Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2010/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Copyedit assistance

Hello. I recently put up No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural) for FAC, but it was not promoted due to prose issues. Someone pointed out the great work you did fixing up The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and suggested I request your help. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any assistance with the article. It is relatively short. Thanks :) Ωphois 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I did that much to Buffy, but you've got two weeks breathing space now before you can nominate it again, so I'll take a look over it in the next few days and let you know what I think. If I forget (I sometimes do) feel free to give me a nudge. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Aw, geez. "The Body" wasn't that bad. Srs. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It was pretty good actually; that's why I said I don't remember having to do very much to it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"The Body" was actually damned good. I just used that as an example of Malleus' ability to take good prose and make it better. Courcelles 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just a friendly remind about the article. Thanks again. :) Ωphois 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Browser friendly

Browser friendly columns is not browser friendly on Safari - it's all squeezed and scrunched and I makes my head spin. Just thought I'd let you know that I'm reverting back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which version of Safari are you using? Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine in Safari 5.0 (running on Win7). J.delanoygabsadds 13:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at 5.0 yet and can't be bothered to download and update at the moment. Also have one older computer that doesn't support 5.0. Good to know though that it does work on 5.0 for when I update the other computer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This looks fine to me in Safari 4. Ucucha 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're not seeing three columns overlapping, then it's a specific computer problem. Whatever it is, I need to have them in a single column while I'm working on the article, then I'll reformat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

apostrophes in church titles where saints end in "S"

Can I pick your brains? If naming an article about a church where the saints name ends in "s" should an apostrophe be used eg St Giles' Church, St Giles's Church or St Giles Church. This has arisen in connection with St Giles' Church, Imber but I'm sure its been debated elsewhere. The current discussion is at Talk:Churches Conservation Trust#Apostrophes if you had time/inclination to contribute.— Rod talk 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that this question came up quite recently elsewhere, and didn't really come to any authorative conclusion. I'm not exactly sure where the "official" names of churches are held; Iridescent might know, or Peter I. Vardy, but I suspect that there's no such list. The "official" name might be "Church of St Giles" for instance, which avoids the possessive problem. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It did come up recently when discussing St James' Church, Stretham in this very thread under this User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/2010/August#St James.27 Church title. In the end, I chose to use the sign outside the church --Senra (Talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if I am helping here, but consider The Times, Saturday, Sep 02, 1961; pg. 7; Issue 55176; col A which shows St. Giles, Imber. --Senra (Talk) 19:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no perceived problem with churches named after saints whose names don't end in an "s", like "St Mary's" for instance, so short of adopting a generic "Church of St X" formula consistency seems to demand a possessive for those that do. The choice is therefore between "St Giles'" and "St Giles's", and of the two I'd opt for the cleaner "St Giles'". Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood connection

You may be interested in what is currently in User:Rlevse/sandbox, it's about the Ferry Plantation House and has a connection to good ol' Grace. I'm planning to move it to main space within a week and I'll let you know in case you want to copyedit it. I'm not yet done with research and I need to get photos, just wanted to give you a heads up for now. It's sort of like my recent DYK article Francis Land House, both are Virginia and US Historic Places for one thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in all haunted houses, so give me a shout when you transfer it to mainspace. Eleven ghosts is quite an impressive number. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Just added it to my list of items to update when I move it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As...

I'm finally mostly home for a while.. any change in Jersey Act? I did add a bit more I found, but I'm about mined out here on this side of the pond. If you're not finding anything there, then I think it's Alex's turn... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ealdgyth, I should be passing through Lincoln in a few weeks. Do you need any more pics? (Always supposing it stops raining and I can actually take any).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I was in Lincoln in June and didn't find his tomb, but if you can lurk around the cathedral and find shots of any of the pre-1500 bishops' tombs it would be wonderful. I just found Remigius'. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've yet to have a proper look Ealdgyth, so I'll get back to you later. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll certainly have a go... it's either tomb-hunting or drinking mulled wine at the Christams fair...!(And I'll take graves any day over warmed up supermarket plonk!)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"Christams fair"? Are you sure you haven't been on the mulled wine already? Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I wish! Though I guess I'd rather have a pint of hand-pulled beer!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous recognition

On the website for that movie about Wikipedia which has been "almost ready for release" apparently forever, check out the "notable Wikipedia characters" background wallpaper—straight after Essjay is a certain WebHamster. I picture him being played by Roy Chubby Brown. (That trailer looks quite awesomely dull.) – iridescent 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Who'd have thought it, a wikipedia DVD. I couldn't see the WebHamster thing though, or Essjay come to that. Roughly where is it in the trailer? Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's in the background image on the page. Aiken (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This image, if you're having trouble seeing it through the clutter. – iridescent 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I see it now, I thought it was something in the trailer itself. I wonder why WebHamster was picked out? In any event, I think that Roy Chubby Brown would be a good choice to play him in the movie, and I'm sure he'd agree. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Malleus -- responding here to your point just to avoid clutter at the RfA. I'm not keen on "issuing orders" myself, but didn't want to get into an argument about semantics. It's certainly the role of an admin to say "if you do X, your account will be blocked". That isn't phrased as an order but it pretty much has the effect of one, as far as I can see. I'm not trying to talk you out of your Neutral, just clarifying the point since you raised it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My neutral will make no difference to anyone, and neither would my oppose have done, so there's nothing you need to talk me out of. We just disagree. Since when did janitors issue orders? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since when were admins janitors? Anyhow, our article on the janitor describes how some are involved with security, which would undoubtedly involve issuing orders. Aiken (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The most often used logo for Wikipedia's admins is a mop. You never know how much thought went into the design of these things though. As Wikipedia:Administrators says, "sysops are colloquially likened to janitors for rhetorical reasons"; usually because deleting articles and showing vandals the door is a form of cleaning up. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Could call them Scheissekapellemeisters. Keith 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toirdhealbach (talk • contribs)
I'm not quite ready yet for my final block, so I'll just say that anyone who's been skiing in Austria may know the term the locals use for those who ski too close behind them; it's an anatomical term, to do with getting too close to a stranger's arse. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that often, the role of an administrator is more akin to that of a Gong Farmer, than it is a janitor :) I don't mean any disrespect Nev, you're an admin to whom I'd offer my blind trust :) Parrot of Doom 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ferry Plantation House - haunted

It's create now. I still have a few offline sources to run down and need to get photos, but any help in improving would be appreciated. Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time, but I wish you well with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ye sneaky letter-writer

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

Do you think that Tresham wrote the letter? I'm inclined to believe that Salisbury wrote it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Its odd. Re-reading the sources, what we have is Tresham's confession, which is pretty much a "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I tried to stop them, I really did" so that can be disregarded as the whole truth, although if he did author the letter, then why not say it then? That might have been a beheading for him, rather than a full HD&Q, so that counts against him writing it. Then again, he did book himself a ticket abroad, just in case the plot succeeded. Sitting on the fence methinks? Tresham was hanging around with the plotters for several months beforehand but claimed to have been introduced to the plot at a very late stage. Either his fellows didn't trust him, or he was lying. I'm inclined to believe the former, given that he was the first to be suspected when the letter became known - although we have him apparently pleading for Monteagle and Stourton's lives (from Fawkes's and Wintour's confessions), and being rebuked by Catesby (which might also be why they suspected him).
So either an untrustworthy and hot-headed man who apparently wasn't that willing a conspirator wrote it, and for some reason never mentioned it—or Salisbury authored it to protect a source. No-one will ever know, unless more documentation is found. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Another great piece of work. I can't see that having too many problems at GAN, or even FAC come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure about FAC, I might have a think about that one. I have a feeling that by the time I've done the remaining miscreants, I'll be a world bloody expert on the Gunpowder Plot! Parrot of Doom 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I got so fed up of seeing that redlink to Anne Vaux that I finally created an article on her. What I hadn't realised is that she's also one of the suspects for having written that warning letter to Montegle. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For someone so willing to stick two fingers up at the establishment, she certainly lived a long time. You'd have expected her to have died in the Tower. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid after reading that sentence I lost interest in reading the rest. I might well return, especially if I see it has been given a good going over by others. I was hoping it it was going to be about his rather more interesting father in fact. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a job for someone else I'm afraid, I'm doing the plotters, perhaps Henry Garnet, and them I'm outta there. Parrot of Doom 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Current state of play

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

I'd like to know why. You do a lot of good here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm on my way out here, and it might be constructive to wonder why that is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, other than rollback, I was just given the others without asking. For whatever reason, maybe someone didn't happen to notice that you didn't have them...? I suppose someone may see this and give it to you, or you could just go through the maze of pages to find out where to ask for it. In the meantime, I'm becoming increasingly cynical in the wake of the climate change arbcomm case (in which after 4 months of dramahz and deliberation, it seems like they are just going to topic ban everyone), but I'd rather not be. (No offence meant, Rlevse: I just don't get it.) My talk page is welcome to you if you need to bitch, Awickert (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I can give you the rights now, but you say in your stmt that you don't want them. Do you in fact want them? If you don't tell us what's wrong, merely wondering won't help us fix it. We need to know in order to act. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Awickert - admins have noticed, and some have even tried to give him the rights whether he wants them or not - see his rights log. Malleus - I've read some of this discussion before, but okay, I'll bite: why is that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe I called Malleus a douche nozzle for not taking reviewer rights. They were thrown at him. I up the ante to dingus. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
He holds issue with the ability of admins to threaten the removal of aforementioned rights, ie. "If you don't keep in line, I'll remove your rights." ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I know. He was also told by admins who have worked closely with him previously that that sort of bullshit would be overturned immediately, like when Witch Hazel sprints away and her hairpins fly around. That quickly. He didn't or doesn't want to give it a chance. Things suck in many ways, in many places, under many circumstances, but they don't change unless people let them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen enough of the bullshit that gets thrown at decent admins like yourself when they step in to defend me. Contrary to what Rlevse apparently believes I do not believe that the entire admin corps is corrupt, but I believe that too much of it is, and that their effective unacountability encourages such corruption. As Giano says, if I have nothing then nobody can threaten to take it away from me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't want anything that some crazy admin can unilaterally remove, or threaten to remove. Let me give you an an example of how petty and dishonest some admins can be. I was once given a barnstar by someone who is now an admin who took it back a little later because I'd upset him. During his RfA that editor promised to be open to recall, but conveniently forgot after being given his cloak of invulnerability, and nobody gives a shit. I call that despicable, you may call it just the way that wikipedia works. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK - so you don't want it because of how it is managed, but you are angry that you don't have it? Is it that you think that it should be a right as opposed to something an admin can take away? In that case, changing the policy through which these things are handled is something that is bigger than you. Awickert (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm angry about how wikipedia is managed, and by whom. I will not accept any of these "rights" until there's an honest system in place for their removal. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for butting in, but I'm curious: what process would you propose using to determine whether the rollback, autopatrolled, and reviewer user roles should be removed? –Grondemar 05:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd start at the other end, and look at how they're granted. Part of the problem is that these "rights" have to be awarded by an administrator, and so those doing the awarding feel that they equally have the right to remove those awards. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, you're right, it's despicable. A barnstar? And only one? And one that an admin can "wield", at that? You're better than that, even if you "upset" some admins. If you don't want to stick around, then don't, but do it on your terms only. You know whether Wikipedia is for you or not, and no one - admin or otherwise - can decide that for you, no matter how much some would like to think they can. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Three. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I second what Nikkimaria said in the box above. Whatever you do, make sure that it makes you happy. Awickert (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
So you're mad at the entire admin corps because of this one barnstar incident? Not all admins are corrupt and despicable. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a monkey's arse about barnstars. What I'm mad about is that none of you admins addressed the dishonesty of promising something during an RfA that this admin clearly had no intention of actually doing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know which admin/RFA you're talking about so I'm at a loss here. How many other admins knew of this at the time? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No doubt if I told you which admin it was that would be interpreted as a personal attack on him, but several admins were aware. I'm sure that you could find out who they were if you really wanted to, but prominent among them was User:Keeper76. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, even to the most fanatical Civility Police, to just state facts; the user in question was User:Epbr123, and the barnstar incident was more than a year before he became an admin; it was before even I was an admin, let alone Keeper76. AFAIK nobody involved at the time was actually an admin. – iridescent 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not bothered about the barnstar incident, that was just petty childishness. It's the subsequent failure to honour a promise made at his RfA that I'm bothered about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether he would actually honour it is another thing—there have notoriously only been only two successful recall procedures where the recalled admin actually made good on their promise to resign (one of which being our old buddy User:Herostratus, incidentally)—but Epbr does list himself at Wikipedia administrators open to recall. – iridescent 22:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Better late than never I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I remember seeing your old username in a book a couple years back, but I like the new one better. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural copyedit

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

I've had a look through and made a few changes. I either didn't notice or had forgotten that it it was at FAC. Anyway, a few comments:
  • "As Bobby blesses a waterline running to the sprinklers of Lilith's house ...". Lilith doesn't have a house does she? Isn't this the family home of the young girl that she's possessed?
  • "Sam insists that he will be saved, but Dean feigns reassurance as he hallucinates a demonic-looking Sam." I can't quite make sense of that. For one thing, how can any feign reassurance? Dean could pretend to be reassured of course. It seems like a strange conjunction as well; he's pretending to be reassured at the same time as seeing a demonic-looking Sam? Quite an act I'd have thought.
  • Here is a fan-made transcript of the scene:

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

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

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


  • "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to the ten-day process as the 'Hell Shot'." What 10-day process?
  • Would this work? "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to their portion of the sequence—a ten-day process—as the "Hell Shot"." Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "... the episode was originally intended to feature the return of Samantha Ferris as recurring hunter Ellen Harvelle." What's a "recurring hunter"?
  • "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as the grandfather is killed appears to be shot from inside one of the houses ...". The plot section mentions nothing about a grandfather being killed.
  • Oops. Think it would be okay to add in an explanation to the filming section?
  • "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as Lilith kills her host's grandfather—he had tried to request help from his neighbors—appears to be shot from inside one of the houses, the actors were actually standing on a two-story scaffolding across the street, looking through fake windows." Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I instead added it in to the third plot paragraph. Ωphois 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive", and Ackles was asked to sing off-key ...". I've never seen this programme, much less this episode, but I'm assuming that Ackles wasn't asked to sing off-key as part of the scene itself, i.e., as in Sam says to Dean "Hey, why don't you sing off-key?"
  • What this currently says is that "On their drive to New Harmony ... Ackles was asked to sing off-key", which isn't right. He was asked to sing off-key for the scene in which Sam and Dean drive to New Harmony. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, ok. Would this work? "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive". To mask Ackles' "very impressive singing voice", Kripke asked the actor to sing off-key." or "Kripke asked Ackles to sing off-key to mask his "very impressive singing voice". Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just checking if the copyedit was complete? If so, thanks for your help on the article. I really appreciate it. Ωphois 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said I think in a few places the language is a still a little too informal, but perhaps the subject matter justifies that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that since it's a television article rather than a historical one, the language tends to be a tad bit different. Also, if it's not too much to ask, would you mind looking over Taare Zameen Par within the next couple of weeks? You don't have to copyedit it or anything if you don't want to, but rather just to give your opinion on whether the prose can handle a FAC? Either way, thanks again. Ωphois 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is just my opinion of course, but I think that the prose would take some flak at FAC, if only because it seems strangely unidiomatic in places and a bit forced. Which is a shame really, because it appears to be a pretty comprehensive account of this film. Perhaps someone else will offer an opinion as well, as I'm by no means always right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean India-related idioms, or in general? From my previous experiences and comments received, I would think that it would seem informal/unencyclopedic? Also, what do you mean that it sometimes feels "a bit forced"? Ωphois 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I mean things like "tells the story of an eight-year old child (Darsheel Safary) who suffers greatly until a teacher (Aamir Khan) identifies him as dyslexic". There's something about "suffers greatly" that just doesn't work for me; I can't really imagine a native English speaker saying it in that context. "Eventual exemption from the entertainment tax by the Maharashtra government briefly strengthened ticket sales in Mumbai." What does that actully mean? That the Maharashtra government imposed the tax or that they exempted the film from it? "Taare Zameen Par garnered near-universal praise". Wouldn't you agree that the hyphen looks strange? "Though it was India's official entry for the 2009 Academy Awards Best Foreign Film, Taare Zameen Par failed to make the short list. This loss stirred debate in India ...". What loss? "... he perpetually fails his tests and exams". Perpetually is an awful long time. "He also lacks motor coordination skills, even finding it difficult to throw a ball in a straight line." It's exceedingly difficult not to throw a ball in a straight line unless you can Bend it Like Beckham. "Ishaan's internal world is rich with wonders that no one else seems to appreciate". How could anyone possibly appreciate another's internal world? "Ishaan's father ... is a successful, shrill and busy executive". What does "shrill" mean here? He's got a high-pitched voice? I could go on and on. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So is your problem mainly related to the plot section? Someone else wrote that section, and I haven't really analyzed it in detail. Ωphois 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I went through and tried to correct any of those instances in the plot section. Coincidentally, the other user working on the article just redid/trimmed a lot of the lead that contained the instances mentioned above. Ωphois 01:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the plot section was definitely the worst, but there are some problems in other areas as well. For instance "He discovers that Ishaan is dyslexic and helps him to excel". Excel at what? Everything? "Excel" seems a strange choice of word here. Also, "The film initially was to retain the short story's title due to Ishaan's inability to achieve the high jump in gym class"; we're told this too late, in the previous section we're told that the story was originally called "High Jump" without explanation. It would be best to put these two bits together. It should be "... because of Ishaan's inability" in any event, not "due to". "He decided that his primary cinematic technique for the film would rely upon relatively little camera movement because he believed that the audience should not be aware of the camera." This seems a bit muddled; what was this primary cinemtic technique that he relied on? Wasn't the "relatively little camera movement". the technique itself? Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I fixed all those instances except the last. The cinematic technique phrasing is based on comments made by the director. Do you think it would sound better to say that "his primary cinematic technique for the film would involve relatively little camera movement"? Or "He decided to allow relatively little camera movement because he believed..."? Ωphois 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd probably try something like "his primary cinematic technique for the film was to allow relatively little camera movement". Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I relistened to the commentary, and he doesn't say "primary cinematic technique". With this in mind, would "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that would allow relatively little camera movement."? Ωphois 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that involved relatively little camera movement" might be slightly better. BTW, isn't there now a symbol for the Indian currency, like there is for the pound sterling and the dollar? Should the article be using that? Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I made the change regarding the cinematic technique. As for the rupee, there is now a symbol for it. Right now, though, I think Wikipedia just uses a small image of it rather than regular text. Ωphois 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the redemption line that you just changed... Another user and I were debating the wording of it with regards to the commentary. A discussion on that and a quote of the commentary can be found on the talk page. Ωphois 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I was just making a suggestion, feel free to change it to whatever you think is better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. But do you think the sentence makes sense as "Ishaan's 'strict, hard, dominating father' who does not accept failure in his children, but is ultimately redeemed for this behavior by his change in outlook."? Ωphois 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To be completely honest no, I don't. I'm not the final arbitrator on anything here though, so perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracing

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

You're ploughing a pretty lonely furrow with these legal articles, so I'm just helping where I can in my small way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Your help is appreciated :). The plan is to get a Good Topic out of English trusts law, with full and up-to-date good articles on every element. Should be fun if I can do it. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"Law" and "fun" in the same paragraph, that's got to be a first. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

Alsager

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

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

You are spamming, please stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am really not spamming. Seriously. A friend of mine added this info with her account and when it was removed, I added it with my account to see if this was an issue with her account being relatively new. Feel free to remove the links / brand names if you think I am spamming but I don't believe it is fair not to include the source of the information you enter into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Emrahomuris, the link you are adding is a commercial website, and as such can be considered spam. Also, extensive information on housing prices, such as you are adding, is not something that should be located on WP. Please see city articles listed at WP:GA and WP:FA - none of them have information like this included. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

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

We could have a go at it if you like, but probably best not to start until after this year's Halloween. Looks like it needs a lot of TLC though. Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I might start hunting around to see what I can find. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any reason ...

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

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

Big thank you!

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

It's an important article, and it deserves some attention. Sadly though it looks like only you and I have stepped up to the plate so far. I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't get involved, but well, you know. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I, too, had decided not to go back after all the fuss, but then I imagined school children reading the article and I just cringed. I will keep at it until I either burn out or get attacked again. Where are you? I'm on the west coast, USA. --TEHodson 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I know where you are (I have excellent eyesight). You are in the North of England, Manchester area, I imagine. It's funny, but I ran into The Parrot of Doom once, when he dissed me (mildly) on another witch trial page. He made me laugh, actually, and when I went to his talk page to check him out, I saw you there. So you see, we must be related. --TEHodson 05:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Your eyesight is indeed excellent. In fact, Parrot of Doom and I live only a few miles apart. Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I just came on and discovered that the user who has been driving us nuts on the SWT page has been blocked due to harrassment of others. This is my first taste of Wiki drama--I didn't report him, but I guess other users had had enough. Anyway, now maybe we can get some work done. Oh, and tell the Doom Parrot I said, Hi. You gotta love a guy whose talk page introductory note essentially says, "Don't fuck me about or I'll eat your children." --TEHodson 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Category add

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

It's already got three categories, isn't that enough? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies...must've not refreshed the page 0.o .Smallman12q (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy call

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

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

FAC question

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

I'm sure it's always going to be "miffing" to get an oppose, but I don't see anything unfair in your comments. There does seem to have been a subtle change in the sense of what some of the sources say and the interpretation in the article – your very valid comment about the "series of storms" caught my eye in particular. It also struck me that nothing you raised seemed to be particularly difficult to fix, so if it was my nomination I'd just fix it, look for other places where the same issues may have been introduced, and fix them as well. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the second opinion; I thought I was being fair but it's always helpful to hear someone else's take. I agree that it doesn't seem that hard to fix. I was tempted to go and edit the article myself and fix some of the issues, but I don't want to treat FAC as a place to find articles to work on -- I think FAC works better if the conveyor belt moves reasonably quickly. Thanks again -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Railroading

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

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

Just weighing in here quickly before I go to work. Yes, I have told SlimVirgin that the help was welcome. The problem with this page, in my mind, has always been content. Requests have been made to editors to have a look at the article with little to no response. What response has been given has been along the lines of copy-editing, but I've always felt the content was problematic and I'm happy to have SlimVirgin step up and help. She's correct in that the article was nominated prematurely which is why I've twice requested delisting. I should have ignored any suggestions to list, but didn't. Perhaps I shouldn't have had an off-wiki discussion during a FAC but I had personal issues I didn't really want to share with the entire world. I guess that's impossible in this world of Wikipedia, so here's the problem: during the summer I lost vision in my right eye but continued working on the page because I became interested in Pound. A little over two weeks ago I had surgery to restore vision - all good - but resulted in almost daily migraines. So now everyone knows. I cannot work on this page alone, and if someone wants to step up and help I'm fine. If the result of the FAC is good feedback and a better article, I'm happy. Sometimes taking a difficult page to FAC is what it takes to get reviews and good feedback. At this point my feeling is that if the page is archived that's fine, if not I'll continue to work on it. Either way it will improve and progress will be made. As for any history that exists between SlimVirgin and Malleus - I'd prefer it not be brought to this FAC. But this is Wikipedia and it's hard sometimes to control these things. I'm going to work now and won't have access to a computer or any electronic device for the rest of the day. Carry on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I mean that there's a line between collaborating and taking over that you sometimes seem to overstep. It's your opinion that the FAC was premature, not a fact, and at least one other reviewer doesn't agree with you that it's not ready now. Your determination seems to me just to have the FAC withdrawn, perhaps so that you yourself can bring it back later? Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Your ABF is amazing, Malleus. You think I want to have the FAC withdrawn so I can submit it myself? I don't know who you think you are that you can speak to people like that.
I've put a ton of work into trying to help with this, because it clearly wasn't ready for FAC, but it's a subject that's worth doing well. I hate opposing at FAC and only do it when it would feel dishonest not to, and if there's clear potential I prefer to help fix things and not leave the nominee hanging with an oppose to sort it out themselves.
But the point is that I don't think you should comment on other people's opposes at FAC. The whole point of FAC is to get lots of different views, unlike GA which is just one opinion. That variety can be lost if one reviewer is going to second-guess the others, and you do it a fair bit, though I've not seen people do it to you. So please, offer your own opinion about the articles, but not about other reviewers. No one should have to justify themselves to you, and you have no right to turn other people's desire to muck in and be helpful into some ulterior motive and toxic experience. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You asked me and I told you. It's got nothing to do with good or bad faith, notions that I think are intended to encourage the credulous to suspend their analytical abilities and to fall in step the crowd. Anyway, you've had your way, the FAC has been archived, so there's nothing more to say. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
PS. Please don't try and teach me how to suck eggs; I'm perectly well aware of how FAC and GAN work in practice and in theory, certainly at least as well informed as you are SV, so back off. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll try to have the last word here. I don't like conflict and am sorry this happened. As it happens, both of you have been very helpful and supportive, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
SV and I disagree about a great many things, this has just been another one of them. It's all over now anyway and I wish you well with Ezra at your next attempt at the north face of FAC, assuming that there's going to be one of course. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't like to fail and I don't like to quit, so I expect there'll be another attempt. I think a little time away from that page and some work on other articles is what I need at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IIRC Sale, Greater Manchester took about 5 goes to get to FA. I wouldn't worry about it. Parrot of Doom 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Six actually, not quite a record but it must be close. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember it well (I was on time, no you were late ...). Sale was a tough gig, and it was the start of my fall from grace here on wikipedia, and I've never looked like recovering since. The moral of the story is ... well work it out for yourselves. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There's nowhere really where my fundamental objections to the approach of reviewers like SV can be discussed, as it's endemic, not confined to FAC. SV is however an administrator and therefore outranks me, so my only recourse is not do any more reviews. It's no big deal though, as I know what makes a decent article even if others don't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I have two points to make about this and then I hope we can put it to rest. In my view your argument would hold greater weight if six of the seven reviewers / commenters on the FAC page supported and only one opposed. As it happens, one opposed, one supported and the others commented. So in this case I think consensus is clear - one reviewer felt the article was FA ready, one not, and the rest sat on the fence. My second point goes to the difficulty of core topic articles. As it happens, Ezra Pound is a core biography, but it's just really difficult for a single editor to take on a large topic like this. While I was working on the page, I followed the various threads about why editors avoid core topics, thinking that I'm quite the idiot to attempt to overwrite/rewrite a big subject. So, in essence it's basically true that the big articles are near-to-impossible to finish. As it happens I'd like to see more of them upgraded and improved because I have students who go to Wikipedia for information and they don't go to find out about single episode television shows (not that I'm putting down single episode television shows!). At any rate I've learned from this experience, I'm a little burned out and need to regroup before deciding how to go forward. I posted on SlimVirgin's page that I'd like to see the article gain Good Article status, and I might pursue that in the next few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually your argument would hold more weight if the FAC had been allowed to run its course. Consensus is established at the end of the process, not at arbitrary points within it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I asked for the process to be stopped. So I'm a petulant child. Shall we have a fight about it or just drop it? If we fight you'll beat me to a pulp - though I might find myself getting really angry and I don't want to do that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Is there any point in continuing with this? You claimed that there was a consensus and I simply pointed out that that wasn't true as the FAC wan't allowed to run to completion. No doubt you and SV will in the fullness of time be able to produce the version that SV wants to write, but to be honest I'm past caring. Malleus Fatuorum 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Okay, I made a mistake about consensus. I apologize. Yes, I think we should drop it. I'm past caring too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Really guys, it isn't worth getting worked up over. You've all done a tremendous amount of work to improve an important article, so who cares if it wouldn't currently pass as an FA? I've worked on a few articles where, at the end, I've thought "bloody hell that's a good article". Then a few months later I look at it and notice all kinds of issues I previously hadn't. What I tend to ask myself is, "can I find a better, more reliable online biography on Joe Bloggs than the one I've helped write here?" If your answer to that is no, then you can consider your efforts a success. And at the end, you've all probably learned a lot about someone whom, until recently, you knew little or nothing. Parrot of Doom 12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, much as I hate to reignite an old flame, I was gone for the last week, just catching up now. Since what I saw the last time, revitsing, I think were were dead right on this one. Railroading. I think the cmt, "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone", was intended to neutaralise youself and myself, and notice the irony of how SV has disregarded her own advice and been heavily editing since. To be straightforward and frank, TK is too nice for tactics like this, and my strong impression is that there is pressure happening in back channels. I get the strong sence TK is vey upset at the way she is being talked to, offline. She has gone cold on a page she was very heavily invested in just a week ago. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The irony of SV's "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone" and the reality of her effectively forcing her own view on the article hasn't escaped me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I sure you can appreciate the fustration of investing so much in a page, months and months of reading, notes, adding, tweaking, more reading, more adding, and on such a massively difficult subject, and then well, railroading, and attack. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I can indeed. I think it's a crying shame that FAC can so often end up being rather a negative experience. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Grand. I've had a fair few negative experiences at FAC, but I've never had the article wrestled from me. Thats a different thing to having the shit kicked out of you. A beating I can handel, loss of control I cant. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't know anything about any off-wiki discussion of this article, and nor do I want to. SlimVirgin asked me a question and I gave her an answer. That she doesn't like my answer is no concern of mine, I stand by what I said. Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
How could you? Your email is disabled. Anyway, all water under the bridge now, as far as I'm concerned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
My email is not disabled, although it was for a while a month or two ago. I will simply say that I think you made a mistake in discussing this article's "improvements" by email with one other editor, as that gave a clear sign that nobody else's input was either welcomed or valued. Nothing good can come from continuing with this discussion, as the facts are plain to see, but as you say, it's water under the bridge now. I will be on the lookout for similar bridges in the future, and I will be avoiding them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know, as I walk away, that yes the facts are plain. But having you turn your back hurt. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I turned my back on the article, not on you. I hope after a break you can come back reinvigorated, whether or not you ever go back to Mr Pound. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR begging

