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.
A couple days ago I came across an article on the Green children and remembered the wiki article. I noticed that just Cavila just added to the further reading section; we must visit some of the same webpages! I can email you the pdf if you like to read it (if you haven't read it already).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus, given the amount of requests on your page I hesitate to ask you - but - I've given Pound another scrubbing. I'll be away from editing for some days, and would be grateful if you were to hack away at it again. Also, grateful for any comments you might have as far as achieving flow. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:NuclearWarfare made Grace Sherwood the lead hook in DYK prep area 2 (YEAH!) on this page: Template:Did you know/Queue. In about 7 hours it should get moved to a queue and then we'll know exactly when it'll appear on the main page. It's a double hook with her hometown of Pungo, Virginia (my first double dyk hook). I've started on the suggestions, please see my edits on her page from 00:01 8 Sep onward. I still have stuff to add to the "cultural background" section. Feel free to help improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to see that you haven't walked away because of that ridiculous ergot hypothesis. Let me know when you think you're done, and I'll be happy to take another look. MalleusFatuorum23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ergot may cause hallucinations, but I agree with you that it is clearly not applicable in Sherwood's case. I'll let you know when I'm done, maybe even tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A thought occurs to me ... maybe the difference between youse with all the bits and us plebs without any is that we plebs don't walk away from a fight. Just a thought. ;-) MalleusFatuorum00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the social and cultural context is crucial for these witchcraft trials, otherwise they make no sense to a modern mind. It's getting late here now though, so I won't be along until tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I understand you're into witches, witchcraft and other weird forms of hysteria, so I thought you might like to help me with this article. Not witches, but definitely something bizarre from around the same sort of period. I'd like to take it to FA status - what do you think of it? Aiken (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
with your hangman... did we ever settle on something interesting for my next effort? I'm going to be busy this weekend (broom corn festival, I kid you not) and next weekend (art festival) but should be much more accessible after that. I'd love to do Jersey Act, but I don't have access to the English sources that (may or may not) exist. Ealdgyth - Talk20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Eald. Were you going to work on Lady Godiva, as I recently saw? Cracked has a thing about her. Not that Cracked is reliable by any stretch. They recently bungled a blurb about the Stonewall riots pretty big, but they're usually entertaining. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a scout around for any English sources I can find for Jersey Act. The Times archive might be a good place to start ... failing that pick a bishop, any bishop. :-) MalleusFatuorum20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roy
LOL, same here - I've never actually read it, in fact, I'd never heard of it before I saw the Wikipedia article. :) Can't say what drove me to keep trying it at TFA/R, but glad my persistence paid off! BOZ (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom's done some stuff with Rowlandson so might be able to help. I noticed a couple of Rowlandson's pictures of visitors to the Royal Menagerie when I was putting together the article on the Tower of London. Apparently I decided not to use them, although it's likelier I simply forgot until now. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know that Wikigallery existed, but for out of copyright works of art like that all you have to do is to upload them to Commons and stick a {{PD-Art}} licence on them. The source would then obviously be Wikigallery. Don't just take my word for it though, with luck a more knowledgeable image person will be along soon ... I find the whole image licensing morass to be an excellent cure for insomnia. MalleusFatuorum18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of Rowlandson images on commons already. I periodically add a bit to this, someday I'll finish it. I'm really only doing it so I can try and get genitalia on the main page. Parrotof Doom18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Musings
I realise that the modus operandi on wikipedia is to suck contributors dry and then to spit them out, but I appear to be still here; perhaps there's more to me than administrators like Beeblebrox and his pals realise. Pretty much every day I help with an article I had no previous involvement with and have no particular interest in, just because I like to see good articles. Of my now almost 87,000 contributions to this project almost none could be considered abusive even to the most rabid of the civility police, yet I am painted as a bad 'un because some silly kid took offence to my use of the word "sycophantic", or was upset by a naughty word.
There's a dichotomy and a schism here between the contributors and the police that I have a great deal of trouble in reconciling. Not sure where that will lead, but I sure hope that the police don't win. MalleusFatuorum22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWB
[1] Actually, AWB allows (and strongly encourages) manually reviewing such changes. It can't be a simple possessive; that would make it "the era of 1980". A plural possessive maybe, but a Google Books search doesn't show "1980s' era". I probably should have made it "1980s-era" with a hyphen, as a compound adjective. Art LaPella (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I used the Google Books search to dismiss the alternative of "1980s'", a plural possessive. Google Books searches are useful for determining what the prevailing style is. You haven't addressed "the era of 1980", so I don't think we're going to agree anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to agree, no, particularly as you seem to misunderstand your own "era of 1980" argument. Does "of" not suggest a possessive to you? MalleusFatuorum00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not recast it to "gathering together a number of Roy of the Rovers stories from the 1980s" (or "from around 1980") to get round this impasse, and so I can understand which is meant? (I thought you were both making equally valid points.) Occuli (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure it's all that interesting, but it was a significant cultural influence on several generations of football fans, so it needed to be done. MalleusFatuorum00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be fine this time. You need to keep looking at even the smallest details though; I've just noticed that the citations following this sentence "Governor of Virginia Timothy Kaine officially pardoned Sherwood on July 10, 2006, the 300th anniversary of her conviction" aren't in ascending order for instance. FAs aren't expected to be perfect, but they're expected to be about as perfect as we mere mortals can achieve. MalleusFatuorum20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your jury question on my talk. Yea, refs out of sequence are a peeve of mine. I've fixed them a few times but copy editing changes the number they get. I keep checking and fixing this as we improve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this edit. I didn't capitalize witch there because "of Pungo" applies to mayor and first lady too. Or should all three honorary positions be capitalized? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you my pitch. You capitalised "Witch of Pungo" in the lead, so it looks strange not to capitalise it later in the article. So far as "mayor" and "first lady" are concerned, they obviously ought not to be capitalised, because they're not proper nouns. Obviously though if Tony1 chips in on your side then I'll buckle and agree that you're right. Maybe. MalleusFatuorum23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony is an Australian, possibly of criminal stock, whose family may have been transported to the country with the highest number of venomous species on our planet as some kind of a punishment. Personally I'd love to have been transported; it beats getting rained on every &*%$*( day. MalleusFatuorum23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment about Tony is HILARIOUS! Lots of people have been looking at and improving the article and that's awesome, but I'm surprised there have been so few comments - and no votes, at the FAC page. Meanwhile I'll keep my fingers crossed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked at another Internet site by a British dude what my forebears were convicted of. My answer: "sodomy". That put him in his place. Tony(talk)13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus. For the past month or so I've been improving upon 1949 Ambato earthquake. Recently it was designated a good article, and since then I've been expanding the relevant sections on the article and added two more. I think it's now comprehensive and so I intend to tighten the prose (which needs a good deal of work) to get it ready for FAC. Are you interested? ceranthor13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There must be some mistake; it's not my birthday until January. ;-) I haven't finished yet, so don't rush off to FAC. I'll very likely have a few questions for you as well. MalleusFatuorum19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me share something with you ceranthor. Whenever an admnistrator pops up here my knee-jerk reaction is to say "fuck off". I have no great interest in this earthquake, but there's an old one in Manchester that you might be able to help me with one day. ;-) MalleusFatuorum00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just changed the nomination date for the featured article Ayumi Hamasaki to October 1, and I would like you to reconsider the request. Thanks you. mx3話20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've allowed one day moves to avoid conflicts in the past. Plus Oct 2 in Japan is Oct 1 on the other side of the International Date Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments at FAC. I especially appreciate your efforts to copyed it yourself. I wonder if you go could a little furtherhelp me address the problems you identify. Your comments about the tenses in the Synopsis is beyond my perception -- perhaps I have stared at the text for so long. I would appreciate your further collaboration. The JPStalk to me21:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this as an FA, but my overall feeling is that it's a little bit thin in places, and definitely a bit too weepy. Take a look at and compare it with this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer for instance. Even in the lead caption it says "Victor Meldrew's hand and cap in the gutter after being knocked over." I wasn't his hand and cap that were "knocked over", it was him. MalleusFatuorum21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think that's an actionable objection. This FAC sees the conclusion of my work on this article. I've put in far too much time to something that I'm not paid for or will enhance my CV. It's up to you -- if you think Wikipedia will be better if you help, then great. If not, it will stay like that. The JPStalk to me22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...this userbox. I offer it in the spirit of admiration and good humor. I made it some time ago after you and I had an exchange; your recent RfA comment prompted me to share it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really should learn to keep my mouth shut I know, but I can't be arsed. I think that the wikipedia way is shite, and I look forward to wikipedia mark II. MalleusFatuorum23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to happen fairly soon I'd hope. Changes like those needed here don't happen slowly, they happen suddenly. Once the number of at least decent articles meets some critical mass then the crap can surely be left behind. MalleusFatuorum00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Witchcraft thesis
You would probably really enjoy this. It talks about the causes of witchcraft in England and the American colonies, how they were different and why, etc. Quite fascinating. Ucucha put this on the FAC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure she could "fake" British spelling, but there's that whole business about the "neighbor" who edited Venezuela film articles. Anyway, I'm done, and wasted a heck of a lot of time there anyway, and all the other socks eventually outed themselves with no help from me. I coulda reviewed a dozen FACs in the time I spent there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a sad episode. I never want to see any talented editor banned, but maybe I'm biased, as I know that many would like to see me walking that ArbCom plank as well. MalleusFatuorum01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Malleus, I sometimes think you overestimate your detractors, and underestimate your friends. One of these days, I should nom you at RFA just to see who's right :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this with Iridescent and a few others a little while ago, when I was contemplating a wikisuicide bid. My idea was that if you oppose me then you're just a piece of shit and the world needs to see how corrupt wikipedia has become. For better or for worse I was dissuaded. MalleusFatuorum01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I was one of the many editors who opposed MZM and rightfully so. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I will not get "fooled" again. That's exactly why I opposed and will never support a subsequent nomination. You're comparing apples and oranges Iridescent. Malleus is actually a benefit to the project, MZM is turning more into a troll and a liability than being "mellowed out a bit" like he advertised himself as in that last RFA.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine02:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all. It was one of those "I have started so I will finish" things. It wasn't until it was done that I realised the same thing myself. It will get cut :) --Senra (Talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider dumping that information onto the talk page for reference instead of leaving it in a collapse box. The box seems thoroughly unnatural in the prose of such an article. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kea needs an expert copyeditor (dun duh duh dun!)
Mauna Kea is in shape, worked out everything and now it just needs a good copyeditor before a run at FAC. I left a note on your page a week ago, but I assume you missed it...? Anywho, would you mind :) ResMar22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pls review and copyedit my work here since your last edit there; especially check the big part I added to "cultural background". Many thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some nice additions there, you're obviously getting the hang of this. Just two questions:
"Consequently the ecclesiastical influence in the Virginia courts was significantly less". Less than what?
"To avoid this possible outcome, justices dismissed unsubstantiated cases of witchcraft and prosecuted the accusers for slander, who found themselves 'under an ill tongue.'" I can't quite make sense of that. Apart from anything else, it seems strange that the justices would undertake prosecutions, as the article clearly says that Sherwood and her husband initiated cases for slander. MalleusFatuorum00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis clearly makes a strong case than the VA courts shied away from witchcraft cases unless there was physical proof and would then allow cases for slander against those making accusations of withcraft. They felt witch cases would incite hysteria and cause more witch cases, so they shied away from them and in a sort of double blast would allow cases for slander against accusers, removing motivation for witch cases from both ends so to speak. ie, make sure your witchcraft claims is solid or you'll get nailed for slander. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The accuses witch, when the case was unproven, which was most of the time in Virginia, could sue the accusers, which Grace herself is known to have done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting that one, and if you can see any way to improve it please do—I'm being a complete hypocrite (since I often rail against others doing it) and hot-housing it through to try to get the set complete before the 75th anniversary. I'm painfully aware that it's four times longer than any of its sisters, but (per my comments at FAC) I can't see obvious scope for shortening it; if the background isn't given there, readers will have to wade through the twin nightmares of Brill Tramway and Metropolitan Railway to understand the context. (MR isn't so long now, but DavidCane and I both have our eyes on it. – iridescent15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look through earlier and made a couple of minor tweaks, but it looks fine to me. Like you, I don't agree with Fifelfoo's approach to present-day equivalent value, which is a discussion I've had with him on a couple occasions already. Must dash, I've got another hangman to write – only 13 to go now. :lol: MalleusFatuorum16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you were right
Princess Charlotte of Wales made it through, and not one word was said about the "very fond of fucking" quote. Trying to decide if it is a case of broken clocks being correct on a regular basis, or if you really have something there! Is this now the only FA that can't be read on television?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the comment. when i log out i'm gone. I changed my password to random characters and won't be able to come back in. personal or not, it's disheartening that editors keep coming to me to take admin-like action without the tools to help them. the last comment is particularly disgusting about how "we need more constructive editors on here" seeming to imply i'm not even worthy of being a fucking editor. i work and work to try to mediate in talk space disputes i get the whole needs more mainspace editing shit can. fine. as if every single one of these people has a well balanced editing record. beyond that i see admins at ANI blatantly using works like ass and fuck and saying acceptable when you know damn well it would get a regular piss ant editor shit canned in no time. fuck this dog and pony show. i'm too old to waste more of my life playing referee to a bunch of whining bitchy little petty editors to be not taken seriously for the effort. to hell with it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
