User talk:Eric Corbett - Wikipedia

hello,

if I could but have a moment of your time, I was wondering if you could perform a copyedit on Otis Redding, which is imho not that far from getting the bronze star. I don't want to nominate it once again on GAN, because I can not find anyone who will review it ;P. I think it just needs copyediting, no large overhauls. I want to bring it to FA status to see it on the Main Page at least somewhen in December; you know, it is his 44th anniversary, that poor guy died only at the age of 26. But I can also wait one year till September; that's not a problem, but, like I said, it would be nice to at least try it out.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)} Reply

There was a very moving radio documentary on BBC Radio 2 a few months back, on Redding, presented by Suzi Quattro. If I were you I'd track it down, it offers a very human story with lots of interviews and anecdotes from the people who worked with him. Parrot of Doom 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean [1]? Unfortunately it is not available anymore. Thanks anyway.--♫GoP♫_T^CN 10:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are ways and means. I can get it for you and shove it onto a dropbox link if you like. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, why not :). Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 14:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}Reply

Can you please copyedit this article? It is not very large.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)} Reply

Surprisingly, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

BTW, is page 335 of this any good to you? I can grab that illustration if you can use it. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's a good find, thanks. I'm coming around to the idea that gong farmer is too specific a Tudor job title for the article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

We could sort out night soil, perhaps eventually merging gong farmer into that? There's plenty to write about, I found loads when doing pail closet. The above book is very interesting. Parrot of Doom 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that approaching the subject via night soil is probably the way to go. But of course it's not a subject that anyone but us would consider to be "vital" or "core", or worth shit. So to speak. . Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm busy writing a new version of rag and bone man, so I'll be with you right after I've sorted that out. Shouldn't take long. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just in case I forget, but here's an interesting document with some more images you might be able to use. Parrot of Doom 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Malleus! First, I would like to thank you for your help with promoting the Spotted Eagle Ray and Quoll to GA's. My classmates and I are ecstatic for their well-deserved accomplishment. I also wish to ask if you would help me with my article, the Sand tiger shark. I have had a couple of reviews, and have added a great deal of content. I would greatly appreciate your help and look forward to your response. Thanks again! --UND77 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course. If not later today then tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I look forward to your suggestions. --UND77 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey Malleus (and TPS), could I possibly get a sanity check on my prose-related comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hip-hop_dance/archive1? The nominator says he paid for a professional to edit the article; I'm of the opinion he should ask for a refund, but I'd like to make sure I'm not completely on the wrong track. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

He should definitely ask for his money back, that's a pretty poor job. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Admittedly it's not much of a dream, more a bed of red-hot coals, but I'd like to reach 125,000 edits before I leave this place to the kiddies. I reckon it's looking like 50:50 right now. Would it be against some Wikipedia policy to set up a book on how likely I am to last that long? Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have 121,152 edits as of 00:55:02.2421 on December 6, 2011, so you're about 96.9216% of the way there. HurricaneFan25 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the main problem is that people will be wary of you (or some of your friends) colluding in a set up, as in making 124,990 edits then taking a dive (I'm assuming you're perfectly capable of getting yourself blocked in 9 edits or less). So you basically need an outside, independent, and trustworthy, uh promoter, to run this for you. Which I'd be very happy to do. For a small commission of course. Volunteer Marek  00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can talk about how we split the money off-line, in our private IRC channel. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And BTW Marek, I could get myself blocked in at most two edits; there's no substitute for class. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can get themselves blocked with a single edit. The hard part is to make it look like you're NOT trying get yourself blocked - and that might take more than two as you feign a faux and feeble fight in phony faith to fend off the fiendish functionary fools. Volunteer Marek  01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)#Reply

