Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/March

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


Forum

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A while ago, i termed this talk a precious forum, - what do you think of exchanging ideas here, even if the host is absent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the worst idea I've heard for quite some time. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
There's a darkness now in the heart of Wikipedia, with little remaining light or basic decency. Unaware buffoons rule. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The spread of Sleipnir-sacremental horse-eating is one of the last signs before Ragnarok. Who will play Balder? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
People, d'ya mind? I think what you want is that-a-way (link to Wikipediocracy). Knock yourselves out. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a wikipediocracy type of forum is what was being proposed at all and I don't think the proposal is such a bad idea. This page has long been a forum for content creators to exchange ideas or ask for help and, sadly, now Malleus has gone there doesn't seem to be anywhere else that performs the same function - or if there is I haven't found it yet. He's left behind a large gap that won't easily be filled. Richerman (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • While I'm confident that no offense was intended, it would seem a bit morbid to use Malleus's talk page as a meeting place, considering the whole circumstances that led to his leaving. Kind of like using a casket as a dinner table simply because it has a nice flat surface. Perhaps someone could just start a Project with this common interest and meet there. I'm not sure how Malleus would feel about using his page in this way, but he didn't die, he just went away, so at the very least, asking him via email would be proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say more a sandbox somewhere than a project. If you launch a project, someone will try to have it deleted. Intothatdarkness 16:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sandboxes are made to be deleted, so not sure what protection that would offer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    A project associated with Malleus would attract drama, Dennis. Mainly from those who couldn't stand him. Could be interesting in terms of smoking out folks, but maybe not the best collaborative forum. Intothatdarkness 17:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    My impression was the forum requested wasn't about Malleus in particular but other ideas that are of interest to content creators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be a luminous green forum Gerda, Malleus's "toxic personality" would be left lingering here to contaminate us good souls LOL.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A page where you can sing praises of banned editors and get applause, a rare thing around here - and enjoyable --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I think its called Wikipediocracy, although I'm not a member so only going by reputation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not, it's right here, just archived, Ottava Rima mentioned already in November 2012, if you follow the links, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A forum aimed at the interests of any remaining content builders has no chance of survival. The controlling interests on Wikipedia are progressively assigning themselves more and more draconian levers of power, positioning content builders as criminals by "working the way most real-life courts do", and unlike most real-life courts in the Western world, becoming a dark force operating "in camera" where they cannot be scrutinised – [1] --Epipelagic (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • People, PLEASE. Would you please take this to Wikipediocracy where it belongs? Do you people have any idea how annoying all this carping is to normal editors? Why on earth would you want to hang around such a terrible place? Get thee to Wikipediocracy, hie! Or just get another hobby! Better than Wikipediocracy, why not turn all that vituperative energy against the Koch Brother or something. Look, here's a great cause: Global Zero. Or SOMEwhere else, please. Thanks!
I'm so glad you said "people" twice, eliminating the possibility the contributors might be aliens from other worlds. (Because that would be scary.) "Do you people have any idea how annoying all this carping is to normal editors?" Oh my gosh, that does sound like a big problem. In fact it sounds like ... disruption. How unfair to all those normal editors. To have to be annoyed like that. To be subjected to the continued carping. People just don't have any idea how bad this really is, the extent of annoyance to normal editors. They just don't really know. But you told us, Herostratus, you were brave and pointed it all out plainly. Someone had to step forward to put a stop to all the carping that's been generating all that annoyance, so the normal editor can edit in peace without having to be annoyed so much. People just don't have any idea about the extent of all that annoyance. But you told them the way it was. You rose to the cause admirably. The army of normal editors are in your debt, and I'm sure they will be looking to you for your continued leadership, in defending their ability to edit in peace, without having to endure further all of those annoyances that make editing a chore or even impossible sometimes. Your stepping forward to fight this good fight won't quickly be forgotten. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Another constructive comment from a long line of constructive comments by IHTS right there... Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Insult noted, Mr. Basalisk Administrator. You're as transparent as glass, Basalisk. And keep in mind, my whole existence on WP is for the purpose of ensuring you are pleased with me at all times. So be sure to continue to let me know whenever I screw up on that. You and your 34%. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to chasten you, IHTS. It just occurs to me that the majority of your comments that I've come across are bizarrely at odds with the "please be nice" user box on your talk page. Just saying. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
At least Malleus's page is still good for helping identify certain types of activity. Fascinating. Intothatdarkness 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're sorry, Basalisk. And as far as continuing dialogue with me, besides asking you not to, I personally also wouldn't recommend it. Regarding your latest aspersion, that I somehow behave inconsistent with what my Userbox suggests, I find it painful to point out to you the obvious, but it seems necessary in your case, that I'm nice to people who are nice, and sometimes not to people who are not. (Herostratus's little para was deliberate condescension to a group of contributors here, some of whom are very smart individuals and awesome content contributors. And that wasn't nice.) It's the same really with Malleus. (No one can put a finger on any discord initiated by him. He only responded to the shit he received, ever. He responded to niceness with niceness in return. And that is the heart of civility, which he summarized in one word: respect. This site should have put Malleus in a leadership position, for sake of the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead it ran him out of town. How self-destructive is that!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to see examples of Malleus being nice look for his name on my talk (more examples in its history). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to a Brit what the phrase "just saying" actually adds to a comment? Does it have similar connotations to "with the greatest of respect"? Richerman (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
It's more along the lines of "I'm just pointing out the obvious, since the obvious seems to have been ignored". --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's start over. Sorry about being shirty. I guess my point is kind of this: I don't know a lot about Malleus, but I gather that 1) he's very good, and 2) he has a bunch of like-minded editors who sort of gather round him, and 3) he -- and maybe some of that coterie -- has pretty much given up on the Wikipedia.

OK, fine, so what's a next step. What I don't see as helpful or happy-making for anyone is hanging around here and carping all day. I've suggested taking the group over to Wikipediocracy, where it looks like Malleus himself is settling in.

But of course that will accomplish little, so what about this: fork. I know -- it's very hard. But it's been done -- in Spain, I believe. And consider. You could possibly get Malleus on board, and he's supposed to be very good. And he's expressed interest in heading a project. That's a start. Then, you have scores of editors, good editors, who would contribute -- lots of time, and maybe a little money and some real-life work. That's another start. Obviously you'd need to raise funds, and get system operation expertise, but you could start with a prospectus. Or... how about taking over Citizendium? It's essentially defunct, but could be used as platform to raise a new encyclopedia -- let's call it Omnipedia, say -- out of the ashes, if some score of enthusiastic and talented people took it over. Contact Larry Sanger! There's an article about him now on the main page of Wikipeiocracy, and according to them he's the bee's knees. You could probably get the author (Kohser) on board and probably some more people from Wikipedicracy.

Run it on Malleian principles, howsoever you see them, and who knows? In five years maybe Omnipedia will be at the top of the charts! My suggestion would be to not spend a lot of time working out rules but just put Malleus in charge, if he'll do it (at a salary). From what I gather here, Omnipedia (run by Malleus or a similar person) should easy outcompete the Wikipedia. (Color me skeptical, but who knows? You fellows could be right, and the Wikipedia should welcome the competition, and possibly be improved by the competition, and let the best philosophy win.)

Think big! Act big! Let a thousand flowers bloom. Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So we lose Malleus and get Hans Adler back in return.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the reference. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
You understand nothing, yet you keep offering stupid unwanted advice on the talk page of a retired editor. Maybe you should hit the road? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent events behind the scenes have made this necessary

I had never intended to return to editing anyway after what happened last year, but I've been advised that it may be politic to give substance to that commitment by scrambling my password, which I'm about to do shortly, just as soon as I figure out how to do it. It's not without some small tinge of regret that I sever my final link with Malleus, who despite all of the bad press I remain convinced did far, far more good than bad here. But whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think whatever has happened "behind the scenes" should be transparent. So we know why Malleus is being run out of town. But as you say, whatever. I'm not happy to see this though. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There was a report to ArbCom a month or so ago now that I operated an improper alternate account, in part to evade one of Malleus's many blocks, and this seems to be the only way I can practically address that allegation, in fairness to that other editor. I had no intention of returning to editing anyway, so it's no big deal. It appears to me though that scrambling my password is yet another of those privileges permitted only to administrators? If it's something I can do then would someone please let me know how, otherwise would a passing administrator please scramble my password for me? Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why wasn't this reported publicly? The behind-the-scenes snitching doesn't sit well, to be honest. So Malleus is simply to be scuppered and run out of town? I think WP can do better than that. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure transparency would be helpful. Rather than some sort of evil conspiracy, this looks to me like a sensible face-saving, "don't ask, don't tell" compromise, allowing an editor valued for his competence—should he so wish—to make a clean start and continue editing without any perceived pressure from supporters to live up to a reputation for egregious incivility. This would presumably require that any new account suspected of belonging to the same person as the Malleus account be clearly seen not to be an alternate account. --Boson (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I still say don't do it, but all you do is type something random (mash on the keyboard), copy and paste it into the second box, munge your email address so you can't request a reset, and log out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that would work. OK, thanks. I thought it would be something a bit more high tech. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please don't. There's no effective difference (for those of us you leave behind) if you scramble or don't, however it would be a pity not to be able to return in the years to come (in case things improve). There's still good around here, and even the occasional hello from you will make this place better. Looking forward to working with you in the years to come. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  03:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Despite some annoying edits of mine in the past, I'd like to add my voice to the don't-scramble-it-yet chorus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he posted this 30 minutes ago. He may have already done it and hit the log out button.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The time has come, the walrus said ...". If I knew how to scramble my password I'd have done it already. Can anyone help? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
By scramble, do you mean change it to something that you don't know so you can't re-login? Go Phightins! 03:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I do, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there's some more high tech way of doing it, but if you go to Special:ChangePassword, you could type your old password, randomly hit some nonsense keys, and then Ctrl+C in to the other box to duplicate it. Go Phightins! 03:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing as Phightins. You're going to be sorely missed. You were such a great contributor. You're history is too long for me to discern what caused and led it to this, but it's a shame it did. Please come back sometime Malleus.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Good luck in whatever you decide to devote your time to in the future. Thanks for what you've done on Wikipedia. --Go Phightins! 03:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Malleus' account isn't lost, despite the scrambled password.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's what you're looking for, but you could always go here and create some random 256-bit hex key, copy and paste.
Like the others, on a selfish note I will regret seeing the Malleus insight around, but I think it's more important that you are happy in life. Cheers and best always. — Ched :  ?  03:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why scrambling your password is necessary. Just stop logging in. This is pretty well documented. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Here lies Malleus and the Followers of Malleus. At 8pm every day, we will remember him by not posting on the dramaboard but we will improve articles and sources, and cause no drama. Non erimus fatua....
  • How does "scrambling your password" protect another editor from charges that he is your sock puppet? Why not just holiday awhile and pop back occasionally to check whether the more toxic buffoons we have to suffer here have fallen off their perches. Miracles do happen. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course you do more good than harm. Its no great exaggeration to say that if the Foundation spent a significant portion of their cash pile paying professional writers to improve our content, it still wouldn't fill the Malleus shape hole your absence would leave. If its not too late, why dont you ask an admin to block you for 6 months, maybe your irritation with this place will have passed by then? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you go! Still, I believe in reincarnation (well, not really). Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them." (Mascha Kaléko) - I do, really, or would not be here anymore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if you scramble your password, it won't prove anything because only you would know for sure what had been done. If you want to demonstrate that you've stopped editing then you should do just that. Myself, I regularly deny myself by declining to post at ANI or other scenes of drama. It is not an especially effective gesture because only I know that I'm doing it. But virtue is its own reward and it saves me considerable time and effort. Warden (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You can return as plain Malleus F - ...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand the need/desire to step away for some time. Please don't make it permanent.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow. What an insulting use of a cemetery image. --Onorem♠Dil 00:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 'connection' with Pondevaro

Providing no trouble is being caused and/or votes rigged, I don't care if you are or are not George Pondeevaro. It's none of my business. However, what is concerning me is that if the accounts are so similar and committing crime (I have seen no evidence of the latter), why did the Arbcom not wait for a conventional checkuser request. You have enough enemies - if crimes were being committed, it wouldn't have taken long for someone to request a CU. Why did the Arbcom act on a secretive email? It's widely known that you irritated the Arbcom. The only possible conclusion is that this secretive email came from within the Arbcom itself or was set-up by an Arb. If it was not from one of them, they would never have been so stupid as to act on it.  Giano  12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. A body which can seize a clarification request and turn it into a ban vote wouldn't hesitate to jump at any opportunity to burn a witch. You're assuming collective caution would have been the norm when all it takes is one of them to jump to his CU tools without waiting for the question "should we CU" to be raised and post the result of his fishing expedition to their secret mailing lists to get the ball rolling. MLauba (Talk) 12:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Then we have to demand a full explanation to prevent this happening again.  Giano  14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a clear violation of the checkuser policy. Those checkusers who refuse to follow that policy, whether they're arbitrators or not, should have that user right removed, pour encourager les autres. Simple. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Lux perpétua lúceat ei

MALLEUS FATUORUM
"... just fuck off."






In honour of both you and everything you stood for that is now lost ... Chaosdruid (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast Chaosdruid, reports of my death may have been greatly exaggerated. I put my head on the chopping block in an effort to save George Ponderevo, a gesture that ultimately proved to be completely futile. So here I am again, refreshed and ready to fight the good fight. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
He-e-e-e-y, d'you know what Mal? There ain't no sunshine when you're gone! Richerman (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that not everyone would agree with you Richerman, but that's just tough, eh? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Abso-flippin-lutely :) Richerman (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
*Yes!* :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh. I just "unretired" by chance this week after about a 4+ year hiatus where I accomplished not much more than talking sports on my dusty old talkpage - and took a look around to see who was still around, and was saddened to see that you were gone. Glad to be wrong - good to see you again! Now, get back to work on some articles, eh? There's only room for one useless how-the-hell-did-I-get-admin-buttons talkpage junky. :-) Keeper | 76 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Has it really been four years? I bet you wouldn't have expected to find me still here after all that time. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, Malleus. You know damn well that I suspect you'll never leave this place. (am I still allowed to say damn?). And yeah - I "retired" in late 08. Seriously, time flies. Keeper | 76 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be gone one day, everything comes to an end. I think damn is still OK, but to be sure it's best if you're wearing your administrator cloak of invulnerability when you say it, and only say it to regular editors. Although I suppose that after such a long break you've had your cloak removed? Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Way back in 08, I proposed, or maybe co-proposed, somewhere (Village pump, maybe?) that admins should lose their bit for inactivity of over a year. I was shot down adamantly for even proposing such a preposterous idea. Then I left. Then it was enacted a few years later, I just learned this week. I still support the idea. Ironically, though, because I logged in every few months or so to talk bullshit about baseball on my talkpage, I never had the bit removed. Go figure, I can still say shit. :-) Keeper | 76 00:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
More recently: Malleus, did you know that GG (The Gentle George) began working on Andreas Scholl. Do you think you could pick it up? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Did he? I'm sure he did a great job on it. What still needs to be done? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Look at the history. The lead leaves the singer with his Glyndebourne debut in 1998, but he moved on to the Met and teaching. That he was gentle enough to perform Messiah with us (not for money but the music) doesn't have to go to the lead ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe granular data can be used to build the lead. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what "granular data" means Gerda. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@Malleus: I did't mention granular data, but this edit will explain (If not I will try harder). Btw, lovely edit summary: "we should propagate good ideas whenever we find them"!
@Truthkeeper: using those data in the article itself is the future (discussed already in Manual of Style/Infoboxes, open the collapsed discussion and go to "The core of the matter", recommended reading), - then (!) infoboxes can go. Until then, lets make them so interesting that even someone who only wants a bit of formation is seduced to read the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose one could see infoboxes as seduction but the reality is that it's easier to make seductive infoboxes than to write brilliant prose. WP seems to favor the former rather than the latter by the way the editors are treated. Ultimately this is a world-wide writing project with many readers hoping to find more than almanac type information on a page. But not my fight anymore; I have a life and it won't be here. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wooo Hoooo ! He's back ! Nice ... Chaosdruid (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Malleus reminds me of Bobby Fischer (ignoring Fischer's off-the-wall rants), brutally honest, sincere & genuine. ("When Bobby entered the room, the energy level seemed to go up a couple of notches. As he spoke, I listened intently to each word and studied his body language. Fischer was calm, composed and seemed to relish the press conference, not at all the camera-shy type he is made out to be. His answers were direct and to the point and he didn't shy away from any of the questions." Yasser Seirawan, No Regrets: Fischer–Spassky 1992, September 14 press conference, p. 85) Malleus is like fresh air always. (Like Fischer, uncompromising, because he's right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Hear From You Since Long

How are you my friend? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Refreshed. Malleus Fatuorum 08:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Refreshed? Lol. Seems that break did you well. I also took a long break in 2012. It was good. I mean there is so much more in life than sitting in front of a screen and editing Wikipedia :P Jivesh1205 (Talk)
  • I'm very pleased to see you back, but also sad to see George being run off the way he was. Recent events do confirm that people are targeted here for who they are (or who they're thought to be) rather than what they do - but most of us knew that anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    I'm also sad that George was run off, because he's a far more gentle soul than I would ever want to be. Malleus Fatuorum 09:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I will miss George who crept into my watch list by all these little edits, I also miss his greeting: "If you're here to complain about an edit I made to one of your articles then just revert it and tell me as gently as you can where you think I screwed up. I certainly wouldn't have done it mischievously or maliciously, and it's always good to learn something new." We should all imitate that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
We should, and I will try to do so. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to /see/ you back

I had a feeling, but I was not certain about George. That being said, it is good to see you back being you. We can only hope a change is gonna come out of this. :) ceranthor 14:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes needed here are too radical for most even to contemplate. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, keeping my complete opinion to myself, though it was nice to see that you could contribute for a while without anyone jumping down your throat. Maybe you will come out of this without being ousted by the fools. ceranthor 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Your misfortune (latest) seems to stem from my having alerted you that I'd quoted you on the Village Pump, and your then having looked at the page and left a short message.

In the future, your only safe option is to write whole articles in your user space, publish each in manispace, and then let their ledes be overgrown with infobox kudzu.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So it was all your fault then. I was amazed to see one of the dafter commentators on that ArbCom discussion refer to the largest ISP in the UK, BT, as being "notorious" for the way that it hands out IP addresses, as if it's some kind of a crime to use BT. Maybe they think it is the planks. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It is bad enough when the prime evidence of your mind-control over GP was your showing up at a discussion soon after I had alerted you to it, when GP was already on the page elsewhere, and that this "evidence" was cited by several persons, who normally should know better. However, looking at your other edits (and your talk page) that day was apparently beyond their abilities, or was deliberately twisted a la mode de Demi. Really, Arbcom should subcontract bullshitting or malicious statements to Demi, who at least has breathtaking artistry, and some English virtues amid the rest of his traits. Stiff upper lip and all; he would never whine about karma, etc.
The discussion was bad, but this time it's clear that at least some of your previous critics have some backbone and character, and stated that enough is enough.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
And let's remind ourselves that Demiurge1000 has yet to identify the secret admin account he's convinced I have. I think the only course of action here can be to checkuser the entire admin corps to identify this miscreant, or at least that subsection of them using the notorious BT as an ISP. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
OFGS: it was rumoured that I had a secret admin account years ago and the Arbcom stupidly checked it out; it's one of those lovely, mythical stories that are attached to every Wikipedian ne'er do well. Presumable we all rise from Atlantis disguised as the Monster of Glamis to edit. Do you really think the Arbcom would have been that stupid?  Giano  18:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That's rather a leading question Giano. Let me say simply that I believe ArbCom has a few reasonable and intelligent members, but as a body it's crassly stupid and even vindictive despite the best efforts of the good guys. That's why I want to see it dismantled. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I never ask a question that I don't know the answer to. However, be careful what you wish for, never tear something down without planning approval for its replacement is one of my life's primary rules; it's served me quite well.  Giano  18:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Happy editing, Malleus. When you need more refreshment, I got the pool ready (you can handle 58 degrees, I'm sure) and there's a couple of nice beers in the fridge. There's a direct flight from Atlanta to the local airport, and my door is always open. Please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies, very generous. Is that 58 degrees F or C? And it's Dr Malleus, she hates being called Mrs; I think that's the only reason she went on to do a PhD. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably 58 degrees Kelvin. ;^)
I'm glad you are "refreshed" and back on board. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm really "on board" with anything much that's happened here over the past few weeks. