might also be why they suspected him).

So either an untrustworthy and hot-headed man who apparently wasn't that willing a conspirator wrote it, and for some reason never mentioned it—or Salisbury authored it to protect a source. No-one will ever know, unless more documentation is found. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another great piece of work. I can't see that having too many problems at GAN, or even FAC come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about FAC, I might have a think about that one. I have a feeling that by the time I've done the remaining miscreants, I'll be a world bloody expert on the Gunpowder Plot! Parrot of Doom 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I got so fed up of seeing that redlink to Anne Vaux that I finally created an article on her. What I hadn't realised is that she's also one of the suspects for having written that warning letter to Montegle. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone so willing to stick two fingers up at the establishment, she certainly lived a long time. You'd have expected her to have died in the Tower. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bollocks to it, GA takes ages to get a review and I'm 100% confident it'd pass with only minor problems anyway, so I'll have a punt at FAC. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the spirit! Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like you've fallen foul of one of FAC's regular grumpies, bad luck. I'm seriously beginning to wonder it's worth all the bad-tempered hassle. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Its a fair point (and now corrected) but it does appear as though perhaps he only read that far before declaring his objection. I'm not bothered though, support or object I know for certain that its one of the best online summaries of the man's life. Parrot of Doom 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You deserve to be sanctified; he fixed it himself and then opposed, after having not read the whole article by his own admission. I'm not sure why, but my patience with wikipedia has grown very thin over the last few weeks, as no doubt has its patience with me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Don't make the mistake of thinking you're the only one who spots things like that though. There are plenty more people just as analytical, its just a shame that not all of them are northerners like us :) Parrot of Doom 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid after reading that sentence I lost interest in reading the rest. I might well return, especially if I see it has been given a good going over by others. I was hoping it it was going to be about his rather more interesting father in fact. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a job for someone else I'm afraid, I'm doing the plotters, perhaps Henry Garnet, and them I'm outta there. Parrot of Doom 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Railroading

Please say what you mean about me having railroaded the Pound FAC process. I opposed the nomination because it wasn't ready for FA, either in terms of MoS-compliance, which I care less about, or in terms of writing and substance, which matters a lot. I didn't only oppose; I've also been helping to fix it, and it's a lot better now than it was. Here's the version as nominated; and here's the current version. The nominator and I were in touch by e-mail, and I specifically asked whether the help was welcome, and was told it definitely was, and in no uncertain terms. Since then we've been exchanging e-mails about which sources to focus on, and which bits we should try to develop, so until your remark it seemed to me to be a constructive collaboration.

This isn't the first time you've made a comment about my FA reviews, so I'd like to know what you mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just weighing in here quickly before I go to work. Yes, I have told SlimVirgin that the help was welcome. The problem with this page, in my mind, has always been content. Requests have been made to editors to have a look at the article with little to no response. What response has been given has been along the lines of copy-editing, but I've always felt the content was problematic and I'm happy to have SlimVirgin step up and help. She's correct in that the article was nominated prematurely which is why I've twice requested delisting. I should have ignored any suggestions to list, but didn't. Perhaps I shouldn't have had an off-wiki discussion during a FAC but I had personal issues I didn't really want to share with the entire world. I guess that's impossible in this world of Wikipedia, so here's the problem: during the summer I lost vision in my right eye but continued working on the page because I became interested in Pound. A little over two weeks ago I had surgery to restore vision - all good - but resulted in almost daily migraines. So now everyone knows. I cannot work on this page alone, and if someone wants to step up and help I'm fine. If the result of the FAC is good feedback and a better article, I'm happy. Sometimes taking a difficult page to FAC is what it takes to get reviews and good feedback. At this point my feeling is that if the page is archived that's fine, if not I'll continue to work on it. Either way it will improve and progress will be made. As for any history that exists between SlimVirgin and Malleus - I'd prefer it not be brought to this FAC. But this is Wikipedia and it's hard sometimes to control these things. I'm going to work now and won't have access to a computer or any electronic device for the rest of the day. Carry on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean that there's a line between collaborating and taking over that you sometimes seem to overstep. It's your opinion that the FAC was premature, not a fact, and at least one other reviewer doesn't agree with you that it's not ready now. Your determination seems to me just to have the FAC withdrawn, perhaps so that you yourself can bring it back later? Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ABF is amazing, Malleus. You think I want to have the FAC withdrawn so I can submit it myself? I don't know who you think you are that you can speak to people like that.

I've put a ton of work into trying to help with this, because it clearly wasn't ready for FAC, but it's a subject that's worth doing well. I hate opposing at FAC and only do it when it would feel dishonest not to, and if there's clear potential I prefer to help fix things and not leave the nominee hanging with an oppose to sort it out themselves.

But the point is that I don't think you should comment on other people's opposes at FAC. The whole point of FAC is to get lots of different views, unlike GA which is just one opinion. That variety can be lost if one reviewer is going to second-guess the others, and you do it a fair bit, though I've not seen people do it to you. So please, offer your own opinion about the articles, but not about other reviewers. No one should have to justify themselves to you, and you have no right to turn other people's desire to muck in and be helpful into some ulterior motive and toxic experience. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked me and I told you. It's got nothing to do with good or bad faith, notions that I think are intended to encourage the credulous to suspend their analytical abilities and to fall in step the crowd. Anyway, you've had your way, the FAC has been archived, so there's nothing more to say. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Please don't try and teach me how to suck eggs; I'm perectly well aware of how FAC and GAN work in practice and in theory, certainly at least as well informed as you are SV, so back off. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try to have the last word here. I don't like conflict and am sorry this happened. As it happens, both of you have been very helpful and supportive, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

SV and I disagree about a great many things, this has just been another one of them. It's all over now anyway and I wish you well with Ezra at your next attempt at the north face of FAC, assuming that there's going to be one of course. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to fail and I don't like to quit, so I expect there'll be another attempt. I think a little time away from that page and some work on other articles is what I need at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Sale, Greater Manchester took about 5 goes to get to FA. I wouldn't worry about it. Parrot of Doom 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Six actually, not quite a record but it must be close. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember it well (I was on time, no you were late ...). Sale was a tough gig, and it was the start of my fall from grace here on wikipedia, and I've never looked like recovering since. The moral of the story is ... well work it out for yourselves. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• There's nowhere really where my fundamental objections to the approach of reviewers like SV can be discussed, as it's endemic, not confined to FAC. SV is however an administrator and therefore outranks me, so my only recourse is not do any more reviews. It's no big deal though, as I know what makes a decent article even if others don't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have two points to make about this and then I hope we can put it to rest. In my view your argument would hold greater weight if six of the seven reviewers / commenters on the FAC page supported and only one opposed. As it happens, one opposed, one supported and the others commented. So in this case I think consensus is clear - one reviewer felt the article was FA ready, one not, and the rest sat on the fence. My second point goes to the difficulty of core topic articles. As it happens, Ezra Pound is a core biography, but it's just really difficult for a single editor to take on a large topic like this. While I was working on the page, I followed the various threads about why editors avoid core topics, thinking that I'm quite the idiot to attempt to overwrite/rewrite a big subject. So, in essence it's basically true that the big articles are near-to-impossible to finish. As it happens I'd like to see more of them upgraded and improved because I have students who go to Wikipedia for information and they don't go to find out about single episode television shows (not that I'm putting down single episode television shows!). At any rate I've learned from this experience, I'm a little burned out and need to regroup before deciding how to go forward. I posted on SlimVirgin's page that I'd like to see the article gain Good Article status, and I might pursue that in the next few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually your argument would hold more weight if the FAC had been allowed to run its course. Consensus is established at the end of the process, not at arbitrary points within it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I asked for the process to be stopped. So I'm a petulant child. Shall we have a fight about it or just drop it? If we fight you'll beat me to a pulp - though I might find myself getting really angry and I don't want to do that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Is there any point in continuing with this? You claimed that there was a consensus and I simply pointed out that that wasn't true as the FAC wan't allowed to run to completion. No doubt you and SV will in the fullness of time be able to produce the version that SV wants to write, but to be honest I'm past caring. Malleus Fatuorum 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Okay, I made a mistake about consensus. I apologize. Yes, I think we should drop it. I'm past caring too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Really guys, it isn't worth getting worked up over. You've all done a tremendous amount of work to improve an important article, so who cares if it wouldn't currently pass as an FA? I've worked on a few articles where, at the end, I've thought "bloody hell that's a good article". Then a few months later I look at it and notice all kinds of issues I previously hadn't. What I tend to ask myself is, "can I find a better, more reliable online biography on Joe Bloggs than the one I've helped write here?" If your answer to that is no, then you can consider your efforts a success. And at the end, you've all probably learned a lot about someone whom, until recently, you knew little or nothing. Parrot of Doom 12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, much as I hate to reignite an old flame, I was gone for the last week, just catching up now. Since what I saw the last time, revitsing, I think were were dead right on this one. Railroading. I think the cmt, "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone", was intended to neutaralise youself and myself, and notice the irony of how SV has disregarded her own advice and been heavily editing since. To be straightforward and frank, TK is too nice for tactics like this, and my strong impression is that there is pressure happening in back channels. I get the strong sence TK is vey upset at the way she is being talked to, offline. She has gone cold on a page she was very heavily invested in just a week ago. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony of SV's "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone" and the reality of her effectively forcing her own view on the article hasn't escaped me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I sure you can appreciate the fustration of investing so much in a page, months and months of reading, notes, adding, tweaking, more reading, more adding, and on such a massively difficult subject, and then well, railroading, and attack. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can indeed. I think it's a crying shame that FAC can so often end up being rather a negative experience. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand. I've had a fair few negative experiences at FAC, but I've never had the article wrestled from me. Thats a different thing to having the shit kicked out of you. A beating I can handel, loss of control I cant. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd unwatched this page so hadn't seen these comments until SlimVirgin's accusation that I criticised her off-wiki. Yes, Malleus she asked that I respond to the railroading comment. I did find it unhelpful when the FAC was still open. I find these speculation unhelpful as well. I want to be very clear that it's speculation - I haven't shared any e-mail with anyone. I thought I didn't do wiki-drama. Apparently I do. But I won't in the future, because I won't be here to. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any off-wiki discussion of this article, and nor do I want to. SlimVirgin asked me a question and I gave her an answer. That she doesn't like my answer is no concern of mine, I stand by what I said. Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How could you? Your email is disabled. Anyway, all water under the bridge now, as far as I'm concerned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My email is not disabled, although it was for a while a month or two ago. I will simply say that I think you made a mistake in discussing this article's "improvements" by email with one other editor, as that gave a clear sign that nobody else's input was either welcomed or valued. Nothing good can come from continuing with this discussion, as the facts are plain to see, but as you say, it's water under the bridge now. I will be on the lookout for similar bridges in the future, and I will be avoiding them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know, as I walk away, that yes the facts are plain. But having you turn your back hurt. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Current state of play

Well, I've now created 75 new articles, but I don't have the autoreviewer "right". I've reverted far more vandalism than have most administrators, but I don't have the rollback "right". Although I've probably reviewed far more articles than most of those granted with the reviewer "right" I'm not a reviewer. I refuse to have any of these "rights" at all, but very few seem concerned about why that is. I guess they're more concerned with chasing baubles. I'm really not sure that wikipedia is for me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why. You do a lot of good here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my way out here, and it might be constructive to wonder why that is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, other than rollback, I was just given the others without asking. For whatever reason, maybe someone didn't happen to notice that you didn't have them...? I suppose someone may see this and give it to you, or you could just go through the maze of pages to find out where to ask for it. In the meantime, I'm becoming increasingly cynical in the wake of the climate change arbcomm case (in which after 4 months of dramahz and deliberation, it seems like they are just going to topic ban everyone), but I'd rather not be. (No offence meant, Rlevse: I just don't get it.) My talk page is welcome to you if you need to bitch, Awickert (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can give you the rights now, but you say in your stmt that you don't want them. Do you in fact want them? If you don't tell us what's wrong, merely wondering won't help us fix it. We need to know in order to act. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Awickert - admins have noticed, and some have even tried to give him the rights whether he wants them or not - see his rights log. Malleus - I've read some of this discussion before, but okay, I'll bite: why is that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I called Malleus a douche nozzle for not taking reviewer rights. They were thrown at him. I up the ante to dingus. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He holds issue with the ability of admins to threaten the removal of aforementioned rights, ie. "If you don't keep in line, I'll remove your rights." ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. He was also told by admins who have worked closely with him previously that that sort of bullshit would be overturned immediately, like when Witch Hazel sprints away and her hairpins fly around. That quickly. He didn't or doesn't want to give it a chance. Things suck in many ways, in many places, under many circumstances, but they don't change unless people let them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen enough of the bullshit that gets thrown at decent admins like yourself when they step in to defend me. Contrary to what Rlevse apparently believes I do not believe that the entire admin corps is corrupt, but I believe that too much of it is, and that their effective unacountability encourages such corruption. As Giano says, if I have nothing then nobody can threaten to take it away from me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anything that some crazy admin can unilaterally remove, or threaten to remove. Let me give you an an example of how petty and dishonest some admins can be. I was once given a barnstar by someone who is now an admin who took it back a little later because I'd upset him. During his RfA that editor promised to be open to recall, but conveniently forgot after being given his cloak of invulnerability, and nobody gives a shit. I call that despicable, you may call it just the way that wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - so you don't want it because of how it is managed, but you are angry that you don't have it? Is it that you think that it should be a right as opposed to something an admin can take away? In that case, changing the policy through which these things are handled is something that is bigger than you. Awickert (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm angry about how wikipedia is managed, and by whom. I will not accept any of these "rights" until there's an honest system in place for their removal. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for butting in, but I'm curious: what process would you propose using to determine whether the rollback, autopatrolled, and reviewer user roles should be removed? –Grondemar 05:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd start at the other end, and look at how they're granted. Part of the problem is that these "rights" have to be awarded by an administrator, and so those doing the awarding feel that they equally have the right to remove those awards. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you're right, it's despicable. A barnstar? And only one? And one that an admin can "wield", at that? You're better than that, even if you "upset" some admins. If you don't want to stick around, then don't, but do it on your terms only. You know whether Wikipedia is for you or not, and no one - admin or otherwise - can decide that for you, no matter how much some would like to think they can. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, and completely off-topic, is "Malleus" two syllables or three? I'm terrible with pronunciation...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Three. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I second what Nikkimaria said in the box above. Whatever you do, make sure that it makes you happy. Awickert (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're mad at the entire admin corps because of this one barnstar incident? Not all admins are corrupt and despicable. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a monkey's arse about barnstars. What I'm mad about is that none of you admins addressed the dishonesty of promising something during an RfA that this admin clearly had no intention of actually doing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know which admin/RFA you're talking about so I'm at a loss here. How many other admins knew of this at the time? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt if I told you which admin it was that would be interpreted as a personal attack on him, but several admins were aware. I'm sure that you could find out who they were if you really wanted to, but prominent among them was User:Keeper76. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, even to the most fanatical Civility Police, to just state facts; the user in question was User:Epbr123, and the barnstar incident was more than a year before he became an admin; it was before even I was an admin, let alone Keeper76. AFAIK nobody involved at the time was actually an admin. – iridescent 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about the barnstar incident, that was just petty childishness. It's the subsequent failure to honour a promise made at his RfA that I'm bothered about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether he would actually honour it is another thing—there have notoriously only been only two successful recall procedures where the recalled admin actually made good on their promise to resign (one of which being our old buddy User:Herostratus, incidentally)—but Epbr does list himself at Wikipedia administrators open to recall. – iridescent 22:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I remember seeing your old username in a book a couple years back, but I like the new one better. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracing

I've fixed the review points; thanks a bundle for reviewing something even I find bloody boring. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're ploughing a pretty lonely furrow with these legal articles, so I'm just helping where I can in my small way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated :). The plan is to get a Good Topic out of English trusts law, with full and up-to-date good articles on every element. Should be fun if I can do it. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Law" and "fun" in the same paragraph, that's got to be a first. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're a long way from home for me, and I've been promising myself some time to work on the later Lancashire witch trials, as well as some of the Scottish ones, to say nothing of Matthew Hopkins. I wish you all luck though with what is a fascinating episode in American history. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR begging

Hi Malleus! There are a couple of FARs that could use your opinion, if you would like to give it:

• WP:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Selena/archive1 (this is a pop culture/music one, not your normal fare, so I don't know if you'll be interested)

Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest. If not, no worries! Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've commented on the World Science Festival, but I'll need to think about Selena. That looks like rather an ill-tempered review, and I've had about enough of those for a while. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the WSF review. The Selena one has gotten a little heated at times; I can see your point about not wanting to get involved :) Another one, though, that I came across if you're interested: Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Catlins/archive1. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alsager

Hello. I am not spamming, I am simply adding a useful information to the page and adding the source of the information I contribute. Could you please let me know what makes you think I am spamming? I am simply following Wikipedia's rules to include the source of the information I enter into the system.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are spamming, please stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really not spamming. Seriously. A friend of mine added this info with her account and when it was removed, I added it with my account to see if this was an issue with her account being relatively new. Feel free to remove the links / brand names if you think I am spamming but I don't believe it is fair not to include the source of the information you enter into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Emrahomuris, the link you are adding is a commercial website, and as such can be considered spam. Also, extensive information on housing prices, such as you are adding, is not something that should be located on WP. Please see city articles listed at WP:GA and WP:FA - none of them have information like this included. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Big thank you!

Malleus, you are saving my ass over on the SWT page. Thank you for your help and generous support. I am really trying to improve the content of the page, but I'm not great at the code stuff--I am a writer, but not a computer person, and I get confused. Right this minute we're working together on the page, which is terrific. I just wanted to say a more personal thanks. And by the way, I agree with your banner message here at the top of your talk page. It's hard for me to edit on Wiki, and I don't feel very welcome often. But I'm going to try to hang in there and get done stuff that matters to me. I hope you'll do the same, because we need you--I need you. --TEHodson 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an important article, and it deserves some attention. Sadly though it looks like only you and I have stepped up to the plate so far. I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't get involved, but well, you know. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, had decided not to go back after all the fuss, but then I imagined school children reading the article and I just cringed. I will keep at it until I either burn out or get attacked again. Where are you? I'm on the west coast, USA. --TEHodson 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know where you are (I have excellent eyesight). You are in the North of England, Manchester area, I imagine. It's funny, but I ran into The Parrot of Doom once, when he dissed me (mildly) on another witch trial page. He made me laugh, actually, and when I went to his talk page to check him out, I saw you there. So you see, we must be related. --TEHodson 05:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your eyesight is indeed excellent. In fact, Parrot of Doom and I live only a few miles apart. Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I just came on and discovered that the user who has been driving us nuts on the SWT page has been blocked due to harrassment of others. This is my first taste of Wiki drama--I didn't report him, but I guess other users had had enough. Anyway, now maybe we can get some work done. Oh, and tell the Doom Parrot I said, Hi. You gotta love a guy whose talk page introductory note essentially says, "Don't fuck me about or I'll eat your children." --TEHodson 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

Interesting discussion on WP:TFAR about Grace Sherwood. It caused me to take a look at the above article which, unsurprisingly, is as shit as they come. Do you fancy taking it on at some point, as we did with Gunpowder Plot? If only to eliminate the largely irrelevant Trick or Treat section. Parrot of Doom 09:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We could have a go at it if you like, but probably best not to start until after this year's Halloween. Looks like it needs a lot of TLC though. Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I might start hunting around to see what I can find. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any reason ...