Nice alliteration, 8/10. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've had the idea on my mind for some time now of nominating Reculver for GA, any chance of you racking up some edits in reviewing it to that end? I'd be very grateful, as the article's been a bit of a pet project for me for personal reasons, and, frankly, if you're going to "leave this place to the kiddies" some time soon, I'd like to involve myself with you directly, through this, before you do, all crawling aside. I think you're right about the "kiddies", but the place will be missing something if you go. Cheers whether or no, and I'd happily bet you'll make it to 125,000 edits. Nortonius (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's in England, so of course I'm prepared to spend some of my remaining edits on helping you get it to GA. Just don't tell the Vital Articles Police. You ain't seen me, right? Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Haha thanks, that's great - Vital Articles Police? Malleus Who?! Never having bothered with a GAN before, shall I go ahead and set the ball rolling, or would you like to have a look first? In your own time obviously, I last did a proper edit to Reculver almost exactly a year ago! I just noticed that, as it happens, it was on the anniversary of John Lennon's death - maybe I was using it as distraction therapy, make of that what you will! And, there's a bit of inconsistency in the Notes and Refs, leftovers from a tentative experiment: I'm inclined not to adopt the relevant changes shown in this diff, but we can talk about that, see what you think? Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Give me a day or two to look through it, and if I appear to have forgotten about it then don't be afraid to nudge me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I've got a couple of busy days ahead anyway, including a White Russian evening while watching The Big Lebowski with my son and a friend! Nortonius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The references section does look a bit intimidating. For notes, I use {{#tag:ref|Noteworthy stuff here.<ref>Citation here</ref>|group="nb"}} - that, in combination with a separate references section, created with {{reflist|group="nb"}}, keeps things nice and tidy. For instance. Parrot of Doom 01:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does look intimidating, as a section - but the refs are self-contained, allow the reader to skip back and forth between them and the text, and... Well, thanks for the tip, but I can't yet get my head around the need for separate "Footnotes" and "Notes", I find the idea confusing - is that just me, or am I missing something? Feel free to educate me on the idea! Nortonius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You wouldn't have to use group=nb - you could use group=note, or group=more info, etc. It's just tidier (in my opinion). I'd never force that view on another though, as its just a preference. Parrot of Doom 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I can see that "group=more info" could work, and I appreciate that it's "just a preference", thanks - the format was first mooted for Reculver by Chzz, with whom I first collaborated years ago: he's been a real pal and all-round solid geezer, and IIRC he suggested that it might become expected of GAs, so I could see that there had to be something in it, but I just couldn't see what that something was, and let it slide at the time. Thing is, I learned my footnote-writing many moons ago, following the style of academic writing on early medieval English history, and the ability to expand on some details in footnotes is something that I found vital at the time - I suppose old habits die hard, but my tired old brain still can't see how offering two, parallel sets of notes tidies anything! That's an invitation to push me btw, if you can be arsed - no promises that it'll work, mind! Nortonius (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Listen to Parrot of Doom. He's one of the few here on Wikipedia who talks any sense. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm all ears, having started it! And, if I've learned anything from the nitwits one encounters on WP, it's to appreciate those who talk sense... Off to bed now, night all! Nortonius (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I prefer that layout mostly for aesthetic reasons, but I think it may be helpful to some readers to keep explanatory notes (NB, more info, etc) separate from citations. It has the benefit of keeping a little blue number for a citation, while also adding [nb] or [more info] to the prose for each explanatory note - that way, the reader knows that if he clicks that [nb], he may get the answer you thought he might like. But again, it's just a preference really. I've had arguments with some editors who think that it's "my way or the highway" so I'd never, ever, do anything other than suggest it. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've looked at Hanged, drawn and quartered (ugh!), and Chzz similarly pointed me to Marco Polo, and I think I'm getting it now - bear with me, my head's been this shape for a long time now! That is, I can see that one could feel a bit overwhelmed by some of the refs in Reculver, as there's so much in them. That's something that I'm used to and comfortable with, but I suppose the point is that it could be well outside many readers' comfort zones? So, I think I'm convinced. Which means that now, it's me that's intimidated - by the coding I'll have to learn, and the scale of the task! I think this is partly why I let it slide, when Chzz first suggested it. To be honest, I think I feel a little like MF these days - though I have put a lot of effort into some articles in the past, I've wanted to back away from the friction that often arises in WP; but sometimes I'll still get involved - popping up here asking for help with Reculver was spurred by an accidental urge to buff up Walkington Wold burials, which came over me only in the last couple of days - and so I'd like to use that to get obscure, remote, yet historically fascinating Reculver up to GA, in case I never feel the urge again.