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

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

  • I've commented on the World Science Festival, but I'll need to think about Selena. That looks like rather an ill-tempered review, and I've had about enough of those for a while. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Recent events surrounding this FAR and a couple of others have persuaded me that FAR has become too dispiriting to invest any effort in. I'm not even sure I'd bother if one of my own FAs was dragged off there, much less something that another editor probably wrote years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

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

I seem to have got myself involved in a few of these FAR/GARs recently, partly because I think it's often lazy to nominate an article for review instead of making an effort to fix it up to meet whatever the current requirements are. I feel much the same about the disfiguring tags too often inserted into articles, when a few moment's work could resolve the issue. I've been battling with the Salem witch trials today as well though, so I haven't spent as much time on Simon as I might otherwise have done. I've yet to do a proper search of what sources are available to fill in the citation gaps being complained about, but I'm not one to give up without a fight. A bit like Simon himself really I suppose. I know where you're coming from in raising stubs to something better, and I often do the same myself; it's a lot less hassle, but the grey goo still needs to be kept at bay as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, there are worse ways of keeping the grey goo at bay than taking a beautiful Autumn day off work to take clandestine interior shots with mobile phone concealed in a guide book [1] - and feel one has scored a victory over the retired and sensible looking establishment figures who patrol such places - it's just far more rewarding than banging one's head aganst a brick wall here in order to score a short-lived victory over an unworthy opponent.  Giacomo  19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, Simon Byrne's FAR isn't a fight with the nominator for me, it's a fight to do enough to the article so as to avoid the next phase, which surely can't be all that hard? Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are right because in my experience, once de-listed these people forget all about a page as they scurry off to seek out the next victim. Leaving the old former FA a muddled mess of half fixes and views and if the original authors whose work and integrity has been rubbished don't fix it up then it declines further. Quite how that is supposed to help the project, I have never understood.  Giacomo  20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Once the spotlight is switched off the article tends to abandoned to its fate, and that doesn't really help anything. Hence it's worth fighting for at FAR/GAR. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent (well not so recent anymore, since it's been going on for quite a while now) trend to use FAR to bludgeon certain editors is a concern. With so many truly troubled old FAs out there, I fail to understand Cirt's noms, and wish s/he would find another place to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand Cirt's nominations perfectly well, as does Giano judging by his comment below. What I take great objection to is Cirt's failure to raise any issues on an article's talk page before waltzing straight off to FAR and putting everyone's back up with his mean-spirited behaviour. I suppose that's another block on its way now, but I'm well past caring about that. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In my capacity as an admin I have reviewed this and recent comments, and find them not worthy of block or censure. I saw the ANI thread about MF. I don't plan to comment further. Carry on. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Whose recent comments are you talking about? Because if it's Cirt's then I'm afraid that I can't agree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Your comments. i was directly responding to your sentence: "I suppose that's another block on its way..." Gimmetoo (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I see. And how long before Cirt's behaviour is similarly examined? Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

...And speaking of Manchester...

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

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

¡La lucha de las galletas continúa!

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

That's a nice article, could perhaps even make a good April 1 contender. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be a bit reluctant for the same reason I was reluctant when Tarrare was suggested; although these people are all long-dead (and quite possibly apocryphal) there are plenty of real people with similar conditions. While I'm sure every real-life conjoined twin has long since got over the fact that people stare and point, there seems something a bit mean-spirited about playing what are effectively articles about disabilities for laughs. If it were suggested for TFA, I'd want to run it by the WP:DISABILITY people first to gauge their opinion on how offensive people are likely to consider it. (If it runs anywhere, I'd rather it be Easter. I can guarantee it would get vandalised to hell and back, though.) – iridescent 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose so, but there's always somebody ready to be offended by anything. While you're here can you tell me why I can't move London Prize Ring rules to London Prize Ring Rules? Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Because London Prize Ring Rules had a history, so needed to be deleted to make way for the other version. Now done. – iridescent 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Sometimes not having that delete button can be a bit of a PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
PS. Could I trouble you to do the same with the Marquess of Queensberry rules? Malleus Fatuorum
✓ Done. While I'm here, can you see a DYK in Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst? It feels like it ought to be brimming with them, but I can't see anything particularly catchy. That image really deserves a turn on the main page. – iridescent 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
One jumps out at me: "... that conjoined twins Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst argued frequently and often came to blows?" What a nightmare that scenario conjures up! Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit reluctant to go with anything that treats them as definitely genuine; the story reeks of bullshit to me. When Bondeson talks about it being impossible to dismiss, he's talking about the medical possibility; it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that any woman in 12th-century Kent would own 20 acres of land, let alone non-Norman conjoined twins. (I'd have thought they'd be more likely either to be killed and exorcised as demons—an 1100 birth would have had them born at around the time William II died, and after all that "comet of 1066" business the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't welcome anything that looked like a portent of doom—or else they'd have been shipped off to be exhibited in Normandy.) – iridescent 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got no doubt that the story is bullshit, but then so is DYK most of the time. :-) Whether they were real or not is impossible to know, and doesn't seem all that important to me now, nearly a thousand years later. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit or not, I've nominated the article at DYK, staying away from issues raised above. My personal opinion is that the evidence points towards 1500-34 being their lifespan, which nicely removes them away from Billy the Frog and superstitions about comets. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

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

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

Blocked for 12 hrs

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

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

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

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

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


You really have gone too far this time George, but I bet you're being cheered in the gutters of wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked—the comment did not merit a block, and I can't see how disagreeing over whether Cirt saw it as a personal attack is blockworthy behavior. Ucucha 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Then obviously you're not a colonel in the civility police. GWH is on a mission, and it's about time that he was blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend raises an interesting point wrt Cirt's approach to FAR-- an apt description. I do wish s/he would find another place to work, as FAR has become so demoralized, no longer a fun place to work to restore articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end." Can somebody explain what that means? Is it English? Richerman (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't help you -- I read it four times and still haven't figured it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose Malleus is "hanging himself" with the rope of making incivil comments; if he reaches the end of the rope, he will merit a block by Georgewilliamherbert. His comment to Cirt did not take him to the end of the rope, but his later comments at ANI did. Ucucha 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Could be, but personally I don't have a fucking clue what he's talking about :-) Richerman (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Uchucha correctly interpreted it. My apologies for it not being sufficiently clear and self-evident. Obtuse language in warnings or blocks is certainly not helpful, which I will keep in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's unhelpful George, and that's you. Now go away and try pulling someone else's chain. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you blocked Malleus. This is exactly why I refused to have anything to do with Cirt and his FARC. As far as I'm concerned he is trolling troublemaker and should not be alowed with tem kilometres of anything written by Bishonen or myself. It's a disruptive waste of time trying to bring the page up to scratch as no matter what you do he will keep going on and on. Thanks for trying with the page anyway. Just leave it alone and I hope all others follow my advice also. Allow Cirt "improve" the encyclopedia as he and his friends see fit.  Giacomo  09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
After some consideration, this is my view [2] Let those so determined and worried, fix the pages up themselves or shut up. At the end of the day, if the "writing editors" refuse to have anything to do with their pages, they begin to look rather silly and pointless don't they?  Giacomo  10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't give up, Malleus. Just ignore the small-minded peope and their slavishly biased admin corps. Go about your business and remember you do have a lot of supporters; don't let the small number of biased civility police and their howling slavish mob get to you. You're one of the few editors that improves Wikipedia, and frankly I admire your bluntness. It's rather refreshing. Skinny87 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale Observer needs panel-beating

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

I don't do "softly". ;-) What is it you want help with? Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Last time I saddled up my kangaroo and rode down to the University of Woop-Woop Library, there was something of a dearth of information about this particular newspaper. GNews and Gscholar aren't much use to me, as my computer is powered by a trio of trained bandicoots running around a treadmill, and my modem is an out-of-date surly wombat. Just wondering if you could improve on it a little?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Last time I added a message on User:Reginald Scot's talkpage, he said, "Me and MF? Sound. We're mates, just tell him Reggie said to call."
Ah! I'll see if I can maybe dig something up before the vultures descend again. Just out of interest, why is someone on the other side of the planet interested in the Rochdale Observer? Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See here, here, here... and this:
Child: Where are we going?
Moz: We're all going mad.
Child: I thought we were going to Kew Gardens?
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My Little Chickadee

1940 movie, W.C. Fields and Mae West. At one point West's character, Flora Belle Lee, is on trial. Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?" Flora Belle: "I'm trying to hide it." Consider the net effects of hiding it every so often. PhGustaf (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice quote, I'll bear it in mind. I've always been a fan of W. C. Fields. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox monastery

Is there any way to turn off the link to Dissolution of the Monasteries when the disestablished field is used. See reason at Template talk:Infobox monastery. Also, does this template support the pushpin map, as {{infobox church}} does. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Morn has today added a nodislink parameter that will do what you want.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is working fine. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for this attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
At this point, MF, it's just a three-ring circus, so we may as well have a good block party. Here's some random fodder for discussion: 11 out of 20 for me, anyone else want to weigh in? Oh, but this one scores 10 out of 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The Frisky
Can someone provide a diff to the alleged infraction please. Wasn't the immediate prior block due to the "lazy" comment? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The diff is in the block above-- I've translated at ANI. Now, do you have anything important to add on my 11 out of 20? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Rlevse: I never called anyone lazy, that what was your colleague Cirt called me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
... and you're welcome to go screw yourself right now SarekOfVulcan. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
And nothing from you either on my 11 out of 20? This block party is no fun; I shall have to ping Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm in rather a dark mood Sandy, and more than a little fed-up with the evident and on-going corruption on display here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes all you can do is laugh, Malleus. Unfortunately, I'm not as effective at producing that effect as Moni is, and although she seems to have telepathic abilities (I didn't ping her), our resident comic is under the weather. I'm sorry about your dark mood-- the whole situation is just pathetic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is just one incident too many for me. Unless I see someone swinging from a tree because of the events over the last day or so I don't think I'll be helping out here again. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, we seem to be having a "lets put Malleus's edits under the microscope and kick him day" because that is always far easier than looking for the wisdom and unsettling truth in what he actually says in his greater message. Only a fool would think it serves any purpose to block for this [4] and only a school of seals applaud it. So why is this the case - that's the important question and no, it's not rhetorical and furthemore, English is not my first language so must allowancies be made for that?  Giacomo  18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a day that's been just around the corner for some time now, but the hyenas have finally gathered their courage for what they think could be the final attack. Who knows, maybe there are enough dishonest editors here on wikipedia to let them get away with it; I suspect that there, as most of the decent ones steer well clear of the drama boards where these gangs of admins congegrate. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a sinus infection and I've been sleeping all day after coughing all night. Now my voice is gone, but not Bonnie Tyler or Demi Moore stripped, just...aw, she's really gross stay away from her kind of gone. I'm way out of it and everything seems surreal to me. I can't make any sense out of the block or that list Sandy just linked to. All of you seem to be wearing purple elephant costumes. Is that what I'm supposed to do too? I don't want to. I don't understand why Malleus was blocked the first time nor the second. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, screw it, I have no desire to wait and see who reverses this block while I listen to people complain about how corrupt I am. Reversed myself. Have fun. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you were corrupt, just that I don't understand what's going on. Why did you block him in the first place? Or the second place, as it were? --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake - cut the self pity. (not you Moni). Hopefully Malleus has learnt a valuable lesson (I told him so) leave FAR and FARC, in fact all Wikipedia pages to those who enjoy such antics - just write and let the non-writing administrative staff have it entirely their own way.  Giacomo  18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What you say is true, but there's a deeper issue, which is that I will not be treated like a child, to be stuck in the naughty corner. That is, at least to me, completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
But Malleus, all of Wikipedia's finest editors are forced to live in the naughty corner. Would you know anyone elsewhere. Rather like going to Heaven, it's all very well, but would one like the people.  Giacomo  18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that over the last day or so, since this storm in a teacup erupted. Despite what some have embedded in their wooden skulls I actually have a great deal of respect for quite a few administrators, although admittedly not into the high hundreds, and almost without exception they're the ones who actually write stuff. There's something rotten in the State of Denmark. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I really do wish that you'd go away and play somewhere else Sarek. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That was on Glee the other day. Even though I woke up like 45 minutes ago, it's slow going for things making sense. That makes none and surely I would be mocked mercilessly for providing song lyrics (preferably ABBA or something similarly sublime) as a reason for making a block. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
ABBA????? eeewwww.....Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Silence, mortal. ABBA are gods. You have no taste. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Take that. Now get back to work-- with Karanacs offline, FAC needs all hands on deck, and there is no rest for the weary, Malleus. I keep going, so can you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
... I've also been wondering whether this is some kind of a record. An editor blocked twice during an FAC for which they are a co-nominator/nominator? Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If we told you that it wasn't, it would just encourage you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
.. whereas you on the other hand need no encouragement at all to keep prodding and poking. Please go away and try to pick on someone your own size next time, another admin let's say. Let's see how brave you are then; I'm just easy meat. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool it, Malleus, that was tongue in cheek. I'm sorry you took offense where none was intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell what you intend; all I can see is a gang of admins determined to drive me away. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not part of any gang here. I don't even join Wikiprojects. I'd be happy to work with you on absinthe whenever you like, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That time has passed; there are still no heads on spikes, and I'm no longer prepared to work in an environment where I'm treated like a naughty child. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As an attorney who works juvenile court, I don't even treat naughty children like naughty children, so let your heart be at peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Malleus' point is valid. Content editors are often treated like children and admonished for not following such and such rule or policy. This was the case here. Malleus was correct about where to place a citation, and he was actually improving an article - for that he gets blocked. I think we should organize a content editor strike and just hang around talk pages and chat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Lord-- you're the second person to suggest that today. I secretly love the idea, but I'd be shooting myself in the foot at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It would certainly cut down on the FAC nominations, which would mean you would have more time to—have more time to—OK, it's a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
11 out of 20, Wehwalt !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm already on strike; let's see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Malleus was just caught up in a bad faith nomination by Cirt; Malleus's "crime" was that he failed to appreciate that no matter what he did to the page, Cirt would continue criticising and demanding. It was supposed to be me that lost my cool and be banned - there the trap failed but caught Malleus instead, but no Admin was bright enough/wanted to see that. GWH should loose his tools for causing all this trouble.  Giacomo  22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, they aren't going to succeed unless you let them, so stop wearing your heart on your sleeve. John's misread of your intent, motivations and post is apparent to anyone who can read. Try to consider this hopefully a good heads up for admins to stop their childish squabbling at AN/I and start paying attention, and maybe even a chance for FAR to begin to turn around, because the trend there needs to be reversed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It won't happen. You know that, I know that. I've probably done all that I can here in the current environment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Martian sex worker

Are you saying that you are prostituting yourself by labouring in the WP salt mine?
So you are probably paid in some Wikipedia-only currency, like kobo or stotinki?
How do the rest of us get paid for enduring the physical and mental abuse?
Varlaam (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (on Phobos)

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I make this section heading appear by dreaming it? --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have dreams about this sort of thing? John Carter (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was limited to teenage boys?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just great. I try to launch a Newlywed-type game to see who knows me best (guess the 11 out of 20), and I'm pre-empted by Martian sex workers. I guess I'll go badger Moni's TPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, let's see, Sandy or Martian sex workers ... Sandy or Martian sex workers ... how are you on those leather harness things?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there are no cows on Mars, so I win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone calling out "Hey, Martian sex worker" is something I would totally dream. Or maybe it was me calling that out in the dream. Because the rest of that 8-hour mystery is trying to figure out why I would want to know who the Martian is and how hookers on Mars might be able to stay financially afloat. What kind of clientele do they have? Or maybe I want to know why someone is mistaking me either for a Martian or a hooker. In any case, it's a dream I would wake from completely exhausted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the categories at the bottom of my user page. Someone (I forget who) thought it would be amusing to add some after I made a comment to the effect that if X was true then I was a Chinese whore from Mars. Which I'm not btw, well, not Chinese anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, good, another way for the Riggr family to have fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The Riggrs? They're mortis. He said stiffly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Ave, Malleus

Malleus, I have been an anonymous admirer of your work for some time, and thought now would be a good time to express my gratitude and admiration for what you do. I have been chewing on the "Andrew Sledd" biography for some time, and have spent considerable time and effort finding good sources for the content. It is currently rated as a GA, and I would be grateful for your suggestions to improve it in whatever wiki forum you think is most appropriate. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wikipedia and I, or at least wikipedia's police force and I, do not at the moment see eye to eye, so I can't help. Why not ask one of the administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh, because most of them are not very good at it, and you are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not my problem, that's wikipedia's problem. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Malleus Fatuorum, I wanted to express my apologies to you, if you thought that my use of the word "lazy" in this comment at FAR [5] was meant to be applied to you. It was not. That was not my intention. I have stricken that part of my comment [6]. I am sorry. I will try not to use the word "lazy" in comments on Wikipedia discussion-pages in the future - as you are correct that such a word could be taken the wrong way. Once again, I am sorry that my comment was misconstrued in such a fashion. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will strive to take those comments under advisement, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a little late for that now, the damage is done. Best we avoid each other in future. Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
<stern Mother Bear voice on> Knock it off, Malleus, and get back in the saddle. The damage is *not* done. You may have lost the battle, and those unjust blocks on your record must be painful, but you won the war-- I like to think that because of this incident, more people are finally aware of your concerns about double standards wrt civility and admins, and perhaps this incident was helpful in that respect. (I do not intend for my analogy to further BATTLEGROUND on Wiki, but it seems the most appropriate analogy for the situation.) Must I put on my humor hat to find a way to cheer you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't see anyone swinging from a tree yet. That would cheer me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You know that's not going to happen. You also know my story of how long I had to wait for justice to be done when I was attacked years ago on Wiki. Patience, cricket. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This state of affairs is is not just an attack, it is an attack by an entire culture of naivity and medioctrity. A culture that is sanctioned and positively encouraged by certain members of the Arbcom and above - nothing is going to change in the near future, if at all because it is caused by character trait in people who join this project with the sole intention of becoming Admins rather than those who join with the intention of writing - with a few rare exceptions the two types do not seem to manifest themselves in the same person - and Wikipedia deliberatly gives all the power to one group and none to the other - it's how thse people keep themselves on top. It's a fucking awful system that allows the like of GWH to descend from Olympus issue unjust blocks on a whim, fuck off back to Olymous and leave the workers to mop up the mess - without even a hint of public criticism of his actions from those on high - the workers here are treated worse than rubbish.  Giacomo  14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but because this was such a painful incident for MF, he is not seeing the forest for the trees (my battle analogy). I suggest that the vantage point of time will show this incident to be a turning point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus has been a bullied victim - that is not in doubt, but there are two sorts of victim, those who accept it and those who do not. Malleus belongs in the latter category, one can only be kicked so many times and then it's time to start kicking back and giving the bullies a bloody good battering, the Cirts and GWHs of this project have had it their own way for far too long - it's time it was their noses that were bloodied and they received back a little of the treatment that they are so keen to dish out.  Giacomo  14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, patience is the wiser course, but then I'm a pollyanna-- YMMV. It is utterly true that, if you kick back on Wiki, the system advantages the admins, and punishes the content contributors, and your actions will not fare well with the arbs. It is true that all editors are not equal on Wiki, and that is one of many reasons I have never wanted to be an admin-- I want to be one of the common folk who must follow the rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes well, as far as our superiors are concerned the peasants have always been revolting. And it's time the peasants rolled out a few tumbril - and I know who ought to be top of the passenger list.  Giacomo  14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I would treat this apology with the cynicism it deserves. IMO it will be used agaist you as a diff. Ceoil (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't doubt that John has already managed to once again misunderstand what's being said and has come up with yet another of his increasingly fantastic misinterpretations. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont think hes that thick. He is that obstinant. He should take out a patent on the grand auld baiting technique. But its all part of the fun, for him. God knows hes been years hammering out the same old tune, and is tired and old enough for PD. In my kinder moments I think we all have a reason. But I have doubt myself too every so often. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that he's repeatedly demonstrated himself to be on the lower end of the thickness scale, but of course I'm not a demi-god like he is, so one of us could be wrong. And of course only one of us likely to be blocked for stating the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Concerning this edit...can/should someone even to that: just remove a whole conversation from their talk page?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it but many others do. The official line is that deleting something from your talk page shows that you've read it, and is allowed by whatever laughably passes for rules here on wikipedia. Personally I just think it's rude and petty, but what do I know. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(Kind of an ironic statement coming from you, but hey...) HalfShadow 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why whisper? Presumably you are suggesting that I'm rude and petty? Is that what you're afraid to say? Can you even begin to imagine what I think of you? Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny what little tiffs can cause people to do...thanks for the quick response and good luck with whatever you have going on above this.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Others wil disagree, but I've never found PR to be much use. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know...sort of trivial in most cases, but for that article and this particular time its proving to be somewhat helpful.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Strike?

There are (armwave) a million regular contributors to Wikipedia, many or perhaps most of them not very good. If the best thousand of them run off to a concealed valley in Colorado, the project as a whole will not notice, and the thousand will be denied the enjoyment that spurred them to contribute in the first place. PhGustaf (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If the best thousand left? The project would notice. And even if it didn't, the readers would. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, can't go to Galt's Gulch, I'm management :).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry Malleus, I have slept on this. I don't think a strike would work. Strikes can only succeed if something desirable or necessary is witheld. Here, serious, quality content is deemed to be neither. Even if the strike held and were to be commented on in the press, even the appaling Wikipedia PR machine would have no trouble pointing out that 2 million pages a day on computer games and mastubatory objects were still being churned out by 14 year olds in Boisse. The way to obtain a result is by threatening something they hold dear, and that is their power. We have the Arb elections coming up in a few weeks and several places up for grabs - and there are Admin elections daily; I think we need to make all of these about content - who knows - we might from this moment onwards suddenly see the 1000s of Admins and Arbs frantically scrabbling to write long serious pages - or even reading content and knowing who writes what. No the Arb elections are the best and most public way to handle this. We could even put up a candidate!  Giacomo  08:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No doubt those whose interests don't coincide with such developments would label it as a giant exercise in trolling. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No doubt they would, but I have been called a troll before. We need to strike where it hurts most and that is their power games - we should start playing them too. Let the Arb elections be about dedication to improving the value of the encyclopedia not about vainglorious titles and strutting about like robo-cop.  Giacomo  09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's anything new in this idea, Giano. I can't recall any time that Karanacs, I or both of us put forward a content contributor at RFA who didn't pass with resoundingly high success. And for two years, I've been putting up an ArbVote page that values content contributors over clerks or squabbling children at AN/I, and most of those I endorsed passed. How about writing a guideline or essay page on the topic to see where it goes? Malleus's recent set of blocks provide a good example. Also, the real problem with ArbCom elections is getting those who truly understand content contributions to run-- Slp1 is my best candidate, but she refuses to subject herself, same for MastCell. Perhaps another approach to this is to find some excellent content contributors with proven responsibility in admin decisions and convince them to run. I suggest badgering Slp1 and MastCell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't put me forward then, I'd seriously dent that score :) Parrot of Doom 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:) Well, my point is that content contributors are valued at RFA, and have no problem getting through. Perhaps I should resurrect my list of excellent and conscientous editors who refuse to subject themselves to RFA so we can all badger them :) Problem is, there's an admin shortage, and we should fill that gap with adults who understand why we're here. Elcobbola, Ealdgyth, Colin, Kablammo ... etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, both as for RFA and for other things as well: to use my favorite FA subject's favorite quote, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the next few lines, which don't get quoted as much: " Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength." Words to live by.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"We must go and work in the garden".Fainites barleyscribs 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Being There, right? "I like to watch". Seriously, with all respect to Voltaire, I think TR had it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Pangloss.Fainites barleyscribs 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I know. I did mention Voltaire!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) My favourite quote is one I use on patriots who question others' loyalty, for not being patriotic enough; "My honour is loyalty".Ning-ning (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, incidentally, that content contributors have little trouble with RfA, I've found that when people bring personal grudges or totally unfounded accusations against such a candidate, they get laughed at by the supporters. I've asked Brianboulton to consider running, he is not willing. Besides, what is this with the sudden effort to corrupt perfectly honorable content contributors by putting them through RfA? Won't they inevitably turn to the Dark Side and start blocking Malleus?--Wehwalt (talk)
Well, that raises another interesting point-- even when good content contributors become admins, they are good precisely because they are unlikely to weigh in on the childish squabbles at ANI, since they are ... ummmm ... busy writing content! But I say we still need them in the admin corp, and in general, if more content contributors would weigh in more frequently at ANI (regardless of their admin status), we might see that useless three-ring circus turn around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, though they are unlikely to agree with each other, at least there will be more reasoned dialogue! But despite your choice of content contributors on ArbComm, and despite the recent decision which was quite good in my agreement, this year's ArbComm has done little to stop the brushfire wars sweeping through the wiki. Kinda of a dead loss, actually, the content contributors have not led to a better quality of decision on ArbComm, and they've been lost as content contributors, too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting jealous over the growing list of MF's cats. On ArbCom, I was surpised by the input in one case from one content contributor I endorsed, but not surprised by the input of one I didn't endorse. In general, it would help if we had more content contributors, and that has been my thrust at Arb elections, but getting more content contributors on arbcom doesn't guarantee good outcomes in those cases-- methinks there is one helluva lot of tussling backchannel among the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I understand that ArbComm must keep some things confidential, but they should release what discussions they can, perhaps after a period of time. And I'm tired of 8-0 votes. What ever happened to dissenting opinions?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I admit to being terribly curious about how they allowed one case to get so badly off-track, and hope they whichever arb drove that debacle was sufficiently embarassed backchannel at the end result. I know for dernsure we were all surprised at one SPI result (I recall spilling wine on my rug that night-- I should learn to drink properly if I'm going to drink now and then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There's always hope for everyone to get over a drinking problem. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I sold that white rug; now when I need to celebrate or unwind, I bug Moni's TPS or engage in other vices, since drinking will apparently not be one of mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've learned a few new vices from my band friends. My brother did the same thing with a white rug from my father's house, I think they eventually got it out but they sold the rug when they renovated.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yerse, I usually am (said without a hint modesty), but that does not mean you have to leave - does it? I need some moral support here, and you help provide it - I refuse to be bossed about by a bunch of kids and power-crazed adolescents. The way to acheive that is get rid of them, not leave oneself. I know I have walked away a few times but I've always come back because I hate not winning - and I usually do, just sometimes it takes a little longer than I would like. I hope you feel the same way and come back some time soon.  Giacomo  06:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • the more you're blocked for nonsense and the longer that goes on without sanctions being applied to the blockers, the more sensible your argument appears. Fuck em. Parrot of Doom 10:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un cœur d' homme; il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.
Unnamed Wikipedia editor carrying a block, yesterday
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Roddon redux

Finetooth has suggested I employ a copy-editor to have a look at roddon before throwing it at another review if you would be so kind Malleus my friend. If any of your followers fancy reviewing the article, please just go ahead and do so --Senra (Talk) 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore me. Sorry. Not been to this page for ages and just read some of the above. I feel for you Malleus. Have a break. Have a tit-tat - erm, I mean a rest. I will bother someone else for my copy-edit. Sorry to bother you. Stay cool --Senra (Talk) 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Grace Sherwood is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalk C. 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more...)

Yea, we made it! Rather than trying to keep up with the vandalism during TFA, I just do a diff on the before and after versions, keep the good, and chuck the bad. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My final thoughts

A project written by educated adults policed by school kids cannot possibly succeed. Something fundamental needs to change to here, and until it does you can count me out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, it is not news that this place isn't run properly. You've known that for ages. Hang with Ealdgyth for a while or something, she will keep you out of trouble! ;) Anyway, these guys don't have that much power. While you don't need to do things that produce tension with those guys, even if you do ... well ... the blocks aren't even sticking these days. You'd essentially be giving them victory when they are nowhere near it. Stick with it! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. Agree. Malleus, there are massive problems on Wiki, but you are one of the editors who puts highly visible content on the mainpage. The remaining 99% of the Wiki isn't something any of us should lose sleep over, and you certainly shouldn't let that remaining 99% influence your decisions! It has always been true that 1% of Wiki articles are worth reading-- why worry yourself about the rest out there? If other editors who put up Wiki's best work had a problem with you, I might see it differently. You are known by the company you keep, and you keep company with the editors who are putting forward Wiki's best work. Avoid the lowest common denominator effect! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I gotta agree with Malleus. He was improving an article - he made many edits, but his efforts were denigrated. When he - OMG! - used a bad word he was blocked! Either this project is about writing and writers are allowed to write, or it's not about writing and instead about pushing personal agendas. I think it's become about pushing personal agendas and has ceased to be about writing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that John should start the RfC that he's obviously so determined to have. Who knows, it may even teach him a lesson that he otherwise seems to be incapable of learning. On the other hand it may expose wikipedia's governance as the dishonest sham that it is. Who can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

MF, I think you got a bum rap on this one. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I have only the vaguest of vague notions what the heck is going on here, but I beg you not to desert the ship. In my brief time here, I've seen some extraordinary rudeness and a great deal of smug superiority, all in users who seem to get away with it no matter how insulting, and ultimately discouraging to others, their behavior becomes. I am surprised you got blocked and chastistied; I hadn't realized sarcasm was a criminal offense here. I confess to having been both exasperated and sarcastic on occasion. Should I be worried? The admins seem to be a bit, shall we say, humorless? I do hope you will come by the Salem Witch Trials page next week (how apropos) to see the progress I'm hoping to have made by then, and tell me what you think (including criticising as necessary). You have been only kind and helpful to me (I hope this doesn't shock the Administrators too much), and I am grateful for the support you've shown. Take care. --TEHodson 02:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Malleus - do not allow these ridiculously naive, small town Admins another victory. We have seen their attitude drive off too many of the better editors already - we can't afford to lose any more.  Giacomo  08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I will not write, help others to write, or review another article here unless and until I see a clear understanding from the admin corps that they must treat non-admins with respect, not as naughty children to be punished with blocks, but I'm not holding my breath. Until then I shall continue to point out the hypocrisy of wikipedia's governance wherever I see it until the admin hyenas and their followers finally have their way and I'm banned, like so many others before me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you're on strike. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
So am I. Wonder whether anyone else wants to join? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest I don't think that many really care about what's going on here, so I doubt it. All I know is that I do, and this is all that I can do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you should be on strike. You were working to save a featured article, and ended up blocked. No one else stepped up to do the work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I was naive. Giano, who's been around a lot longer than me, had it exactly right. This wasn't about the article, it was about targetting specific editors. I have it in my my mind to call a General Strike of content editors at the village pump, but I'm sure that the prissy GWH would only block me again if I did. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a lot of readers here. Start here and see what happens. I think there's real problem at how content editors are treated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I know what would happen, I'd end up blocked again, but that's never stopped me yet. Let me think about it, and if you have any thoughts please share them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A strike is a nice idea Malleus, but do you think any of them even notice or read your work here? This diff concerning my last block a few months ago might amuse you - it was made by one our esteemed Arbs - the ignorance of what goes on on the shop floor is quite staggering. [8]. No, withholding your labour towards content will not bother them one little jot - the only thing that bothers them is pointing out the their gross stupidity and ignorance.  Giacomo  23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand where you're coming from, but my idea is that a grass roots revolt may even make the press, and force some changes here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see, let me sleep on it. That is not a bad idea at all - not a bad idea at all. Trouble is they would stop you co-ordinating it here and I don't like secret/private mailing lists, but something has got to be done, I agree. These people have had plenty of chances to change - suggestions of little comitteees to look into it (which is what they will offfer) are too late now - I think we have to get a bit militant now and get rid of the worst of them. The question is how.  Giacomo  23:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • They could try and stop it, but that would make them look even worse than they currently do. Anyway, sleep on it and see what you think tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Should be fine to talk about whatever you want on a talkpage. After all look at the discussions I've been having with Sandy recently. I think this is a good idea. There are very few good content editors, and if the quality content drops off, well then ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
            I'm sure my insane posts open me up to criticism and jabs, but WTH-- I figure it's "part of my job" to watch out for FAC reviewers and FA writers being abused of, so too bad if I use talk pages for trying to cheer them along until "the muse strikes" or motivation returns again. I embarass myself, but the worst part is that Moni always shows up my drab sense of humor :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I've been here long enough to know that admins make up their own rules and ignore them when they find them inconvenient, and so have you. I really do think that we need to do this, because something has to change here. Either the admins chase all of us writers away, or we chase all the bad admins away. I see no no other alternatives here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I haven't been around nearly as long as you. Have many good content writers left in the past 18 to 24 months? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                • Far more than the number of incompetent administrators who've left, which is neglible. User:Ottava Rima springs immediately to mind; a sometimes difficult editor who did far more for wikipedia's literature articles than the clowns who banned him could ever imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • And here we approach a gray area. Along with User:Ottava Rima, User:Mattisse was a massive content and review contributor who could be disruptive. Both editors bore grudges and made life difficult for other Wikipedians, including other content contributors. Both editors are now banned. Content contribution is not per se an excuse for disruptive behaviour, and dismissing those who carefully deliberated and imposed these bans as "clowns" does no service towards improving the encyclopedia or conditions for future content contributors. Geometry guy 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • It may appear gray to you, but it doesn't to me. I don't want to get into yet another argument with an administrator though, so I'll leave you to believe whatever you like. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • How sad. Good luck with your content strike/plan to quit WP/or any future endeavours you undertake. I wish you well and hope one day you won't see things in such black-and-white terms (admin/non-admin) and will look back on such cynicism and bitterness with a wry smile. Geometry guy 00:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • Sorry, I've been off digging around a bit. I think it would be more useful to know of people who just quietly left - as I almost did a few days ago. I'm fairly fed up, to the point that I won't edit, and I can't imagine I'm the first to have felt that way. I was an inch away from being out the door. I wouldn't just look at the high profile editors who have been banned, but those who contributed and are now gone, for whatever reason. If that makes any sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Truthkeeper88's question, there is indeed Ottava Rima (I too found him difficult, but there is no denying he wrote) and User:Geogre. It's Geogre's which I think was the most awful driving off; a deliberate and calculated act of spite by Arbs playing to the peanut gallery who vote for them. He (like Bishonen) write some of the most thorough and intelectual English lit pages on the site. Like Malleus, Geogre objected to be humiliated like a naughty child. Ironically, he and Rima did not like each other either, but their combined absence has left the English Lit department rather emprty. Bishonen holding the fort alone. Yet our masters did not once stop and think is the English literature department important? No, I doubt they even know what it is. They really need to wise up and see just how intelectuals behave in their university common rooms - squabbles over philosophy and ownership of the last biscuit are commonplace. If you want a great intelectual, you have to accept that - not humiliate them like a child - or they leave. This is the ignorance we are up against here and why non-writing 14 year olds towing the party line are given greater respect and positions of power than those writing the project.  Giacomo  09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My speciality is American lit, not English, but that area seems fairly under-represented here. I wonder how many people care that school kids and college students really do turn to Wikipedia - if not to plagiarize, then as a stepping stone to decent sources. My recent foray into improving a lit article ended in shambles and proves to me that content is secondary to control and perhaps agenda. Either that changes or I leave. In the meantime, I don't edit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It sucks

Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Don't call people clowns. Let me rephrase. Don't obliquely call people clowns, but do so in such a way as to claim plausible deniability that you called them a clown. It's unbecoming of you, and you are a better person than that. I expect this message to land me on your permanent list of "admins that are ruining Wikipedia". Fair enough, given the length of that list, its probably a meaningless distinction. Anyhoo, try to avoid calling names next time, and instead express your righteous indigination in less personal ways. Toodles. --Jayron32 03:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't come here to take the piss unless you're prepared to have the piss taken out of you. You know what I think of you admin types, and I just wish you'd stay away, as I find your moral axis to be disgusting. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a step back, Jay, and think about it. The whole purpose of civility is create a good, collaborative working environment, so that better content is created more easily. When a user is upset – and Malleus has every right to be upset – and they vent some anger on their talk page, it actually helps them. It does nothing to affect the general collaborative atmosphere, because nobody has to read user talk pages in order to write articles. It certainly does nothing to calm anybody down when others start telling them not do things. If you like, that's a big difference between admins and non-admins, and reinforces some of the stereotypes of admins. If I feel strongly that an editor ought not to do something, I know that I have to ask them politely to stop, and explain why that would be a good idea. Would it hurt admins to observe the same convention? --RexxS (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe Jayron was referring to a post at ANI, where the clowns dominate. But ... the Giano/Malleus point has now been conclusively demonstrated to anyone who was paying attention (which is most likely not very many people considering the combined IQ among those who congregate at ANI). So, Malleus, can you now recognize that you won the war even if you lost the battle (again, sorry for the battleground analogy, but it seems apt, although forest for the trees may seem more Wiki-like and avoid battleground terminology), put it behind you, let others take up that issue so you can stop getting blocked, and rejoin the wanks (intended Gism) of lowly content contributors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, I thought he was referring to Malleus' use of the term on this page in the My final thoughts thread, in reference to Ottava's ban. I could say it hardly alters the point, since I hope no-one is going to claim that reading ANI is necessary in order to write good content. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WRT Ottava (and Mattisse), GWH showed at ANI that he is no more informed about arbcases than he is about other matters. The arbs most clearly value and make allowance for "disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions", and GWH showed significant ignorance of arb deliberations in these matters. He showed additional ignorance in suggesting these disruptions would be dealt with when brought to dispute resolution forums-- he is clearly uninformed about how events unfolded wrt Mattisse, and how those "in the know" were slammed down by the arbs, or how ineffective dispute resolution was in that case. I wish he would zip it up when he doesn't know of which he speaks. Mattisse was given enormous breaks to the point that the arbs allowed her disruption to continue until she buried herself in socking. NYB himself extended numerous lifelines to Ottava, that Ottava refused to take, so no one but Ottava himself is responsible for the outcome. Bottom line: ANI is still a circus, and admins as well as arbs are frequently out of touch with what is going on in the trenches-- many content contributors knew the issues occuring with Mattisse, but the arbs just didn't see it until she showed it to them herself. Point being, similar occurred with the Cirt matter, where they were dying to block Malleus without understanding the background. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I agree with almost all of that, but and it's a big but, there are some Admins out there who jusy like blocking, they get some form of exitement from the power of being able to do so. They look for trouble in every nook and cranny - anything that can remotely be misconstrued is misconstrued. If they can block a high profile editor, then their power is more visible to others and the greater the thrill as the Peanuts applaud them and bolster their fragile confidence. It's a psychological problem they have - nothing to do with Arbcom - we know who they are and they came here with the sole intention of bossing others about for their own pleasure - nothing to do with Wikipeda as a project. They need to be identified and desysopped.  Giacomo  18:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The mooning over adminship reminds me of this song; some of my friends used to cover it:here. Although really, we have to buy our own stormtrooper uniforms and everything. And they dock us if it gets torn.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting conversation, but it really has nothing to do with my comments above. I just wanted to see Malleus stop calling people clowns at ANI. I understand his frustration, but I also value him as a content contributor, and was merely reminding him of that value, and of the fact that losing him would be bad. The rest of this political shit flies right over my head, for the most part. So carry on, but understand I don't know, nor really care much about, the background for most of this. Carry on. --Jayron32 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Malleus has been calling things by their right names from day one, as far as I can tell. Are you asking him to stop now? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The English Language is a rich language. It is possible to be both honest, and diplomatic, using it. I have no problem with Malleus pointing out problems at Wikipedia. Problems exist, and clearly need to be fixed. And Wikipedia needs voices of dissent to point us to those problem. One can be dissentful, without being insulting. I value Malleus's dissent at Wikipedia. I do not value insults. One can call a spade a spade, without calling it a clown. --Jayron32 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
But one cannot call a clown a clown without calling him a clown. Ucucha 22:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but one must ask if calling a clown a clown effects the sort of change in the clown which will make him less clownish. In other words, if someone is being a clown, presumably that is something which is inconvenient for you. The thing is, one must act in ways which cause the sort of results one wants. If someone is being a clown, calling him a clown doesn't actually stop the problem. It will likely only make it worse, since people who are insulted rarely are more open to reasoned discourse regarding their own behavior, and so are actually less likely to improve. If I feel someone is acting inappropriately, there are means to get him to stop. And calling him names isn't it. What Wikipedia needs, above all else, is more reasoned discourse and less insult hurling.
The other big thing is that "clown" is imprecise language. The problem with idiom of this type is it doesn't actually express anything meaningful about the behavior of the person that is making them clownish. When you express the sentiment that someone "is a clown", it doesn't identify a single behavior. As writers, our first goal is precision of language. Vague insults don't actually convey depth of meaning, and that causes two problems. 1) The person who is the target of the insult has no way of knowing what changes they need to make in their behavior, and more importantly 2) Bystanders have no idea what the source of the problem is either. There's no way to improve the situation when one uses insults in place of reasoned discourse. --Jayron32 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I would take your remarks more seriously if you applied these same standards to others, especially administrators. Given the fuss today over TreasuryTags block because of perceived incivility in edit summaries it's difficult to suppress a wry smile remembering that when Rodhullandemu used the word "wankers" in an edit summary recently not a word was said, but then he's an administrator. The word "clown" is in any case no more vague than any other word, and expressed my meaning perfectly well, and it's high time that the braying clowns at ANI stopped their clownish and dishonest behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, "wankers" was not in the edit summary [9], it was in a summary of a thread closure, which made possible its later redaction. I think Rodhullandemu did get the message that it was nonetheless inappropriate humour. (I thought it was funny myself, but WP cultural issues mean it was an obviously bad idea.) But it wasn't obviously targeted at a specific user or group, so do compare like with like. Rd232 talk 01:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
He didn't actually seem to get the message (rather the contrary). Ucucha 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You'll note that I was not involved in any of those situations. Indeed, I am not involved in any situation here. We're just having a conversation. I take your meaning here. I understand that you feel singled out in this manner. I can only say that, substantively, I agree with you on your stance on both of those situations. You are entirely correct that other people behaved badly. You are also correct that sometimes, those other people who behaved badly were admins. In this case, Rodhullandemu, an admin, behaved poorly when he called people wankers. That was unambiguously wrong. However, you'll note that I have never called anyone that. I understand that temporally, the Rodhullandemu situation and this conversation we are having here, happened close in time to one another. Please do not extact any additional meaning from that. My whole purpose here is to just try to help you see that it isn't helpful to you to be insulting. It doesn't make people more receptive to your opinions on matters. It makes them less receptive to your opinions. In sofar as I value your opinion, I would like to see it have more impact in effecting needed change at Wikipedia. So I would just like to see you be more effective, rather than less, at being a reasoned voice of dissent. We need you to be that. Insults hurt your message. --Jayron32 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Those who are unreceptive will not become receptive just because of a little bit of circumlocution. I am insulted here on an almost daily basis; earlier Camelbinky was kind enough to comment at ANI that all I do here is GA/FA "reviews" (notice the pointed quotation marks?), and that I ought to consider trying to write an FA. But of course, because he didn't use a naughty word the GWHs of wikipedia don't care. That's a damn funny definition of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I missed that. Was it while I was cooling off yesterday, or after I lost interest in another circus? Can anyone point me to it? I'm amused at the current Treasury Tag discussion; watching to see if admins will police only the non-admins, or the admins as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Short of arbcom (which is tedious, time-consuming, and past cases show it often just saps the time of content contributors), we give the keys of "trust" to the monkeys and they are running the asylum-- not very well. Do we have to take every case to ArbCom, or will the monkeys start to regain control of their own? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a minute. Are these the same monkeys who write Shakespeare plays if you give them a typewriter and enough time? Now there's an idea.Fainites barleyscribs 00:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the part I really don't understand: Malleus uses the word "clown" or whatever it was that got him blocked the first time, Giano uses the organ grinder, but admins 1) block editors they're in conflict with, and 2) close discussions they've participated in with the term "wanker". So which causes greater harm to the "collegial environment"-- the mildly intemperate language or the power trip? Yet ANI is discussing Treasury Tag, not the big picture. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
And Camelbinky gets away with this without comment - incredible!. Richerman (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I just found that. We all know darn well that if Giano or Malleus told someone to "get bent", they'd be blocked within minutes. But this is cool-- the point is being made over and over again (albeit lost in the noise of the asylum, and it's doubtful that those who most need to get the point, will). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Who is Camelbinky, anyway? Recent tours through RFA show a whole ton of editors supporting a whole ton of candidates I've never heard of or seen around any content processes. What is it, children promoting children? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Who is Camelbinky - are you serious? All you need to do is look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and obviously you'll find s/he is one of our most prolific FA writer's. Oh sorry, that's odd - they don't seem to feature on that page at all! Must be a glitch in the software. Richerman (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ask a question: get an answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Or - be careful what you wish for. Do you think this will get me a block? Richerman (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
So, is this how we must spend our time? MF woulda been blocked for less. I'm thinking I need a block log-- who can I go tell to get bent or call a wanker? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, obviously My British sense of irony isn't appreciated :) Richerman (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, Sandy, you could tell me to get bent or call me a wanker. However, as I'm a scuba diver with over 1,000 decompression dives, the former is unlikely to be an insult; while I'm so used to the latter, I'd be unlikely to notice. Not much help, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break

If others' definition of civility is flawed, Malleus, is there one you could devise that you would follow? One that would keep new users from being intimidated, demand experienced users think deeply about their communication, and still allow the collaboration of the site? Do you think such a definition is possible? I'm curious. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility is impossible to legislate for and is largely in the eye of the beholder, so if I ruled the world I'd dump that policy; too often it's just a naughty words policy anyway. On the other hand I'd clarify and rationalise the no personal attack policy, and of course I'd insist that it's applied equally to admins and non-admins, but that'll never happen. If I were to call you an anti-semitic sob that's a clear personal attack. If on the other hand I give it as my opinion that you're talking crap, or even fucking crap, I really don't see a problem with that, and I think that anyone who does needs to be a little less precious. I don't advocate using intensifiers gratuitously, but they do sometimes serve a purpose. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I always see your point, but on the other hand, I'm not convinced it's "impossible to legislate", as much as there's a problem with the monkeys we've put in charge of the asylum enforcing it unequally. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if it were enforced equally. And ANI has completely broken down; there is no credible place on Wiki to get attention for anything anymore. Are there no adults in charge anywhere? Must we spend our days policing childish antics like Camelblinky's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly have a lot less of a problem with it if it were enforced equally, but basically what might be considered civil in California might well be considered uncivil elsewhere in the English-speaking world. The trite and condescending "have a nice day" springs immediately to mind. Who can possibly tell whether that's being said sincerely or in an effort to be condescending? And that's the basic problem with civility, it's in the eye of the beholder. There are administrators here who could find a simple "Hello" to be uncivil if said by an editor they've got in their sights, which is why I'd switch the focus to NPA; that's relatively black-and-white. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Help me understand the difference: when an editor recently started a section on my talk page with a "STFU" heading, followed by a diatribe, is STFU uncivil or a personal attack or nothing? Where would it fall in your new scheme? Because a section heading STFU doesn't lead to a collegial environment when he's POVing an article and I'm giving sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
To begin by being facetious, whenever I see the word collegiality here on wikipedia I'm always reminded of the History Today sketches on the Mary Whitehouse Experience. To be a little more serious though I would consider that starting a section entitled STFU to be unacceptable, but not because it's either uncivil or a personal attack. My objection to it is more fundamental, and rooted in why it is that we're all here, which is presumably to write an encyclopedia. So I'd be looking at the longer game, and wondering whether such a STFU section was intended to, or likely to, lead to a better end product, and the answer would be no, it wasn't. I'm not quite saying that the end justifies the means, but I can certainly see it from where I'm standing. In other words collegiality with a common purpose is the key, not civility or even personal attacks per se, but obviously the more egregious personal attacks (calling someone a racist and so on) have to be stamped on nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, but still confused: if we eliminate civility, and are left with NPA, where does STFU, following on a reliable sources-based discussion, fall in the new scheme? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a practical impediment to collegiality; that it might also be considered uncivil or a personal attack is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. I suppose I'm really suggesting that wikipedia needs a new policy, WP:COLLEGIALITY, in place of WP:CIVIL. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds workable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting thought. Care to stub that? It might be more workable than "civility", since the goal of both is to allow people to work together smoothly, but people disagree strongly on what civility consists of. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It's also a significant shift in emphasis. The civility policy espouses civility for its own sake, and confusingly even starts off with the words "Incivility consists of personal attacks ...". Whatever is meant by terms like "gross profanity" is also very much in the eye of the beholder. WP:COLLEGIALITY would emphasise modes of behaviour likely to improve the quality of the end product by encouraging productive collaboration, and conversely by calling for sanctions on the behaviours that don't. None of that has anything much to do with the saccharine sweet "we must all be nice to each other and avoid using naughty words because that's a good thing to do in life"; you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. If my motivation level ever picks up again I might try sketching something out, but I doubt it. There are too many here who've invested their whole admin careers in imposing their view of civility on others for them ever to admit to the possibility that they might just have been unable to see the wood for the trees. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) More importantly, the concept of collegiality is closely coupled to the wiki-mechanism of producing content, while civility is at least one step removed. It ought to be easier to relate our expectations of collegial behaviour to the corresponding advantages for making content. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so next question: how do we keep COLLEGIALITY from being subject to the same sort of variable enforcement we see of CIVILITY? I'm thinking of the situations I most frequently encounter in a contentious area I sometimes edit, where my character and edits are often (falsely) attacked and talk page disruption results. How do handle one editor's interpretation of COLLEGIALITY being different from another's? For me, it boils down to often seeing editors say things on Wiki that they certainly wouldn't get away with in a workplace or social environment, but I still see the potential for this to be as variably enforced as CIVIL is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not proposing that WP:NPA should be replaced, so the worst of the "you're a fucking Nazi racist wanker" nonsense ought to be dealt with as now. I admit there's still the problem that administrators generally only apply that policy to non-administrators, but that's at least no worse than now. A simpler, less moralising, and more practically grounded WP:COLLEGIALITY could at the very minimum reduce the number of excuses that administrators currently use to block their enemies. For instance, there's nothing wrong per se with saying to another editor "I think you're talking bollocks" if indeed they might reasonably be considered to be talking bollocks. There could be a clearer definition of what "gross profanity" actually means, but that ought to be moved to WP:NPA. In other words, WP:COLLEGIALITY and WP:NPA have to be written so as to work together. Some fundamental questions need to be answered as well. Is "You are an idiot" to be considered a personal attack? What about "I think that you're an idiot"? Is "I think that you're a fucking idiot" gross profanity" Or "In my opinion you have expressed yourself fucking idiotically"? This has very little to do with collegiality IMO, where it would be enough to say something to the effect that personal attacks are discouraged because they may lead to the loss of a potentially useful collaborator. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
But how do we avoid the same fundamental pitfall, which is that some admins do so little real content work that they don't recognize or enforce collegial behavior, or lack thereof, even when you slap them in the face with it? In other words, considering Psychim62's long history of attacks on FAC, why wasn't he blocked for STFU on my talk page? I recognize it could be a simple matter that most admins who follow my talk might be considered "involved" with me-- is that the problem? I seriously doubt he would have been blocked if I had brought it to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
We have to recognise that some administrators are hopeless cases and try to make sure that similar hopeless cases aren't promoted in the future. We have to work to get rid of the worst of them, pour encourager les autres. We have to reduce the opportunities they have to block on a whim by refocusing the civility policy along the lines I'm suggesting, and we have to clarify the details of NPA. There isn't just one thing wrong, so there equally isn't just one thing that can be done to fix it. Pehaps above all, we have to try and work together to achieve anything, because all the power lies with the administrators, who are organised against what many of them clearly see as a disorganised rabble. Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
But the problem with the admin corp is that at RFA, we having children promoting other children, so we're back around to the same ole same ole. How do we fix that? I remember years ago when there were routine opposes for non-content contributors. RFA seems to have cycled in the wrong direction, because (like so many other areas of Wiki) there is a shortage of admins, so lesser qualified candidates (relative to the past) are getting through, and scrutiny of candidates seems to be waning. I'm guilty of same-- I gave up on RFA long ago, and started only opposing really egregious candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps admins need to be required to stop putting themselves in the position of being sole judges, and to just stick to enforcing decisions the community has reached – at least when it comes to a policy such as this? As for working out whether a breach has occurred, it should be sufficient to answer the question "Did that comment/action/edit, etc further the goal of improving content, on balance, or did it move us away from it?" --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Perhaps admins need to be required to stop putting themselves in the position of being sole judges, and to just stick to enforcing decisions the community has reached" - I've proposed a policy amendment at WT:CIVIL in the direction, but I'm not over-run with support for it, even as recommendation rather than requirement. :( Rd232 talk 14:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hardly a surprise I'm afraid. There's a whole rank of administrators who've built their shabby little careers around the civility policy, too many to allow it to evolve into something more suitable for adults than naughty children. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems sensible, but same ole problem: we still have too many admins who know nothing about actions or comments that improve content, because they don't engage enough in content! They're here for other reasons, which is why we need to get back to a focus on content contributors. I really wish NYB would weigh in on this proposed new policy. He deals with collegiality in arb deliberations and I respect the man, his input, his behavior, his positions generally, but I diverge with him when he supports children on Wiki. I acknowledge there's not much we can do about this, recognize that some of our most abusive admins aren't children, recognize that some of the ANI circus is the result of non-admins weighing in, but still think we have a problem with Myspacey-children on Wiki supporting same at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
In a way WP:COLLEGIALITY is the other side of the coin to WP:DISRUPT. When I look at alleged incivility, context is all. Saying "that's fucking crap" in a good ding-dong argument between knowledgable editors may well be nothing. In other circumstances it may be rank bullying. A policy which clearly defines it's aims , such as collegiality or absence of disruption is instantly more understandable than a value judgment like civility. Any policy will have a grey border but civility seems to suffer a sort of indefinable miasmic grey creep. Fainites barleyscribs 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that's exactly right, and I think that despite SandyG's ringing endorsement of NYB he's at least partly to blame for the increasing schism between admins and non-admins. I also think that RexxS had it right in saying that it might "be easier to relate our expectations of collegial behaviour to the corresponding advantages for making content", and get away from the childish "I think you might have been rude to me" mentality or the even worse "I think you might have been rude to him/her so I'm going to block you" mentality exemplified by the ever more out of control admins like GWH. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2

(edit conflict)I think, Malleus, that you make a very good point above. It's one I consistantly try to get people to understand, and they consistantly pretend to (or refuse to) see the difference between comments on a person and comments on an action. You capture the crux of the issue when you say "If I were to call you [a name] that's a clear personal attack. If on the other hand I give it as my opinion that you're talking crap, or even fucking crap," I've never had issue with swear words as modifiers. As you note, used judiciously, they serve a great purpose. However, that is not what started my discussion above. You stated You'll have to forgive me, but I've always found clowns to be quite frightening. I'll leave it to you to decide who is the clown here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC). That's not a dirty word intensifier. Yes, I can concede every point you have to make about applying policies towards admins. In fact, I believe that admins need to be held to higher standards of behavior due to their standing in the community. However, when you do things like that, it doesn't help your cause. Look, communication is a tool. Like all tools, it is supposed to accomplish a task. On the one issue, it isn't circumlocution to be precise in your language. Your statement I quoted is circumlocution. If you mean "When you do XXXX, I find it unacceptable because of YYYY" then you are being precise in your language. Say exactly taht, it is clear of meaning. Lobbing vague insults serves in no way to advance your meaning. As I said, communication is a tool. It is a tool to get people to do what you want them to. In this case, my sense is that you want admins to be held to the same standards they enforce. Fine. But lobbing vague insults doesn't actually provide a means towards your ends.
Look at it this way. In any arguement, there are three groups of people
  1. Those that agree with you
  2. Those that disagree with you
  3. Passive observers who have not made up their mind.
Insults only serve to energize group 1. They don't need to be convinced of your arguements. When you insult someone on the opposing side from you, you only get them to dig in their heels. You can't reason someone into your position on an issue if you insult them first. There may be times when, I will concede, that your opponent isn't in a mindset to be convinced. Fine. There is, however, that third group. The people who aren't involved in a conflict, but witness it. The real problem with insults is that they generate sympathy among these neutral people for your opponent. If your goal is to show that your opponent is wrong, and you are in the right, then insulting your opponent works at crosspurposes. It only causes uninvolved people to take their side. Furthermore, people develop reputations. If you develop a reputation as an unreasonable person, people are going to remember your past unreasonableness, and it colors their view of what you have to say. So not only do you tend to lose the current arguement, it causes people to dismiss anything else you have to say, even if you are right.
As in any aspect of life, it helps to have a goal, and then to choose actions which will likely accomplish that goal. My sense is that your goal is to see that admins are not hypocritical, and obey policies they are entrusted in applying. I am not certain how calling others "clowns" accomplishes that goal. --Jayron32 03:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As you quoted, what I said was "You'll have to forgive me, but I've always found clowns to be quite frightening. I'll leave it to you to decide who is the clown here", so arguably I might have been calling myself a clown. I really don't see in context how this can be considered to be an insult as opposed to an observation; fear of clowns is in fact rather common, and nobody was called a clown. In fact that's almost precisely the argument that Cirt used when he accused me of being lazy at a recent FAR; because he didn't direct the comment at anyone specifically then it was perfectly acceptable. Of course Cirt is an administrator though, and therefore different rules apply, and that's what's got to stop. If anyone taking part in that ANI felt that the clown hat fitted, that's no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed a category, Jayron: Those that see valid points on both sides, see the circus that ensues, feel that they can add no more to the chaos already in progress or that all the players seem to be comfortable in their parts and patterns, and refuse to participate because their opinions, stated however carefully or poetically, could never knock everyone out of their roles and bring everyone to some intelligent resolution. --Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As a complete aside, I, Balloonman, see absolutely nothing wrong with being called a clown... in fact, I'm seriously thinking about getting a DBA as "Some Clown Consulting." I want my clients to be able to tell their friends that some clown helped them resolve their corporate problems!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some years ago I worked with a freelance computer consultant who traded under the name of FBC Ltd. One day I asked him if the initials meant anything, and he said "Yeah, Fat Bastard Consulting". Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to do business as "some clown consulting" because I used to be a clown, and now I have a global reputation of being one of the 3 or 4 best known people in the world who can do what I do... and I've told people before, "If you can take some clown off the street and get him to do what I do, then anybody can learn what I've learned.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm intrigued. What is it that you do? Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle

Brilliant

In contrast to the doom and gloom recently, I bought a new bike today, from Ribble cycles near Preston. I'm very proud of it, its light years more advanced than my 30-year-old Mercian Audax, and here's a picture of it, standing proudly outside my front wall. I've already popped 25 miles on it. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have, of all things, a c1974 bicycle with Maserati logos. It has lovely lime paint prone to flaking off. It uses sew-up tires. The ones on it are clobbered, but I have a set of (by now) NOS Clements for it, and a tube of glue. All these were bought before 1986, and I still harbor fantasies of putting it together some time. It's a very light and nimble bicycle. PhGustaf (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"It's the bike, right? Chicks love the bike." --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll bet it's worth more than my clapped-out shed of a car. Richerman (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the calves and thighs in tight shorts; chicks prefer not to think about those pointy seats shoved up men's cheeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In the early '90s I bought a mountain bike for what I thought was a lot of money, about £400 IIRC. It got nicked a few years later from the garden shed where I kept it, but luckily it was insured, so I bought a Trek to replace it, which has pretty much languished in the garage ever since. The trouble with bikes is that if you're not watching them then someone nicks them, or something off them. When I worked in London it was commonplace to see a bike frame locked to railings, sans wheels, seat, gears ... Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, when I worked at UMIST we had a post doc who'd just got his PhD from Cambridge. In his first week hewas working overnight and left his bike chained to the railings outside the building - a common practice around the dreaming spires of Cambridge it seems. Needless to say it wasn't ridable by the following morning. During the day they were a bit safer but there was the notable occasion when a student told one of the porters that he'd lost the key to his bike lock. "Tommy in Estates will get it off with his bolt croppers" he was told. Tommy duly appeared, cut off the bike lock and the grateful student rode away. Ten minutes later another student came to see the porter - "someone's just nicked my bike. I don't know how - it was chained to the railings!" I don't think Tommy lived that one down until the day he retired. Wherever he went someone would shout "watch your bike, Tommy's here!" Richerman (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
All four of my bikes live inside my house :) Parrot of Doom 07:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads

I was pleasantly surprised to see this. When I was writing my nomination statement, I originally wrote something to the effect of, "being an admin is not about the bit but rather having an adminly attitude, Elen has that attitude." But when I was writing it, I kept thinking, "Ok, Balloonman, think about how you really want to word this, some people won't think having an admin's attitude will be a good thing... how do convey that Elen has the positive attributes of being an admin without incorporating those characteristics that are criticized by Malleus?" You honestly were on my mind when I wrote that nom!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Elen's English, we need to stick together. :-) I've seen Elen around, and I'm sure she won't become one of those block-happy civility warriors I so despise. In fact I suspect that she'll hardly ever use her magic block button, or feel the need to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That I agree with that as well... I don't see her changing much with or without the buttons. With the buttons she might experiment here and there, might use it on occassion when she stumbles accross an issue/vandal, but I don't see her fabricating issues.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocks are for persistently adding this kind of crap. Or copyright violation. Can be useful with an editor who makes bad edits and just never responds to any other kind of communication. Blocking people in a content dispute, for saying the sort of things you say in a dispute? Rarely a helpful move I would have thought, because now they're not just mad at each other, they're mad at you as well. At work, I would eventually put the phone down on someone who was just yelling abuse, but even then only after efforts to get them to stop. Someone who swears or uses snarky comments in the course of explaining that they haven't had their bins emptied for six weeks - it's not going to help the situation telling him to stop cussing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how I have 2 weeks blocks for edit warring, wouldn't you think that it's a little too much? Makaperqafe (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Creating an alternate account in order to edit while blocked is only going to get you blocked for longer, so I'll pretend I didn't see this. 'Kay? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That's good advice from Elen; always create your alternate accounts before you get blocked., :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what was the name of that account you were going to create so that I could coach you and run for Admin?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
When I wanted to edit quietly away from the eyes of hostile admins I used to use User:Nunez99, at least I think that's what it was called, something like that anyway. I never intended for Nunez to become an admin though, and he was way too smart to submit to an RfA anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A bit of a double edged sword, Malleus: Would Nunez avoid the caustic comments that you sometimes make? If yes, then it knocks the pins from under the "Don't block Malleus because he can't learn anything from it, it is just the way he is" argument. If Nunez does not avoid such comments, then I think it would be a dead giveaway. It would be interesting though ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You can check on Nunez's contributions for yourself and make your own mind up. One very big difference is that Nunez beavered quietly away in wikipedia's dark corners, where few others cared to contribute. Malleus is a fish of an entirely different colour, contributing in all sorts of high-profile areas that attract all sorts of riff-raff and warriors, so some conflict is inevitable. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I did look at it; there were no talk page contributions, so the question of dialogue never came up. The final edit was to your userpage!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I just told you that didn't I? Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You did, I read your comment hastily.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Aberdon

Can you hold off a few minutes while I merge an edit conflict? Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Of course. I'm done there for now anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I managed to salvage some of my work, but the merge is a headache, I too will return to it later. This time I'll use "inuse"! Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Ah, I thought I was helping, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins held to higher standard of civility

Not sure whether you are serious or just making a cynical point about Admis not being held to higher standard, as a practical matter. One which I agree with, BTW. Still, If it is not the rule, then you can't criticise anyone for breaking it. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not even held to the same standard. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. Indeed, some admins hold non-admins to a much higher standard. If someone runs for ArbCom with intent to quell the Civility Police, and the ideological tendentiousness it often cloaks, I will support them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If they also propose filling in the spillways and penstocks at Hoover Dam, and waiting for the inevitable, that would have about equal risk. Either way, it's a countdown to a disaster.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I plan to run for ArbCom. My slogan is going to be: "Turn the school principals back into school janitors." --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you may find that you're in for a surprise come the ArbCom elections in that case Wehwalt. It doesn't seem that you're recognising the ground-swell against the civility police, and in particular their uneven application of their sanctions. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Self-flagellation

[10] Parrot of Doom 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased with what we did with that and Guido, and your subsequent work on the plotters has been little short of amazing. It's an obvious choice for November the 5th, but that may count against it in the strange and bizarre wikiworld. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm rushing to get all 13 in some semblence of order before the 5th. Even if I don't get around to re-writing the remaining 4 (I've made a start on Robert Keyes), they should at least be nipped and tucked. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow! as you're such mug for punishment PoD why not throw in Guy Fawkes Night while you're at it? Maybe that one is just a bridge too far though. Richerman (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Have you noticed how certain people, like Baseball Bugs, are allowed to re-write ANI on a whim. I think I shall try to do the same, it's obviously allowed now - you must do it too. This is not the diff in question [11], allthough familar names, but the section is barely recognizable as the one our comments were pertaining too. Perhaps it's magic.  Giacomo  18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that editors like Baseball and his mate Camelbinky try continually to ram their version of "the truth" down everyone else's throats. And I've also noticed that the self-appointed leaders of the civility police allow them to get away with it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
What does "re-write ANI" mean? --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it the plural of ANUS?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Click from here onwards Moni. (Ignoring the one edit for another thread of course).Fainites barleyscribs 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Here, I am being "unadmonished" [12] and here [13] along with Malleus, seemingly left replying to thin air. Oh well, good to know it is now perfectly Ok to rewrite our histories in such a high profile place. Wherever shall we start?  Giacomo  19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly Baseball wants to be an administrator himself, so the more arses he can stick his nose up the better he thinks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

renaming

Hi Malleus. You may not be aware of the recent ongoing policy discussion and the sudden resulting controversies at Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge. I think it might help if experienced editors like yourself, particularly those knowledgeable on policies were to review the situation and either offer some comments, or to advise where to go next. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for me. I recognise the inevitably of London being renamed London, England, in case it might be confused with London, Hick State USA; this is the US wikipedia after all. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy call–

"he who must not be named", Curious application of WP:DENY. ~ IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.122.1.34 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gee, MF; we knew ye when you were just a wee boy with a hammer. ("He who must not be named" in my neck of the woods is *not* named Malleus!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just makes me laugh. What on Earth is Rodhullandemu on? Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AD's RFA

This edit here was simply hilarious. You make me start the day with a good laugh once in a while! All the best,--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Slamming the stable door

The irony nver fails to amuse me, how clever Wikipedia is at slamming a stable door, after a horse has bolted [14]. The problem is that even then, they never secure that door properly, so as a consequence the new horses eventually bolts too. In a well run stable yard, doors would be properly maintained in a badly run yard it is botch and tie with string rather than buy new wood and some nails.  Giacomo  07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm plagiarizing an idea someone else gave me, but ... admins have their noticeboard, crats have one, arbs have their place for discussion, but Wiki's most prolific content contributors do not. The community of editors who work to put top content on the mainpage are generally unaware when the FAs among the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" are being damaged-- either by POV pushers, style crusaders, trivia fans, or whatever. Why don't we start a content contributors noticeboard, and police it by removing all those childish admin squabbles to talk? It would give those who do know how to write content a place to address numerous issues that many admins aren't capable of or interested in addressing, 'crats won't take on because it's not their job, and arbs have been less than successful at addressing, partly because they don't do content disputes and partly because some of them just don't get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content noticeboard is the closest thing which still survives. When something like this was proposed before, the Defenders Of The Wiki screamed and shouted until it was deleted, and the result would no doubt be the same this time. – iridescent 14:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Call it something a bit different, say "Writer's workshop".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, for now, it looks like Malleus' talk page may be the clearing house ... I do hope he appreciates that something has come of the debacle that affected him :) Some examples of how this board might be useful come to mind (based on ... ummmm ... recent events and other):
  1. Image review-- there are very few knowledgeable image reviewers, and I'm sick and tired of having to ping them-- it would provide a clearing house for nominators once all else is cleared on the nom, where they can request an image review.
  2. RSN deals with basic reliability, but FA writers familiar with the higher standards per 1c don't congregate there-- it would provide a place for FA-specific RS queries.
  3. Many reviewers support FACs that do not have RS clearance-- it would provide a place to notify other reviewers that more feedback is needed. Ditto for independent review.
  4. Style crusaders cause lots of problems on FAs (see RelHistBuff, infoboxes, color, date-delinking, changes in citation style, etc ad nauseum). The MOS talkpage is a nightmare, so we could use a clearing house, and it would help us all know when inexperienced editors are causing deterioration in an FA. Recent style changes in an FA come to mind-- by the time the FAR was over, it was a fait accompli that could have been avoided if more FA writers had been aware.
  5. The recent query at WT:FAC about size on Shakespeare could have gone to this board.
So, it occurs to me that we can make a case for the board being needed and useful. And I'd like the fact that we might be able to police it better than ANI, where every 12-yo Tom Dick and Harry can weigh in with uninformed commentary. We'd just move off-topic nonsense to talk, as we do at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Mmmmmm, I am thinking about what you say - it does seem very FA and FAR centred - good content extends far beyond that these days - I am far from being the only content editor who has turned away from it and created my own standards. What was the name of a proposed committee some time ago - I was asked to be on it, and all hell broke loose and the idea fell through before it got off the ground - even after I said I would resign - can anyone remember? I can't.  Giacomo  15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't remember the name either-- the Kirill proposal that led to his resignation, that I was also asked to be on. It was utterly ridiculous that it led to such a kerfuffle, and I seem to remember that Mattisse fed those flames (I could be wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Advisory Council on Project Development. I still stand by my opposition to that in the form it was proposed; it was clearly a rubber-stamp committee intended to create a tier of super-users. – iridescent 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

....but I wanted to be a super-user :-(  Giacomo  15:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There already is a tier of super-users: they're called admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd there are quite a few proposals these days to package the idea of giving people admin powers while bypassing the community consensus process which is RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec, re Sandy) Yes, but at least with admins there are enough of them that they act as a counterweight to each other, at least in theory. If you'll recall, ACPD's membership was explicitly chosen to consist of people Jimbo thought would agree with him, with Giano as the token Toxic Personality. – iridescent 15:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Curious-- do people really think I agree with Jimbo most or any of the time? Also, Iri, puhlease !!! Counterweight to each other? What the hell good does that do Malleus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That if someone blocks him and there's not a good reason, someone unblocks him. Without wanting to presume, I don't think Malleus would argue with that; he's always been very clear that he's opposed to the lack of control over admins who overstep the limits, not admins per se. (The arguments for and against ACPD are all here in excruciating detail; they're really not worth having again.) – iridescent 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh, as long as Malleus remains absent, I'll rest my case. I'm glad you said "in theory" above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you agree with Jimbo only if he says Chavez is a jerk, any article about a Venezuelan issue which does not say so is POV, and eighteen year olds who party for days on end on islands off Venezuela's coast are conclusively nuns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Jimbo learned his lesson when he weighed in at Che Guevara. I recall agreeing once on a Jimbo issue (that he should retain some control over arb appointments), because I could see the slippery slope we'd head down if he didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
He can always vote in the election ... do you think he gives campaign contributions?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Who, Chavez? He doesn't need to: he has an oil pipeline of dollars at his disposable-- one that used to belong to the Venezuelan people, but which they gave up themselves by abstaining from voting (in case I've not been clear, they are the jerks, not Chavez). Can we get back to talking about a noticeboard now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What did you think of my idea for a name?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to overcome the other points raised here before we think about a name. More ideas on how it would be used ... to overcome past MFDs et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per your request. Fainites barleyscribs 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I need names. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Patience, cricket, patience; there's more than one way to skin a cat. Your goal is for admins to stop abusing lowly content contributors, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude's name on Kung Fu was "Grasshopper". --Moni3 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Damnit. What is a Willy? Well, in my defense, I think in Spanish, and in my Spanish, they're the same! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Defense rejected, Libélula: Grillo, Saltamonte, Willy Yomanganitalk 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yo-man, I know you too well-- I was counting the minutes til you'd show up, and anticipated it when I posted. Notice I said "my" Spanish, nanenanebooboo! I covered it. I never saw a saltamonte in Caracas, but I did see lots of grillos (d'oh). Hence, I don't think of saltamontes in Spanish. Toma tu tomate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is, simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not quite, beetle, not quite. It's admins abusing their powers at the expense of lowly contributors surely.Fainites barleyscribs 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone else can go deal with ninnies at ANI, because I'm starting to get hot under the collar. They just don't, can't or won't see it. I'm outta here for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are so many who do that though, but as it happens so frequently it goes unnoticed. GWH is a classic example; a self-satisfied pratt who thinks that he's better than everyone else just because he's an administrator, and therefore feels he has the right to abuse any other editor he takes a dislike to, or one of his tag-team buddies takes a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not unusual for even the most well-meaning of "judges" in all walks of life to be corrupted by power. That's why you need a Court of Appeal/Supreme Court. Not sure ArbCom really fulfils that role though. It shouldn't be a question of "is this admin so awful that we humiliate and desysop them after a month long case" but rather, we, in our collective wisdom, overturn this decison, etc etc, or tell one to back off from an editor or a situation. For all the talk of mops, admins do have de facto power. People with power have to be watched. Including me. (Mwahaha)Fainites barleyscribs 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't blame GWH, I just think that he's a clear and conspicuous case of what's wrong with wikipedia's admins. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I wasn't meaning corrupt in the venal sense. It's more a getting out of touch and thinking one is a more important person than one really is and becoming correspondingly over-sensitive to slights to authority and having an over-inflated view of the value of one's wisdom. Also - using "one" instead of "your". That sort of thing. Fainites barleyscribs 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right but I'm still as mad as Hell though, so I'll be back when I'm back. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Take all the time you need. Quite honestly, you're worth quite a bit more than many of your "detractors". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ealdgyth told me that if you stick around she will make out with me in front of you for 2 full minutes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wankers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
These drama scenes are good for my advanced English vocabulary. Ucucha 01:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I could start cursing at 'em in Spanish to expand your vocabulary even further, but I don't want to make The Adorable One blush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wankers is not a swear word. As evidence I offer you the news that Wayne Rooney may be leaving Man U as presented by Fox Sport News on MSN yesterday (and neither is mierda come to that). Yomanganitalk 09:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reboot post-Wankers

Now that the Giano/Malleus point is conclusively demonstrated and proven, could we please re-focus on starting a forum where content contributors could discuss article issues and disruptive editors without the meddlesome childish antics that predominate at other noticeboards?

How would we use the proposed new forum?

What would we have to name it to get Giano involved, since he has sworn off of the FA process?

Could we define its scope to include issues at content review processes, like PR/GA/FA?

Could it cover some of what was accomplished at WP:1FAPQ, which brought together experienced content producers to help each other out?

Etc.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As one of the less experienced high-quality content producers around here (my articles suck; don't take my word about it, feel free to look at them and verify it yourself), I realize that would probably leave me out of it. This might not be a bad thing. It is my hope that, in the somewhat near future, we might be able to get something going at WP:1.0 along the lines of what Sandy says above, although its focus might not be the same as 1FAPQ. Specifically, that potential group would be centered on bringing some of the worse of the 40,000 or so articles included in the next release version to B level or higher, and maybe developing some of the articles at the next-lowest level of priority thereafter. I know there is a good deal of content of some degree of importance to the project which gets involved in battles, and those articles and others would be one of the topics of this potential article development group. I figure I might be able to help out a little in finding references, and maybe copy-editing, if and when it gets started. But, if it does develop, its purpose would be somewhat concerted article development. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your articles don't suck! Anyone who says "my articles" obviously cares about what they write and they certainly don't suck. That a few wanker-admins then scream "he said MY, he's claiming ownership" shows how little they write or, to be more precise, how little they care about what they write. WRT Sandy's question I think we need to form a union - The Union of Dedicated Writers (no pun intended to my many Irish friends) so perhaps not that - but "dedicated" needs to be the spirit, whatever the name. One does not have to actually "like" fellow members, but one must respect their dedication to the project - and we look out for each other. No one else here will,so we willdo it for ourselves. We have ben failed by the Arbcom, failed by Jimbo and faied by the Admins as a body - so now we organize ourselves. If the admins ban one of us - then we deal with it in a way that will force (yes, force) them to think again and enoough of us and the resultant bad press - we could have that power. Let's forget American "country folk" civility and concentrate on writing a first rate encyclopedia.  Giacomo  19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Radical Union of Dedicated Editors, or WP:RUDE. (Oh bother. There's already a WP:RUDE). Fainites barleyscribs 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Robust, Intrepid, and Tenacious Editors, or WP:WRITE. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not creative with names but there is a WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Following a precedent would make establishment easier. The thing that would need to be clarified though is what exactly would a Guild of Content Contributors do? Maybe currently separate projects should be folded under it. But what are the parties here really interested in? My impression is a forum which would concentrate discussion on content contributor issues and give a stronger voice for content contributors as a group. Lambanog (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Fry on language

I thought you might enjoy this :) Parrot of Doom 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me; maybe it only works if you live in Flixton? Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Must be your dodgy Stretford internet. Try this Parrot of Doom 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That works, even here in Stretford. I think that Stephen Fry may be the Oscar Wilde of his generation, although as a matter of principle I despise all public schoolboys, especially those who employed a tailor to make their prep school uniforms. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever heard Mr Fry utter a word I didn't agree with. He's a remarkably erudite man. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
And he was expelled from public school - surely that has to count for something? Richerman (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
He Twittered the TFA for Gropecunt Lane, saying something like "Glad to see this on the FP of Wikipedia". For that alone he has my gratitude. Parrot of Doom 00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)

I reckon I can get the remaining miscreants up to a reasonable spec before the 5th, but I'm rushing things and I wondered if you could have a quick read of this stubbish article and tell me if owt is missing? I haven't added anything about the Midlands uprising and Princess Elizabeth, but I can't quite see where to put it yet.

I may also propose a merger of John and Christopher Wright, as many of their details are shared, and there isn't much to say about Christopher. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice, I've only got three comments.
  • "... William Camden describing them as men 'hunger-starved for innovation'". Probably ought to explain who Camden was.
  • The image in the lead makes the infobox stretch down into the article a bit too far I think.
  • "At about midnight on 4 November Fawkes was discovered and arrested ...". I thought that it was just after midnight, and that the search had been deliberately delayed until the 5th?
Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Linked Camden, and I'll crop the image. The midnight thing isn't certain, Fraser says "around midnight on Monday 4 November or perhaps in the small hours of 5 November". Haynes says "Just before midnight on 4 November, Guy Fawkes had occasion to open the door to the under room. Whatever caused this - the furious barking of dogs close by perhaps, or the sound of a sword scraping the outer wall - Knyvett took advantage of the moment to order his arrest....king's bedchamber...it was there that Fawkes was brought before them for preliminary questioning at about four in the morning of 5 November." Nicholls - "In contemporary accounts of the subsequent search chronology varies slightly, but no more than one might expect given the scope for rumour and embellishment in so thrilling a tale (Gardiner, 114–37). About midnight Knyvett led his party into the cellar. They met Fawkes, fully clothed and in his boots, emerging from the room. Thinking him oddly dressed for so late an hour Knyvett had the suspect arrested, while his men hauled away the faggots and brushwood, uncovering thirty-six barrels—nearly a ton—of gunpowder."
In short, I don't think anyone really knows, and that therefore its best to be a little bit vague on taht point. Parrot of Doom 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Elsan

When I go Elsan cleaning, to earn an honest bob
For a dirty digger* it's a scintillating job
Beans for breakfast, beans for tea
Makes the work more hard for me
If you could see what I can see
When I'm cleaning Elsans

Crickley Hill, 1976 season

*Archaeologist

They weren't Elsans, they were large plumbed-in caravan-style things on wheels. The job paid well though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More than 24 hours since this page was updated?

Shocking stuff. However, has anyone ever been accused of POV-pushing in quite so hilarious a fashion? Parrot of Doom 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are times when I just don't understand this place at all. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Those edit summaries do have a certain something – iridescent 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
...and that's just for unlinking his name? I wonder what he would do if you did something drastic, like... removed it entirely :O J.delanoygabsadds 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File size question

Quick question - do you run Dr. PDA's prose-size script? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind running the script on Ezra Pound and posting the results here? I'd like to have my results verified by another editor. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Here's what I get:
  • File size: 275 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 78 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 46 kB
  • Wiki text: 133 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9990 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 16 kB
Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That actually shows a slightly larger file size than my results. Anyway, just wanted to see someone else's results. No further action required. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England

If you had the time and motivation would you cast an eye over the prose at List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England. I put this one up yesterday, and it has been suggested that this could be a candidate at FLC, but you know what my prose is like, and any copy editing (or other contributions) you (or anyone else reading this page) were willing/able to offer would be appreciated.— Rod talk 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to prod User:David Underdown about this one. He seems to know an awful lot about church bells, and "number of bells and date the bells and organ were installed/removed" could be a good way to expand the stubbier entries. – iridescent 09:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(adding) If you haven't already asked, try User:Bencherlite as well, who's been doing something similar with churches in Anglesey. – iridescent 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I've put a note on both their talk pages.— Rod talk 09:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I do hope that Malleus has the time and inclination to do the copy editing (not much involved). It would help me too when I submit some parallel lists on which I am working as FLCs. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, perhaps later today or tomorrow. My enthusiasm for what wikipedia is supposed to be about is slowly returning. Who knows, one day I may even try to write one those FA thingies myself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A couple of small things, but small things matter with featured articles.
    • There's no consistency in "St." vs "St". I'd drop the full stop.
    • It seems strange to capitalise "Trust" but not "charity". I'd suggest capitalising neither.
Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks from me too for the copy editing. It's good that you're still around and willing to help us ordinary editors improve Wikipedia.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If you and Rodw were wikipedia's "ordinary editors" then the project would be fortunate indeed. I've been through the lead and I'm fairly happy with that now. Just one question though: in the second paragraph we're told that all of the churches remain consecrated, but towards the end we're told that one has been converted into a private residence and another is used as a circus school. Are both of those really still consecrated? Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a very interesting question. The comment that "all of the churches remain consecrated" is taken from the trust's website here. It is possible that a redundant church could be used for other activities (concerts, exhibitions, maybe even a circus school (!)) and remain consecrated. But a private residence? That's more difficult. I've recently joined the CCT, and I think they deserve an e-mail from me. I'll let you know the outcome (I agree it matters).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the St Thomas à Becket Church, Pensford is partly used as a private dwelling, but part (the tower I think) is still maintained by CCT - I don't know if part of a building can remain consecrated? St. Paul's Church, Bristol is used for "community activities" (ie circus & other performance) but not necessarily religious - so not sure about the consecration of that one either.— Rod talk 18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On a different note... linking of terms in sortable lists. I've had these debate before but never got a definitive answer. If the text is linked on first occurrence & then someone sorts by one of the columns that occurrence is no longer 1st occurrence - therefore I have linked several occurrences & passed FL eg all of the sub lists at Grade I listed buildings in Somerset. Perhaps there should be a guidleine for this?— Rod talk 18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment on the linking. Heaven knows how many times nave is linked, or chancel. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been advised (told?), that if a list is sortable, every word that should be linked once should be linked every time. I've done this on the lists I've submitted at FLC, and it's never been criticised — I suppose that if you sort, you never know which will turn out to be the first. So I link everything in the body of a sortable list, and wait to see what happens. What do you think? {No real harm done??) Oh, and I've sent an e-mail to CCT about consecration. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be the only plausible option, I agree, although it seems unsatisfactory somehow. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just asked for guidance or a guideline on this at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Multiple wikilinking of terms in sortable lists.— Rod talk 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is ever perfect, but the article generally looks OK to me now; there will undoubtedly be some remaining prose problems, there always are, but they can be easily fixed. One thing though, are you aware of what appears to be a recent addition to the MoS, here? Specifically the requirement to scope column and row headers? Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your eagle eyes and patient copy editing. I wasn't aware of the column & row header requirements, but have now done this as well. I'd be game to put this up for FLC now/soon, unless anyone can think of other issues which need to be addressed?— Rod talk 09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In case you're interested in the outcome, I've received a reply from CCT about consecration. They say "(1) The church at St Thomas Becket is a private residence and was never in our care, it is only the tower that we look after. The church would have been deconsecrated before it was sold. (2) St Paul, Bristol is used as a circus school but it remains consecrated. (3) Guyhirn Chapel in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire is the only one of the buildings in our care that isn't consecrated but that is because it never was." I've sent this info to Rodw. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England/archive1 & I'm dealing with the issues, however there is a question re "over looking" v "overlooking" in the sentence "The church stands on a cliff top over looking Brean Down and the mouth of the River Axe." & I am unsure. any guidance?— Rod talk 10:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There are a few other prose queries I don't understand:
  • "The 15th-century tower houses three bells, two of them medieval and one 17th century", maybe add something in the second part of the sentence.
  • "The nave of Whitcombe Church dates from the 12th century, with the chancel being added in the 15th"
Also I need to reword ""The manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey's manor of Tisbury". The manor was held by a manor, correct?" - any help or advice with any of these appreciated.— Rod talk 11:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Burke and Hare

I would have thought the Burke and Hare murders article would appeal to you, and it could certainly do with some work. I don't know who gave it a B rating but it's certainly not up to that standard yet. The traffic stats have shot up recently with the new film about the subject. Richerman (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I might add that to my list. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 5, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 5, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalk C. 02:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary engraving of eight of the thirteen plotters

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Sir Robert Catesby. The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Sir Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives. (more...)

Very nice article, taught me a lot, especially that some things I thought I knew about it weren't true.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
COOL! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2010/October&oldid=1136189717"