I shouldn't co-nom you with Jersey Act? Not your usual "I didn't do much" but any plans for other articles to go up at FAC of yours? (I just ignore your modesty ... you do a lot and I wish there was more I could do to praise/support/etc you). And if you want to wordsmith a bit more and remove more "act"s, I'm good with that. We can't get away from titling the article that (It's pretty much the "common name" but there is no reason to not make it clear in the text that it was not a "real" act. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason I can think of; I've got nothing in the pipeline for FAC. I think the "Acts" are pretty much OK now as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Malleus, I see you have done a lot of work on Simon Byrne today. Thanks for that - I appreciate it. I won't be joining in the FARC fun myself - the instigator is already spoiling for a fight and I've been there too many times and have too many T shirts to prove it. I see my goal at Wikipedia these days as raising dull old stubs to half decent pages - rather than spending ages arguing ascendingly pedantic points over already half decent pages with those too lazy or too stupid to insert the latest requirement and whim themselves. It's always a complete mystery to me that with so many truly dreadful pages to chose from, people who consider themselves intelligent choose to spend years of their lives trawling Wikipedia' finest in order to nit-pick rather than doing something useful and constructive. Very sad.  Giacomo  18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have got myself involved in a few of these FAR/GARs recently, partly because I think it's often lazy to nominate an article for review instead of making an effort to fix it up to meet whatever the current requirements are. I feel much the same about the disfiguring tags too often inserted into articles, when a few moment's work could resolve the issue. I've been battling with the Salem witch trials today as well though, so I haven't spent as much time on Simon as I might otherwise have done. I've yet to do a proper search of what sources are available to fill in the citation gaps being complained about, but I'm not one to give up without a fight. A bit like Simon himself really I suppose. I know where you're coming from in raising stubs to something better, and I often do the same myself; it's a lot less hassle, but the grey goo still needs to be kept at bay as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, there are worse ways of keeping the grey goo at bay than taking a beautiful Autumn day off work to take clandestine interior shots with mobile phone concealed in a guide book [1] - and feel one has scored a victory over the retired and sensible looking establishment figures who patrol such places - it's just far more rewarding than banging one's head aganst a brick wall here in order to score a short-lived victory over an unworthy opponent.  Giacomo  19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Simon Byrne's FAR isn't a fight with the nominator for me, it's a fight to do enough to the article so as to avoid the next phase, which surely can't be all that hard? Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are right because in my experience, once de-listed these people forget all about a page as they scurry off to seek out the next victim. Leaving the old former FA a muddled mess of half fixes and views and if the original authors whose work and integrity has been rubbished don't fix it up then it declines further. Quite how that is supposed to help the project, I have never understood.  Giacomo  20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Once the spotlight is switched off the article tends to abandoned to its fate, and that doesn't really help anything. Hence it's worth fighting for at FAR/GAR. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Category add

Hello, could you add a category to Cement lorry rammed into Leinster House. I haven't found anything suitable to add. Thanks. (I asked Ceoil, but he seems to be away) Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already got three categories, isn't that enough? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies...must've not refreshed the page 0.o .Smallman12q (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy call

Yes, really, a courtesy call from me to you. I don't know that you will necessarily want to wade into this conversation, but I was reviewing open unblock requests and found that at User talk:Protector of Wiki our relationship or lack thereof has somehow become at least the partial focus of PoW's unblock request and nobody bothered to tell either of us. It seems he wishes to paint himself as your disciple. I'll just leave it that, you can see it for yourself . Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. What an extraordinary discussion; how on Earth did I get dragged into that unblock request? I'm not particularly happy to see so many familiar faces trotting out their distaste for me over a matter that's got absolutely nothing to do with me, but I'm sure you'll understand that I've got no intention of taking part in that discussion, and probably neither should you. On balance though I'd probably be inclined to endorse your "I would feel compelled to oppose unblocking someone who adopted Malleus as their role model". Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale Observer needs panel-beating

Could you possibly softly swing your hammer into this little stub?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't do "softly". ;-) What is it you want help with? Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC question

Malleus, could I ask a favour? I've opposed the FAC of Old St. Paul's Cathedral, here, and I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether my oppose is reasonable. Some of the points I raise are marginal or subject to interpretation; my main concern is finding so much to say so near the top of the article. If someone were to oppose a FAC of yours with the comments I've made, would you feel that was fair? Mike Christie (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's always going to be "miffing" to get an oppose, but I don't see anything unfair in your comments. There does seem to have been a subtle change in the sense of what some of the sources say and the interpretation in the article– your very valid comment about the "series of storms" caught my eye in particular. It also struck me that nothing you raised seemed to be particularly difficult to fix, so if it was my nomination I'd just fix it, look for other places where the same issues may have been introduced, and fix them as well. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the second opinion; I thought I was being fair but it's always helpful to hear someone else's take. I agree that it doesn't seem that hard to fix. I was tempted to go and edit the article myself and fix some of the issues, but I don't want to treat FAC as a place to find articles to work on -- I think FAC works better if the conveyor belt moves reasonably quickly. Thanks again -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...And speaking of Manchester...

Who ever thought that the Manchester Police twitter feed would make headlines on this side of the pond? Seems there is at least one thing that Canada and Britain have in common...terrible use of emergency services... Risker (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the British probably have more in common with the Canadians than with the Americans. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

¡La lucha de las galletas continúa!

Every time I think this country's history couldn't get any weirder, it manages to surprise me. I can't imagine any other place having a thousand-year tradition of congenital disability-themed baked goods. This in particular has surely got to be the second most disturbing biscuit-related image on Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice article, could perhaps even make a good April 1 contender. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a bit reluctant for the same reason I was reluctant when Tarrare was suggested; although these people are all long-dead (and quite possibly apocryphal) there are plenty of real people with similar conditions. While I'm sure every real-life conjoined twin has long since got over the fact that people stare and point, there seems something a bit mean-spirited about playing what are effectively articles about disabilities for laughs. If it were suggested for TFA, I'd want to run it by the WP:DISABILITY people first to gauge their opinion on how offensive people are likely to consider it. (If it runs anywhere, I'd rather it be Easter. I can guarantee it would get vandalised to hell and back, though.) – iridescent 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, but there's always somebody ready to be offended by anything. While you're here can you tell me why I can't move London Prize Ring rules to London Prize Ring Rules? Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because London Prize Ring Rules had a history, so needed to be deleted to make way for the other version. Now done. – iridescent 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Sometimes not having that delete button can be a bit of a PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Could I trouble you to do the same with the Marquess of Queensberry rules? Malleus Fatuorum

✓ Done. While I'm here, can you see a DYK in Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst? It feels like it ought to be brimming with them, but I can't see anything particularly catchy. That image really deserves a turn on the main page. – iridescent 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One jumps out at me: "... that conjoined twins Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst argued frequently and often came to blows?" What a nightmare that scenario conjures up! Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to go with anything that treats them as definitely genuine; the story reeks of bullshit to me. When Bondeson talks about it being impossible to dismiss, he's talking about the medical possibility; it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that any woman in 12th-century Kent would own 20 acres of land, let alone non-Norman conjoined twins. (I'd have thought they'd be more likely either to be killed and exorcised as demons—an 1100 birth would have had them born at around the time William II died, and after all that "comet of 1066" business the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't welcome anything that looked like a portent of doom—or else they'd have been shipped off to be exhibited in Normandy.) – iridescent 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that the story is bullshit, but then so is DYK most of the time. :-) Whether they were real or not is impossible to know, and doesn't seem all that important to me now, nearly a thousand years later. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Knock yourself out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hrs

The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end. It doesn't cover blatantly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT denial that someone else saw it as a personal attack and continuing to insist that they couldn't reasonably have done so.

Good faith and your sincere belief that the civility rules are way too harsh covers the original comment. But when you reject anyone else's having taken offense as illegitimate, you're disavowing responsibility for the effects that you have on others. And that is abusive. You are responsible for those effects, even if you feel that you're within your rights to make biting commentary and use naughty words. When they offend people, their taking offense is as legitimate a reaction as your sincere belief that the civility rules are too harsh. When you belittle them or ridicule them for complaining, it delegitimizes your original stance.

I believe you that you had no intent to abuse Cirt originally; you did so in responding as you did. You don't have to agree with people who complain about your comments, nor do you have to meekly abide by every "Oh, he used a naughty word!" complaint.

Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend. "I didn't mean that as a personal attack" and not questioning their motives would be a perfectly neutral and non-escalating position to take that doesn't delegitimize your feelings about the civility policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.