In view of which, I think I'll tinker with the "tentative experiment" in the Reculver article in the next day or two, to straighten it out, and to explore what needs to be done. While I'm here, though, is there a citation template that renders a bibliography entry in a format like "Bloggs, J., Going for GA, Oxbridge, 2011."? Or "Bloggs, J., "How to do it", in Joseph, B. (ed.), It's Like This, Oxbridge, 2011, pp. 1-100."? I haven't seen one. Or would there be no need to use a citation template at all, even? Such is the level of my inexperience with these things... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to learn anything other than {{#tag:ref|blah blah<ref>citation</ref>|group="nb"}}. If you're interested in this format, for now, just shove all notes (ie - lots of text) inside those tag:ref brackets, along with any accompanying citations. The citations already in the article don't need to be changed. To make them display, all you need to do is create another section (like in the HD&Q article) and add {{reflist|group="nb"}} - it's that simple. Shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to do it.

For your second request, I've always used {{Citation | last = Bloggs | first = Joe | title = Book title | url = www.book.com | publisher = Penguin Books | year = 1989 | isbn = 123456789}} - that'll do something very similar to what you propose. You can also add links to authors, with "authorlink = article name". There are loads of other options, see Template:citation. Parrot of Doom 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks, that all sounds very reassuring - I'll have a stab at it in a bit, cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've copied and pasted the existing Reculver article into one of my subpage sandboxes and am working on it there - I'm afraid I was finding it waaay too taxing to risk doing it in the article itself, for fear of messing up a live page. No chance of me taking less than 30 minutes to do it... Anyway, probably any reviewing or copyediting should be done there for now? You're welcome to continue the Reculver part of this thread, or comment on what I've been up to, on the sandbox's virgin talk page. Bear in mind that changes so far are patchy, as I've been working through some of the "tentative experiment" I mentioned earlier, while constantly getting myself side-tracked. And, obviously ignore the Table of Contents there, as it's not where it would be in the main article, and includes everything in the sandbox, Reculver or not... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok - if or when you have the time, I've worked my way to the end of Reculver as it appears in my sandbox, and as I said above you're welcome to copyedit that or comment on the virgin talk page. I'm aware that the style of web citations is a bit erratic, I'll try to sort them out but I'd appreciate input if I'm doing it all wrong! One issue is that I don't always want to use "cite web" templates - but see what you think. I'm also concerned that there might be a few minor instances of OR, but I'm tempted to say no more - if you don't spot them, I shouldn't think anyone will, QED! But obviously I can give you pointers if you'd rather. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

<nudging MF>Hello, just letting you know I've moved my re-vamp of Reculver into article space, as I think it's pretty much there, though I'm under no illusions that it's perfect - lots of fiddling left to do, I suspect, but I think it looks fairly respectable. Anyway forget my sandbox, unless for some reason you want to take it back there. Cheers.</nudging MF> Nortonius (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

125,000? Nah, add a zero ... 1,250,000 would be much better :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the article is going to pass? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A reviewer wants all the quotes in the first paragraph here to be transformed into original prose. Please help. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why does he want that? Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know how reviewers are sometimes, right? They always have their this and that, just to... I prefer not to write it. See if you can reply him. I hope you are able to convince him. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you don't think you need to do it, then just don't, and state clearly, in the FAC, your reasons. Parrot of Doom 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know how they are and they will slam a big oppose there. I don't want that to happen. I asked seven copy-editors (so far) to paraphrase the quotes but i got no positive answer. Evidently, the quotes are difficult to paraphrase. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not at all, but the question is, is it worth doing? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, NO but i do not know how to convince him. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Where in the review is this being asked for? I can't see anyone asking for it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If the quotation is factual, better paraphrase and get the most essential. Regarding the video for "Single Ladies", Knowles said, "Out of all my videos, it was the least expensive and took the least amount of time. And it ended up being the most iconic. I just wanted to keep this one really minimal. But once we got on the set, it was like, wait a minute. This is something special."

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. See what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Actually the other quotes have to go as well because as he stated they are factual. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tell him to go take a long walk off a short pier. In your own words of course. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lol. What you wrote was so funny. Anyway, i think i will have to talk to him. He is asking for too much now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 20:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And: Second paragraph under "Response and accolades" is read like the staccato notes towards the end of her song "I Care". Its not written well, doesn't flow well. Needs trimming perhaps and transitions?

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for everything you have done for me. May God bless you. You are very kind, reliable and helpful. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am, despite all reports to the contrary. Good luck with your FAC; I think it's pretty much nip-and-tuck right now, so we may see a restart, to clarify positions. Whatever, the article is way better now than it was when you embarked on your quest. Malleus Fatuorum 07:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sure. Hey you remind me of someone on Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your name was invoked here, proving point 3. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some people appear to be adopting the Newspeak goodthink philosophy ahead of schedule. And what exactly does the word "attack" mean in this madhouse? Anything I don't like? Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Consider the source, and ignore it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying we should always use "owing to" in BritEng, or is "due to" okay in some circumstances? Chicago 5.220 prefers that "due to" be used only when "attributable to" would also work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's nothing to do with Br. English: "due to" modifies nouns, as in "my stomach ache was due to eating too quickly"; "owing to" modifies verbs as in "my stomach ache occurred owing to eating too quickly". Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Wow. I never knew that. It must be one of those things that I've picked up subconsciously. I should make time to actually read my copies of Fowler, Partridge et al. It can be bloody fascinating, this talk page, y'know. ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Split the inf. there, btw. Ho hum. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fowler is going to come in handy this winter now that we got the fireplace cleaned. Then again, sending so much pedantry through the smokestack, even if burned, is bound to seriously clog the damn chimney up. I mean, to clog up seriously the damn chimney. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My blocked chimney was due to fat Santa owing to all the pies he ate --Senra (Talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Philistine! Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you revert your edit, it was agreed upon to leave it the way it was before you came along, Anglo-Irish is not a nationality or an ethnicity and does not belong in the lede. Sheodred (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you really think your threats of ANI are likely to intimidate me? The Anglo-Irish epithet is informative and accurate. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

In case you haven't seen it. Parrot of Doom 09:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if a case could be made for that buried cottage being Malkin Tower. Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

apologies for dropping in what amazing news. I do have concerns though, the media has mudded the water a bit I think and hope. The cat from what I saw was a skeleton not mummified as those from Suffolk and now Tazmania! The only proven live animal buried in a wall that I know of was the chicken in a house in london. The eggs proved that! But what an historical resource - stunning. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

another thought, if it was a witches house why would they put a cat into the wall - what evil spirits were they seeking protection from, now there's a thought. `the bbc programme slot was good though over dramatised the witch house bit.Edmund Patrick – confer 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talking of dead things, I saw a group of Americans kicking a corpse round a stage last night, as grisly a sight as I have ever seen. Ning-ning (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't a Sarah Palin was it? Hope springs eternal. Parrot of Doom 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. Do you get points on your Nectar card for these? Once again, I'm sorry I wasn't around and/or didn't notice this. --John (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It does appear to be a sport, doesn't it! --Senra (Talk) 14:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Can we break it down?

I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's ever going to to be a general solution to this problem, but I do like the suggestion made by Ruhrfisch on Shackleton's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, though whilst it seems better to say "X was born in such-n-such a place, County Y, Ireland, and descended from an Anglo-Irish family who settled in 17xx" it is quite a mouthful. I believe that Anglo-Irish is quite an old socio-economic term, class, and rarely used in modern BLPs, if has its place in many articles regarding people from the 17-19th C. and that heritage is as important an identity as nationality. I wonder if the Americans have as many problems with the subsequent generations who derived from the English settlers who formed the colonies pre-revolution, or use of Anglo-American as we have with the Irish, assuming some American's weren't too proud to use that term. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MarcusBritish – history repeats itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am so tired of all these charges of incivility against all and sundry, as if that trumps everything. So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input in the AN/I and WQA. Don't think I'd go so far as to ban the Irish.. that courtesy should be extended only to extremists and fanatics of any political/religious group. And devoted fans of modern "music". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

How does that saying go? "When the shit hits the fan.." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Re: Sheodred — Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

..regardless of anything else (s)he might do in the interim.. Of course not Mall, I was simply trying to suggest some things that needed to be done. (Note: I was tempted to type "irregardless" in this reply somewhere just to make you cringe - but I figure you already get enough grief on WP). How you doing? Hope life is treating you well. Glad to see that you're still about on the old 'pedia. — Ched :  ?  19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I responded to the banner ad to take part in a survey organised by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and just made $21.60, far more rewarding than another fucking barn star! Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Definitely! More of that kind of banner adds please!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Same here, first time I've been paid for doing anything via WP. Though, I made $21.00, and gave half to the Red Cross - does that make me a wikisaint? Or is it all a wikicon? Nortonius (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

But how I hate Game theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

$15 - it randomly chose my lowest earning section, unless it was assessing the relative contributions Malleus and I make to the 'pedia (then tripling mine so I felt better). Hardly seemed worth keeping... I would have ignored that ad, Malleus, but for seeing this on my watchlist, so thanks for highlighting it. Bencherlite^Talk 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

So far I'm the winner then! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so I'm going to block you until you pay me your winnings. Stick 'em up, this is a robbery! Hah! Now we're talking admin abuse! Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to pay you a very great compliment, which is that I'd forgotten that you are an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Theoretically, I have $28 coming. Bielle (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well done, you must have been allocated rational partners. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I got $35! Winnah! ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you owe me half of that, because you probably wouldn't have followed the link if I hadn't mentioned it here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

So true, I'd actually closed that banner without a second thought until I saw money mentioned...I agree you have earned a reward. Have a hug. It's more valuable anyway. *cough* ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone wanna link it? I closed it back a while ago... on reflex (from all the Jimbo begging ads...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the link to the survey since closing it, but maybe someone else does? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't post a link, I don't think, because it requires a token. But I logged in on a different browser and the banner magically reappeared for me. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Heh. $15, and I was not nice and didn't donate any, mainly because I don't like the International Red Cross (I do donate to local chapters, just not big multinational organizations that aren't very accountable) and I donate quite enough to Wikipedia, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I should be on commission. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are a girl, right? I find hugs from blokes quite scary. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

edito conflicto I am, yes. Why are hugs from blokes scary? You get to do that man thing where you gruffly hit each other in the back in an affectionate way. At least I assume that's affection. Hmm. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm English; we don't go in for displays of affection, especially between gentlemen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm Scottish; all those hugging men I saw were probably trying to fight each other only they were too drunk to stand up without support. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

$29.60, nice. I was very generous/altruistic on one test & got $1 when B got $29, but made it up by being super-mean on another. Yes, more of these please. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was altruistic on all and still made 27 bucks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the link to the survey Bielle (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Issues are being raised about this survey. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mean here presumably? Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suppressed my banner-suppression preference too late, too late! The quota for the sample had already been met. But thanks for the heads up! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I got 100,000,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars. Did I do the right survey? Ning-ning (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My £12.98 came through today. My first ever earnings from Wikipedia. I'm impressed. Give me more. He he --Senra (Talk) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question

Returning to the top of the thread leads me to wonder: so how much is a barnstar worth? Suppose you have received a really nice barnstar, with kind words about your contributions and your general positive effect on Wikipedia. How much cash would you accept for it to be deleted, oversighted, gone without trace, so that it remains only a lingering memory?

That has to be a good question for the festive season :) Geometry guy 23:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My take on it: I would readily pay a small monthly amount for the privilege of editing an otherwise identical version of Wikipedia with no 'barnstars' and no 'talkback' templates. Hans Adler 02:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hans I bet your house is spartan, white and serious-looking....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My house is like a building site ... actually it is pretty much a building site right now. But to echo Hans, I'd be prepared to pay for a site that wasn't run by children with an inflated sense of their own importance and a surreal idea of incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My opinion on the value of barn stars is coloured by having one given and taken away within a few weeks, after having upset a (now) administrator. I generally ignore them, so the answer to your question is that I'd be quite content for them to be deleted without any payment whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Malleus edits wiki because he likes to, not to get awards. PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Me too, as you can see by the way I do not collect or maintain any record of my "achievements" or "awards" (I don't even have a user page). Nevertheless, I've received barnstars containing appreciative words from editors I admire (the above admin would not fall into such a category, obviously). How much is that worth in cash? I'm not sure, which is one reason I am asking the question. Geometry guy 00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's an interesting question, with potentially revealing answers. For myself, I'm much happier with a few words of thanks rather than a barn star; those words can't be taken away no matter what happens next. Basically I have no time at all for any rewards that can subsequently be withdrawn (I'm reminded of the shameful rule that VCs could be taken back if the recipient later did something unsavoury), which is why I have a minimal set of user rights here, not even rollback. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also value the words much more than any barnstar containing them (if there is one). It is interesting that you bring up user rights. I don't regards them as rewards, but as tools that help me to contribute when I need them. If someone were to take them away without good reason, then it would reflect badly on them, not on me, as they would be impairing my ability to help. Geometry guy 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I can't see why you don't have rollback, Malleus. That is, unless you don't want it for some reason. Any admin can just give it to you, and there's no need to go through the "requests for permission" gauntlet. It's very useful when, say, a little puke makes a bunch of bad edits quickly in a row on an article you've worked on (when others happen to be asleep at the switch). One click instead of a shitload of "undos". No rewards except for less time wasted. Doc talk 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And any admin can just take it away again, out of malevolence or spite. I find that with Twinkle I just don't need rollback anyway; in fact I used to have it until I asked for it to be removed as a matter of principle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Taken to its extreme that principle implies dropping all tools that anyone can take away, including all tools available to autoconfirmed users, the ability to edit as a user and have a user talk page, and even the ability to edit at all. Geometry guy 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

MF seems to have adopted Hurricane Carter's strategy for doing time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It does, but bear in mind I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I don't fit in here, and it's only a matter of time before I'm expelled for good, most recently here. I believe in the idea of knowledge being freely available, which is the only reason I'm still here, but I'm vehemently opposed to Wikipedia's social engineering experiment, and always will be. Particularly as it's largely policed by children. My survival strategy, such as it is, is that nobody can threaten to take away what I don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting diff - you can sometimes take things a bit too personally, Malleus, or take the views of one random editor (or misguided admin) as The View of Wikipedia. There are pretty much as many opinions as to what amounts to "civility" as there are editors, which means that none of us truly fit in. Given this, you may be as concerned as I am that the WMF is currently planning to include the concept of "civility" in a legal document on terms of use. If policing this asylum by children is a problem, then the way it is overseen is erm...I'm lost for words. Geometry guy 02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm concerned the WMF is fucking up big time, but I guess they have their reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I see their potential as long as there is some wittiness attached....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've got to be kidding ... civility in the TOS? They should rename it to POS. Btw Malleus, thanks much for your help with Uxbridge ... Milhist has one other old and graying British-themed FAC, Warkworth Castle. I've just finished my second run through, and I wound up with just two questions. It should be in pretty good shape if you want to give it a once-over. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I feel a bit bad about Uxbridge in a way, coming in late with a bunch of stuff, but I don't look at FAC all that often these days. Or GAN come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can come in any time you like, when you can spare the time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding civility in the TOS, my comment there has so far received no response. It will be interesting to see what the new week brings. Geometry guy 00:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Responded. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Once I built an encyclopaedia, made 2% of articles on which you could rely, once I compiled a cyclopaedia, brother can you spare a social science participant payment? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's the point, you will just shut it down in sympathy anytime there's a strike.  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove the link, it was broken and i was unsure of the correct spelling to fix it so i removed the link-tags, haha. Bobfordsgun (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re Herbert Blendinger: the "music information centre austria" spell their name like that. The major problem is not the spelling, but that they changed their website, and many links went dead. I fixed the ones I met, perhaps you want to keep an eye on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Malleus, I finished the teacher review and a peer review for the Greater Scaup. Two days ago, Mr. Butler told me that I should put it up for GA, so I did. I have been doing some work on it after I nominated it for GA, but I wanted to ask if you would please take a look at it now that I have started the GA push. Thank you --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you've got a good chance with that, but I'll keep it on my watchlist just in case. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, Mr. Butler seems to think the same thing as well. Thanks for all of your help with the article.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Who knows why I find this shit, but I was hunting for a good documentary and got a mediocre one about the band Cream. The verdict is out on those goddamn 20-minute drum solos, but there is more appeal in listening to Ginger Baker, who I decided sounds so much like your comments around here that I think you and he are the same.

Also, working on this article was fun for a Friday night. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I always thought that Cream were a bit pretentious, but individually they were undoubtedly good musicians. So far as drummers are concerned you'd have to go a long way to beat the manic Keith Moon. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A "Stairway to Heaven" in fact? --Senra (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you planning to take horse tranquilizers just as you go onstage at the Cow Palace? That would really give a fan in the audience a chance to...copy edit articles...in your place. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the tranquilizers was a bit silly ... if six is enough to kill you then why take thirty-two? Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bill Bruford is an amazing drummer, wry and articulate, especially on "Discipline" and "Indiscipline". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has raised a question on my talk page about the likelihood of getting good article status for an article where the preponderance of sources are not English (Russian, in this case). Would you take a look at User talk:LadyofShalott#Question and chime in with your thoughts? Thanks, LadyofShalott 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

is perhaps ask favor as you,,however has been guarantee for it this for you watching --> tunak tunak tun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdG_fey4_ow&feature=player_detailpage#t=22s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyavrata Banerjee (talk • contribs) 08:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC) tunak tunak tun songReply

Like all true Scotsmen, I've watched the YouTube vid, and it's actually good for some lulz. As for why you were selected for this, erm, "interesting" talk page drive-by, I'm sorry I haven't a clue.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a very merry bus full! I love it. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

More fun to be had here. Just as examples: Drmies' Brazilian soccer player name is "Doctildo", K.W is "Wolfowinho", Sandy is "Georgialdo", and so on. (Claro, sou "Fiftyeino".) But "Fatuorinho" (in very shaky Portuguese, "the little foolish one"). Hmmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Malleus. I hope that you are in good health. Will you have time to copy-edit Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) for me? It has already been copy-edited numerous times but every time it is taken to FAC, reviewers said that that c/e was not up to the level. Can you please take a look? I mean, look at the amazing job you did on "Single Ladies". Just because of you, I got three more support votes. Please bless "Halo" with your flawless copy-editing skills. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Page lurker) I have responded with erm, a "sublime love" whilst striking a A–Bm–F♯m–D chord. Not! This is really not my topic area, so I have restricted my comments to format and overall writing style. I hope it helps --Senra (Talk) 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The job's not done 'til it's done Jivesh. I think it would be better to wait until the FAC for "Single Ladies" has concluded, and take the lessons from that on to "Halo". Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay Sir. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I expressed a concern at UK_School_reference_articles. It seems only correct that there should be a statistically correlation between the number of articles on state schools v articles on schools for toffs- and the proportion of students that go to each. More of Cheadle Hulme High School than Cheadle Hulme School- 14 secondaries in Stockport- 9 articles- 4 rated as start class. Two ex-Grant maintained -2 articles -1 at start 1 at B. It seems such a pity we have so few editors, biased guidelines that eulogise the trivia while there is a enormous pool of vandals who could be put to use with little training. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

[2]Is it a personal attack to suggest -- dare I say it -- you're getting wiser? Gerardw (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always been wise, which is perhaps why I've found it so difficult to come to terms with Wikipedia. And to be honest I hope I never will, as I find it rather creepy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't in 5 1/2 years and > 120,000 edits, you're probably not in much danger of that. So ... why do you stay? Gerardw (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sheer bloody mindedness really. So many want to see me gone but I don't want to give them the satisfaction. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for strolling through Ely. As always, your amblings reduce my ramblings. I especially liked your es: "scare quotes". Previously, however, I think Richerman (talk · contribs) forgot to add "St" to Audrey following a discussion between us where I felt his "St Audrey" explained well "t'awdry" and therefore "tawdry" (scary enough?). Thus his "Tawdry, a shortened form of Audrey" which led to your "Tawdry, a corruption of Audrey"—edit-summary: hardly shorter, slightly longer in fact! I did say I rambled. Anyway, with your permission, I will be inserting "St" or is it "Saint" to make "Tawdry, a shortened form of St Audrey" or is it still "Tawdry, a corruption of St Audrey"? I get so confused :( --Senra (Talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're the expert on Ely, not me; you don't need my permission to do anything to the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Baldwin of Forde or Ralph d'Escures or Reginald Fitz Jocelin? First two are Archbishops of Canterbury, the last one is only an Archbishop-elect of Canterbury. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You made a very good point at my talk in the High Schools section. Thank you for making me reflect on what it is that we are here for. Ultimately the "why" questions are always the most difficult to answer; why do a particular job, why have kids, why go to the pub, etc. These are nevertheless very important questions, and once again I find myself in debt to your intellectual honesty. I will continue to think about the question you asked, and I think that while I am unable to fully answer and will probably always be, I appreciate sharing space with people like you. It keeps me on my toes. I suspect many others would say the same. --John (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply