User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/April

Beeston Castle

Thanks for the compliment. I like castles, so it was a nice article to review. It definitely passes GA now, so I'll pass it. Bláthnaid 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Worth all the hard work? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't really hard work though, as it was one of my favourite outings as a kid. Second only to Dunure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

review

Would you mind posting that comment you made on the article talk page as well, if three reviewers agree it should fail they will leave me alone. This isnt nice at all. Realist2 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is all about, but if you think that my comment will in some way be helpful, then please feel free to link to it from the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just left a message saying a third reviewer agreed, i dont want to drag you into it, trust me its already given us two a headache. Realist2 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it too much to heart. That was obviously always going to be a controversial article, and you were pretty brave to take it on; where angels fear to tread and all that. FWIW, I've had much worse abuse for failing an article about a 13th-century crusade. But what can you do except keep smiling? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly the spirit. I hope GAR will sort it out, and many thanks, Malleus, for your thoughtful contributions to this and several other discussions. Geometry guy 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think you must be mistaking me for that other Malleus Fatuarum, the awful one who doesn't give a monkey's what anyone thinks. ;-) But to be serious, it's easier to be calm and rational when you're not in the firing line, as we all know. I hope this experience doesn't discourage Realist2 from taking on other GA reviews. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes thankyou for keeping things positive, i recieved a BARNSTAR today for my work so i felt all happy, now ive been accused of all sorts and worst of all apparently i failed the Darra J article to spite the editor even though the evidence i provided shows that he had given up on wiki and just wanted an argument. The Darra J article should not be reassessed. Realist2 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasnt discouraged me, i had the backing and support or another reviewer on one article and on the other article the nominateer committed wiki suicide. Like i said, i got my first barnstar today so i must be doing something right. Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Then all you have to do now is to keep doing it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes its only the beginning, the fun has just started im sure, but hey at least i sorted some of that backlog out, Natural....(whatever you call it) and homosexual transsexual sure aint easy articles to start of on. Realist2 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No they weren't. You may have noticed that I kept well clear of them. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer

To answer your question, I'm 32. There's a picture on my userpage. Oh, by the way, I stole your userpage. It makes me happy. - Philippe 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My userpage has been stolen? OMG, I'm devastated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For a while, everyone called me Malleus Fatuarum because of it, but I think I have that fixed now. :-P - Philippe 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that the sensible thing now would be for both of us to get back to building this encyclopedia? That's what I intend to do anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

Hello there!

Just a note that there is a significant part of my strongly recommended "Tradition in Action: The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County" that discusses the Peterloo Massacre. Not sure if you got round to getting hold of a copy, but it's covered on pages 29 through to 34.

There's a map which highlights where the crowd came from and the routes they used which I'll either scan, or "copy" for the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I've found a list of the deceased here, but also some online books like here. I'm putting a table together in my sandbox. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a fantastic source here too! Just scroll up and down for the other pages to read some rather interesting bites of info. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of good stuff there. Google books is an extraordinarily useful resource. The fear some people had of being arrested if they were discovered to have been wounded might explain why there are so many conflicting reports of the total number of casualties. Incredibly, even John Lees tried to get into work the next day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's why they call it Oldham Brave Oldham. Civic insults are expected!... I agree though. What's encouraging is there appears to be more online than I first imagined, plus the pace of the article's development is just, well, astonishing. Oh, I heard the Peterloo Overture today too (at YouTube); it's actually quite a good piece of music. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a listen to that tomorrow, I'm quite a fan of Malcolm Arnold's music. The article's starting to shape up nicely now. I'm thinking that we could maybe do with a map showing where the military were deployed around St Peters Field? (The image of the 15th Hussars galloping down modern Deansgate is one that I'm having trouble getting out of my mind. :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a map of St Peter's Field, but it's not very good. Although I have experience making maps, I don't think this is within my grasp. I might see if there is a "military" cartographer on Wikipedia that I could approach to redraw this map. Do you have any other source material about this that I could take to such a person? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooooo (I'm sucking the air through my front teeth about this one!)... I've just found this interesting page too, which I think would be great to re-draw for our purposes. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything very elaborate, not much more than a streetmap really. There's a linedrawing at the front of Reid's book that would do nicely I think. I'm sure I could fairly easily make a version of it that would suit our purposes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative, and if you have access to the equipment, you could scan the map and e-mail me. I have access to Adobe Illustrator which is probably the best (but most hard-to-use) graphics packages around for this type of work. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I'll scan it and email it to you tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, I meant later today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Email on its way! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the maps now. It might take me a few days mind! In the meantime, as WP:GM hasn't quite jumped to the challenge in a way I'd hoped, what do you make of the material I've started putting together at User:Jza84/Sandbox2? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that if we're not careful we'll be in danger of having written the definitive encyclopedia article on the massacre ever, anywhere. ;-) I think that the content of the tables is great, but the formatting needs just a little bit of work. If nobody else steps up to the plate I'll have a go at it myself. Do you mind my editing them in your sandbox, or would you prefer me to move them to mine?

I also want to have a go this evening at expanding a bit on the events leading up to the charge, especially the confusion that Hulton's two letters, one to the yeomanry the other to the hussars caused. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to dive in my sandbox. I'm weak on table formatting so they're not too hot. Just tests though. I really want them to be as good as you can get. I want this article to kick ass to be honest! I'm sure you feel the same. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do feel the same. It's become a labour of love to try and produce something fitting for such an important event that seems like it was shoved under the carpet by the political establishment. I also want to say that I'm really enjoying working on this with you. We haven't seemed to get under each other's feet, and we've found it pretty easy to agree on the shape of the article. If only wikipedia was like this more often! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the phrase "Great minds think alike" is most appropriate here! Anyway, just to give you an update, I had an incredibly busy weekend which virtually took me away from the article and the maps. However, I hope to make a proper start on those maps this evening; I imagine they'll take a couple of days worth of sporadic editting. I'll keep you posted however.

Do you feel the time has come yet to start adding/working on those sandbox tables? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try and do something hopefully this evening. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just an update that I have made progress on the first of the maps you gave me for work. I have it all "lined-up", and am working on street names and colouring tonight (and possibly tomorrow). I haven't forgotten about this. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

--P.S. I can now say with confidence that the experience of having a cherished article on the main page is rather stressful! I've seen all sorts in the last 24 hours! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the map. Congratulations on getting Neilston on the front page. I had a quick look at the History, which looks more like a battle-report, so I see what you mean about stressful. I assume that 3RR is temporarily suspended for articles on the main page? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I bloody well hope so or else I'm a gonner!! I think this was the most horrific I've seen (don't look if you don't appreciate nudity!), but there's still time for worse I guess! It's been a tough day on Wikipedia today. I didn't even request that it be on the main page! :( --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have mail (and it's certainly not related to that vandalism!) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! You have mail, again. Hopefully good news too. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in awe. Get that into the article now ! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: What was the book these were sourced from? I'm about to upload to commons and want to state what this map was "based on". :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Reid, Robert (1989), The Peterloo Massacre, isbn 0434629014, published by Heinemann

wee requestie

Walter de Coventre is apparently in need of a wee copyedit. If you have time or will (it is not really a fun topic I know), could you give it a wee copyedit? I won't hold it against you if you don't, just thought I'd ask. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably at least as much fun as shopping centres or raised peat bogs. :-) I see the article's stumbling a bit at FAC, so I'll see what I can do to help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, tah very much! :) Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-editing! Really extensive. The FAC got closed before its effects could be judged, so I'm not so clear what can be done in future. If I renominate it though I should prolly co-nom with you now, as you have now contributed so heavily. Thank you very much again, and sorry it came too late. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that the copyedit came too late to help, but hopefully it resulted in an improved article anyway. I'll have another look and with luck someone will turn up from the LoCE as well. I don't think there's much left to be done to the article, but maybe there are still some points left from the FAC to be dealt with, like the inconsistency in the references? In your position I'd just work on polishing the article and making sure that all of the comments have been addressed and then renominate in a couple of weeks. I wouldn't hear of a co-nomination, as I didn't add any content to the article. Just be patient, and I'm sure it'll get through next time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The refs I think are consistent now (there was only one discrepancy, which btw made sense to me :) ). The one issue I can deal with are the concerns over the usefulness of the David section. I have to review copyedits periodically to ensure the meaning hasn't been changed too, and am awaiting further comment from Karanacs. All the bestest, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus, yesterday was a very busy day, so I'm just now getting back to you more completely. I know you didn't intend anything; it's just something that happens every now and then because of the lag between archiving and botifying. To leave a clean record in the archives, the easiest thing for me to do is to revert and record the post-archival comments on talk with a link to talk, but I have a shadow who disagrees with how I "do my job" and reverts again, causing me extra work. I'm sorry if the note I then had to put on the FAC may look like casting aspersions on you, but other than getting into a revert war with my shadow, I'm not sure how else I can leave an accurate record in the FAC archives :-) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices

Hi, Would you fancy turning your copy editing skills onto History of timekeeping devices? It's currently a GA candidate but being pushed by the Tzatziki Squad towards FA.— Rod ^talk 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the Tzatziki Squad? Are they goodies or baddies? Should I be frightened of them? How is the GA review going? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I only came across them a couple of days ago - basically its an informal FA drive see Tzatziki Squad, despite all the stuff about the Epsilon Team & Bathrobe Cabal they seem like a good bunch of experienced editors who work together on a selected article for a few weeks to get an article up to scratch. It's recieved a couple of reviews & massive expansion in the last few days & the reviewer is extending the review period & will give more comments in the next couple of days.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm sorry to say that any mention of the Bathrobe Cabal puts me right off. I'm a bit tied up now with the Peterloo Massacre anyway, and I've also got a GA review of Wrought iron to do, but it doesn't sound like a good bunch of experienced editors would have much need of my help in any case. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrought iron

Thanks for help with the language in Wrought iron. Are you sure about "the west"? From Western world: "The term Western world, the West or the Occident..."

You could certainly make a case for West, so feel free to change it back. I've finished the review now; if there's anything unclear or you don't agree with just post on the article's talk page, which I'll put on my watchlist. Good luck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I saw this, I made it Western Europe (as opposed to Constantinople, not Moscow). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good choice, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sept! Of course ... make it clear if it's not clear. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Walter de Coventre

Please let me know when you are reasonably satisfied with the text, at which point it can be put back up to FAC. I'm not sure about the family was; this may be a case of the British material plural. "Government are determined..." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the text now. There's no doubt in my mind that family is singular, so "the family was" is perfectly correct, nothing to do with any British/US English thing. "Government are determined" wouldn't be correct either, and as a British English speaker I've rarely seen or heard anyone say that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it may well be obsolete; I am relying on Fowler, who was old-fashioned a century ago. Nominating accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Words like "family" and "government" trigger expectations of a plural verb, because the words conceptually invoke plurality. The way language actually works will always be too intricate and diverse for even the largest grammar to ever cover, but I'd guess most of them would prolly claim family were to be "wrong". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm American, Malleus is British, so I certainly trust your ears more than mine, but I see "the team were" (is that the "material plural"?) all the time in BrEng ... do you guys not say "the family were" in formal writing? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. edit conflict with Deacon - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends. We would usually say "the team was", but that "Manchester United were". But so far as family is concerned, it is ineluctably singular, even in "formal writing". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sound right, though "family were" is undoubtedly seen as "incorrect". Interestingly though, you can even find the BBC making such a "mistake", even if it is only BBC Tyne [1]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bwmoll3

Regarding User:Bwmoll3's edits, I wasn't sure where to start with the RfC tag, as this involves a great deal of articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the history, so you probably know best. I was just commenting on the dispute you took to AN/I, which taken alone didn't seem to warrant an AN/I report to me. But hey, my tolerance level for incivility is way off the screen by comparison with many other editors, so what do I know. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peterloo Massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Prentice

Hi Sla.... er Malleus. Confused? you will be..... The Prentice book was published in 1853 but for some reason I put 1851 in one reference (I think I confused it with Bamford 1841) but where did 1970 come from? Anyway the right answer is 1853. Richerman (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused? Moi? Well, 1970 is the date of the reprint that I was referencing [2]. Why do you think that it was originally published in 1853? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going from this one Richerman (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset at all

copied from the talk page:

Woah, sorry, youve misunderstood me, I'm not in the least upset - just taking the piss as usual, that's why there's a smiley there. The sillines I was talking about is the bit I started myself with the indents. I thought DDstretch was an admin but I'm confusing him/her with someone else. You and the others have worked hard on this article and I'm happy for you to take out anything that gets in the way of FA. To paraphrase something you said a while ago when webhamster was having a row, if I was upset that easily I'd need to get out more :-) Richerman (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: LNER A1/A3

Thanks for reviewing this article, and even more for highlighting bits that need improving, which will be dealt with in due course. I'm sure the lead editor (John of Paris) will also convey his thanks in due course. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. You ought to think about taking one of these loco articles to FA one day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However, (and thanks for the rapid response!) the 'ibid.' issue is what's being taught in universities these days, but I'll change it to the good, old fashioned copy and paste of the full article title (which is a lot safer). Once again, cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed you've changed it already. Ignore the above. Good Morning. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ibid was what was being taught when I was at university, many years ago now; fine for print, but not for the web. BTW. I didn't change the ibid, I left that as an exercise for the reader. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I've changed the whole lot anyway. If you fancy doing another task at some point, take a look at the LSWR N15 class article. It'll eventually go up to FA once the peer review has finished. The editing team will be intrigued to see what else needs improving. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when it's at FA and I'll chip in. In the meantime I've got an article on a witchcraft trial to finish. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

State of Vietnam referendum, 1955

Hi there. I've addressed your points and tried another copyedit run. Can you take another look please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

I'm really sorry to bother you, but I have an article at FAC and User: Jza84 has suggested on the comment page that if you could give it the once over, it might just pass. (Well, I've got a bit of tidying up to do as well...!). The article is Navenby and User: Jza84 believes that a copy-edit from you and/or User:Epbr123 would do it the world of good. I don't like begging, but .... please, please, please???!! And, erm, please? Thankyou. --seahamlass 11:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS: I have left the same message on User:Epbr123's talk page, as I don't want to waste any of your time.

I've made some changes, and some comments about what else I think needs to be done at Navenby's FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. I was watching your progress and really do appreciate your efforts. As to your concerns, well I'll try and sort them all tomorrow. The pentagram thing is something I had to change cos of FA ref reliability concerns. I guess I'll have to swap it around a bit, or else dump it. I'm actually thinking of just withdrawing the nom, cos I liked the article better when it had just passed GA. If that a bit unappreciative of all your work, I really don't mean it like that. Thankyou, really - a big thankyou! --seahamlass 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I just suggested to you on your talk page, you have to decide what it is that you're trying to achieve. An article that you're happy with, or an article that's one of wikipedia's best, one that everyone's happy with. I'd have thought was a "no contest". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hello again. Just to let you know that I have tried to tackle all the worries you had about the article, including the removal of ten pics and a revamped culture section with no sub-sections. I have left the details on the FAC talk page - and, once again, I just want to say how much I appreciate all your help. --seahamlass 09:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed 13 pics now... phew, better stop, otherwise I'll have none left! Haven't actually changed the wording on the charter issue - do you think I need to?

• I do, yes. At the moment it looks like there were 3 charters, one given by each of the kings named, but no explanation as to why 3 charters were needed; one was enough for most other market towns. Were the first two charters taken away for some reason? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I've looked into this today. I think it was common practice to renew the charter with each new king. It was also renewed if the market day changed etc. I'll try and find a specific ref, but so far have only found good, but non WV ones.

Fair enough, but this sentence still doesn't work though: "Navenby became a market town on being granted its charters by Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England." Didn't Navenby become a market on the granting of its earliest charter (it would be nice to have a date for that)? It didn't need to be granted all three before it became a market town did it? BTW, why "Richard II of England"? Which other Richard II would it have been? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Have changed it to: "Navenby, originally an agricultural village, became a market town after receiving a charter from Edward the Confessor in the 11th century. The charter was later renewed by William Rufus, Edward III and Richard II." I can find plenty of reliable refs for the charters being granted, just not the actual date. Ho hum.

• Many thanks for talk page guidance, think I've done what you asked.

• Then I'll be right along to give Navenby its first support, hopefully the first of enough. Have you asked Jza84 to take another look at it yet? What about the others who commented at its previous FAC? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Never thought the word "support" could make me smile so much! And then Jza84 chipped in with the same too. Hurrah! Thankyou so much, once again, for all your help. Liking your idea of contacting other reviwers - hadn't thought of that... Have now 'talkpaged' a couple. Have you any idea how many 'supports' you need to get one of those little bronze star thingys?

• If you get one or two more supports and no opposes then you ought to be home and dry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Still hanging on...! (Grrrrr) Gritting teeth and ploughing through refs to make 'em all the same. Oh joy, what fun. But - I want to see it out now. Gotta be done. It will make me a better person (OK, maybe not, but I have to try and hang on to sanity!)

• Well, it'll make the article better, even if it kills you. ;-) FA is a tough gig, and we've all been through the mill ourselves, which is why we're rooting for you. The article's almost there, believe me, just stick with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really pleased that you decided not to withdraw your FAC nomination for this article. I'll take a look later and hopefully I'll be able to support it now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous !

How preposterous! I made a terrific and accurate comment about Manchester and you deleted it? I find this offensive.I made a contribution and you had the audacity to remove it.This has spoiled my wikipedia experience(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taffer92 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy I didn't delete your comment, I reverted it as vandalism.

I am content to let others judge who is spoiling whose wikipedia experience. [3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Singapore GAN

Howdy mate, I'm back again to help SGpedia in their on-going GA drive now. If u got time to spare to find out more {your quote}"on a subject that not too many of us outside of your part of the world are likely to be very familiar with."{unquote} Kindly hop over to review this SG article written on a much loved local personality. I'm OK should u decline my request. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article's been waiting a few weeks for a review. I had a quick look, and it looks pretty good. If nobody has already, then I'll do the review in the next couple of days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pse refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. Thks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To give u a heads up, I'll be nominating the following SG articles which are closely linked to the military history of Britain for GAN soon, after taking a few days break from this GA exercise:

1. 1915 Singapore Mutiny (WWI)
2. Double Tenth Incident (WWII)

If u are keen to assess on any one of them (as u are an English & one who seem to be interested in S'pore history) which will give u a good opportunity to find out more from a history buff on the colonial history of Britain's former Crown Colony in SE Asia. Do be on the lookout for them at GAN ("War and military") next. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello there! Just touching bases. I feel strangely empty without Peterloo! Are there any plans to do another "collaboration"? It could be a monthly thing for WP:GM. I really enjoyed it.

Also, hope you didn't mind the note about Navenby - you're the best copyeditor I know. I think it's a great article now.

Also, I'm planning (perhaps a little more down the line) to borrow steal ideas from your Pendle witch trials work, for a Paisley witch trials article. I thought I'd come clean now! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the Peterloo Massacre experience as well. When I look back on it now I still can't believe that we did it in just three weeks. Peterloo seemed to be a subject that captured the imagination, and in the end made it quite easy. I'm struggling to think of another GM-related subject that would motivate half a dozen or so editors to chip in with the same kind of enthusiasm.

I didn't mind the Navenby note at all, I'm always happy to do whatever I can to help. It did distract me though from finishing off the Pendle witch trials, something that's been at the top of my list of things to do for too long now. I'm fairly happy with it except for the last couple of sections, especially Modern interpretation, which is crap. Feel free to borrow whatever ideas you can from my efforts with the Pendle witches, just as I'll free to borrow whatever ideas I can from your Paisley witch trials. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Struggling for wiki-time in the next 24-48 hours, but I'll have a flick through the Pendle witch trials to see if my eyes can spot anything which can help the page along.

The Paisley witch trials kind of got put off due to Denshawgate, but I'll try to get back on track with that. It's likely to only be a stub or start class article for a while, but it is Scotland's equivalent of Pendle. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can come up with. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for taking the trouble with Emery Molyneux. The article is now featured, with three supports and no opposes. Tony came back and made his support unprovisional, and his support and yours swung it, without a doubt. The main editor seems to be on a Wikibreak, but this will make a nice surprise for him when he comes back. I'm pleased for him; and I'm pleased for Wikipedia that we didn't let this one fail from lack of reviews. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent news. It was far too good an article to be left languishing for lack of reviews. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - as above

I just logged on for yet another tweaking session on Navenby... and found it had that little bronze star thingy attached to the page! I am so, so grateful to you for all your help - and encouragement! This could be my Oscar speech moment, I would like to thank...etc, etc, etc! But, really, many, many thanks! --seahamlass 07:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that many editors have got an FA under their belt, so you're one of that elite group now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerard, Archbishop of York

I think I got it all. when you can, please look it over and make sure I didn't break anything in the process or if there are still other concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Crompton and Pendle

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I will hopefully get a chance to read through the Pendle witch trials this evening. On Crompton Primary School, I don't have a strong view so will probably abstain for AfD; from memory however I think there is a convention that "all schools obtain notability", or something along those lines, I may be completely wrong on that one though. Thanks for the contact however, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right, and I'd be inclined to accept that for secondary schools, but not so sure about primary schools. The proposed wp:school guidelines make more sense to me, although they are admittedly only proposals. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I respect you, and I also laugh at you...

Thanks for your levity, Malleus. I appreciate you (you know that already), and I appreciate every single edit you make, whether it be in Wikispace or Article space. That's all I have to say. I'm going home now, and I'm going to drink. Cheers! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to make of that. On first inspection I'm not too impressed at being laughed at. But I do understand that the standard of civility expected of administrators is way less than that expected of mere editors. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going offline any second now, but please know, as the "admin" that effectively shut down the RfC about you, that I sincerely meant "laugh at you" as "laugh with you". I have always enjoyed your non-article posts. I found your idea both logical and succinct. But also ill-timed. If you strongly believe that I'm laughing at you, please open an RfC against me, Keeper. You know, Keeper. The one that said he would give up his admin bit if Malleus abused his admin tools when he gets them. You, my friend, are one of my favorite article builders. I've told you before that I would support you and your efforts to the end. I'm somehow strangely in love with you. In a man sort of way of course....:-). Cheers, I'm going home now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that maybe it was a Brit/American English thing, but being "laughed at" isn't something that I'm likely to take lying down, no matter who says it. I'm not going to open an RfC for something as trivial as that, in fact I'm struggling to think of anything that I'd bother to open an RfC for. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Your offer to give up your own admin tools if I ever abused mine was one of the highlights of my wikipedia career, and I'll never forget that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't deep Link Google Books PDF!!

Why not? I'm asking in reference to your recent edit to the Peterloo massacre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The terms of use for Google Books PDF , apparently state non commerical personal-use only, and that the PDF's should not be published or widely distributed. Wikipedia does not support copyright violations.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, apparently. Aren't you sure? But in any case, providing a url is neither "publishing" nor "distributing". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Read thier terms carefully... Deep linking to a file download to me is simmilar to publication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be "simmilar" to you, but it's far from "simmilar" to me. Quite different in fact. Where have you got this funny phrase "deep linking" from anyway? What is the wikipedia policy that you're trying to enforce? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bop in but on the Web one may link anywhere. Google certainly does. No need to ask permission either. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for apology, thanks for offering your two cents worth. The absurdity of this is that what's being objected to is a url in a {{cite book}} to a pdf of a book that was published in 1853. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise - Link to the information page? Reinstating link anyway Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I already reinstated the link, because I don't believe that your objection has any merit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was 1853, it's public domain, regardless of WHAT Google claim, thanks for re-instating Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to continue policing these kinds of issues then I suggest that you brush up on copyright law. That the book was published in 1853 is irrelevant, except insofar as Google were within their right to digitise it, so there was no copyright infringement on their part. The link you removed was to that PDF. I am not aware of any copyright on links. Are you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here would not be the copyright on the 'link' but in the PDF, It seems however

given the nonsense, that I wouldn't be the best person to comment. Apologies Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please direct questions to User:Sfan00 IMG to his talk, he may not read mine.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right-ho! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

4/22 DYK

On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert

I admit that this requires a bit of the honor system be emplyed but hey thats what wikipedia is all about. I also agree that inevitably there will be some who say hey I am an expert I dotter but really are not, but for the most part I think that most editors who take the time and effort to do it would put what they are experts in. How do you define expert is also a good question. Here is what I think this would qualify as, if say I work on math all day as a PHD in say math, I would be an expert or even if I was a regular old teacher then I would be an expert. If I was say a 14 year old who somehow has managed to achieve adminship in wikipedia then perhaps my expert skill is gaming the admin process. Additionally, by posting questions, comments concerns then others who also participate might either know the answer or know where to locate it. I hope this helps.--Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But how do you know who anyone is on wikipedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I laughed out loud at this sentence: If I was say a 14 year old who somehow has managed to achieve adminship n wikipedia ten perhaps my expert skill is gaming the admin process. How profound and accurate. Laughed out loud! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I declined to comment on that, but my guess would be that that would be the most densely populated section of any potential expert list. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends, do we get to add other users to the list, or do we have to depend on them to add themselves? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I've never trusted anyone who claims to be an expert in any case. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an expert in bullshit. I suppose you won't be able to trust my bullshit from now on....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice. Never try to bullshit a bullshitter. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you only knew how many times I've said that IRL.  :-) I'm amongst the worst of them and can smell it coming a mile (or in your case, a kilometre) away...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You were right the first time, a mile away. We Brits can be stubborn sobs, we refused to convert to kilometres. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh! And I thought us ethnocentric, oil lovin', money grubbin' war startin', gun carryin' Americanos were the only ridiculous ones. I coulda sworn you brits were smart enough to go to a base-10 system. Glad to stand corrected! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We pick and choose, nobody tells us what to do. We buy petrol (gas to you) in litres, we buy food by the kilo, but beer and distances are still good old pints and miles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you're more f-ed up than us. Although, I have been known to buy a 2-liter of pop before, so I guess we are just as confused.... :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there are 2 ways to succeed in this world 1 is to dazzle others with your brilliance and the other is to baffle them with bullshit. Since its been proven time and again (at least were I have worked) that they both work if used correctly and well I would have to say yes I could trust you. That is until you start describing said caca and its discuvered your actually an expert in pigshit in which case your credibility is shot. Basicaly, the point to this isn't to have a certified credentialling process but a place to go when you need assistance rather than going to 20 different places. More for the what would you do...kind of questions.--Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I think its a good idea, worth exploring anyway. This from a guy that's filled to the eyeballs with this.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to edit summary

Re: this edit summary - actually, Moore's law is both descritive and proscriptive. Intel, AMD, and the other hardware manufacturers essentially plan their production schedules according to it. In that sense, it has become a self-fulfilling prophency. (And is thus both descriptive and proscritive) Raul654 (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in the sense that you're using those words there appears to be no difference between them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Winchelsey

I think I got them all taken care of, but please look it over and make sure that everything makes sense to a non-medievalist. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and the copyedit. Both are very much appreciated. I'm glad you enjoy the articles, they are fun to write too, even if I write like an academic. It's always great to have someone who doesn't know much about the subject reveiw them, that way I know they make sense to folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You flatter me; I don't know anything about the subject, not even "not much". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you read the article, you know something now... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true, my tense was wrong. I probably know almost as much as anyone does about Robert now. That's one of the joys of reviewing I think, learning about things outside of our own little niche areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sport on the Irwell

Blimey, your putting things right as fast as I can add the text - it must be some kind of record! And I think I inadvertently got it right - the Irwell probably did kill off the other rowers, the poisonous state it was in then :-) Richerman (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be right about that, but we're trying to big the Irwell up here, not accuse it of being a killer. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it used to be then but it's reformed now. Richerman (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of using the images that way but it sounds like a good idea as I've heard that galleries are frowned upon. However, I'm not sure how to use them in commons yet so if you want to move them feel free, Otherwise I'll sort it out eventually. I've found a couple more books in Salford Local History library which I'm using as sources, but they're both reference only, so it's going to take me a bit to get through them and add stuff but there may be room for some more pictures in the article when I've finished. I took a picture of the red sandstone at Clifton the other day so I'm going to put that in the geology section. By the way, what's the difference between reflist and reflist2?Richerman (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist}} puts the notes in a single column. {{reflist|2}} formats them in two columns, simple as that. You're doing a great job with this Irwell article btw. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh stop it you'll have me blushing. Ok, so that explains the reflist thing. - thanks Richerman (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture you mentioned was put on by someone else. It was probably his own and he didn't know how to licence it properly. Richerman (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect you're right, but it really ought to be deleted as it stands, and the Irwell article ought not to include it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More copyedit requests

Hi, I have another couple of articles I've been working on, with others, which are approaching GA nominations but would really benefit from your expert copy editing skills, if you had the time/inclination. The first is Flat Holm (an island in the Bristol Channel) which still needs some references, but otherwise is, I believe, approaching GA standard. The second is Somerset Towers, a new & long article which was developed in the sandbox of a (fairly) new user before it appeared in the article space. I believe it is well sourced, but tackles some complex architectural topics & may be a little "dense" in places. Any help or advice appreciated as ever.— Rod ^talk 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick first bash through Flat Holm. I've made some changes, but I think that there's still quite a bit to do yet before it's a GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic arguments per infoboxes

I don't at all buy the aesthetic argument, far too subjective

Hi, I saw this comment and wanted to briefly address it. First, I haven't followed those arguments in particular, so I won't comment on them. But I do want to point out that the vast majority of Wikipedia style guidlines are essentially aesthetic arguments, and they are linked to usability arguments related to user-centered design. Eventually, the goal of ubiquitous computing will be met, in which case the aesthetic arguments will no longer be relevant. Until that time, however, they play a large role in determining the design that supports human-computer interaction. At the end of the day, aesthetics are not as subjective as you might think, as many of the guiding principles behind them are deeply rooted in human behavior and psychology that we all share. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of that I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in having my wrong views corrected. Can you be brief and specific? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that your views were wrong, I simply said that I don't agree with them. You lay what seems to me to be a false trail from wikipedia guidelines to user-centered design for instance. The primary purpose of guidelines is standardisation, not aesthetics. I'd be interested if you could share what you believe are the "guiding principles of aesthetics ... deeply rooted in human behavior and psychology". The only one that comes immediately to my mind is the golden ratio. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia guidelines - style guidlines. The underlying intent of style guidelines is usability, not standardization. We apply standards to style that makes Wikipedia easier to use; we don't apply standards to styles that make it more difficult. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability is the logical extension of these ideas. The see also section might interest you. You may also be interested in articles like this:[4], [5], [6]. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those articles you quote rather make my point about the lack of deeply rooted principles, and are in some places just plain wrong. For instance, "My studies of cognition showed that color computer displays (or color TV, for that matter) offered no information advantage over black and white". As to your point about style guidelines, wikipedia's most influential style guideline is the MoS, whose purpose is clearly standardisation - not surprising the reader - and not aesthetics. The most important point about usability, a point well-made in The Design of Everyday Things, is that the interface matches the user's mental model of what's happening. That has very little, if anything, to do with aesthetics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't quoted any articles. I gave you some related links you might find interesting. You seem to have taken the color computer display study out of context of its preceding content, which you must have missed:

In the early days of the personal computer, all the display screens were black and white. When color screens were first introduced...color was primarily used either to highlight text or to add superfluous screen decoration. From a cognitive point of view, color added no value that could not be provided with the appropriate use of shading. But despite the fact that the interface community could find no scientific benefit, businesses insisted on buying color monitors. Obviously, color was fulfilling some need, but one we could not measure. In order to understand this phenomenon, I borrowed a color display to use with my computer. After the allocated time, I was convinced that my assessment had been correct -- color added no discernible value for everyday work. However, I refused to give up the color display. Although my reasoning told me that color was unimportant, my emotional reaction told me otherwise.

Hardly a very scientific assessment. Anyone who has tried to watch snooker on a black and white TV knows that it is nonsense to claim that colour provides no additional information. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take a second to visit WP:MOS, you will notice that it begins with the following: "The Manual of Style, often abbreviated MoS, is a style guide for users that aims to make the encyclopedia easier to read in English. One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles." In other words, we have standardized the style guide to promote usability. It really can't get any clearer than that. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite, and that is the point I was making, and that you previously failed to acknowledge. Usability, not aesthetics. Usability can be measured, but aesthetics cannot, hence aesthetics are ineluctably subjective and even culturally defined. There are no guiding principles deeply rooted in psychology, as you claimed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

The guiding principle is the aesthetic-usability effect which I gave you a link to: users perceive more aesthetically pleasing designs to be easier to use than less aesthetically pleasing designs. That can be measured, and appears to be a shared psychological trait. Wikipedia style guidelines are a collection of aesthetic recommendations that people believe improve usability. If it doesn't, we don't standardize it, and we could argue it is aesthetically less pleasing. I haven't addressed the cultural differences, because the effect is objectively the same regardless of the results. What is perceived as aesthetically pleasing in every culture is thought to be easier to use. A computing culture is a fairly homogeneous group. The culture seeks to access information in a fast, efficient, simple to read interface. See also Aesthetics#Information_technology. Aesthetic preference is a subset of usability, which brings me to my final point tying this all together: The guiding aesthetic on Wikipedia is minimalism. A content-driven environment by design, seeks to maximize signal and minimize noise. This is why aesthetic arguments favoring the removal of infoboxes are objective. We can measure the usability of a Wikipedia page, and each added element (an infobox, an image, a navbox) degrades the overall signal and amounts to noise. We improve the signal by minimizing noise and focusing on simplicity. The aesthetic-usability effect can be objectively measured in experiments. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Singapore Mutiny

Hi, I was pleasantly surprised & happy to hear from u again. Based on my past experience with GA reviewers, I personally much preferred reviewers if they are British, Aussies (G'day mates!) or Kiwis, as they tend to be more familiar or are culturally sensitive about countries in Asia, esp on Singapore. Anyway, most of my previous GAs were reviewed mainly by the Brits (u are one of my favourites), Aussies & Yanks (God or Buddha forbid! Worse if they are the Southerner cowboys as I may end up with headaches or clashes with these folks like the previous Kent Ridge Park episode!) On the subject proper, please refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. Thks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

please donot remove the middlewich cem Link

please donot remove the middlewich cemetery Link as this is part of middlewich's heritage and ii has been aproved by johnathan williams the town clerk.

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.98.56 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a link to a commercial web site, therefore spam. If you don't agree, then we can always get a second opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)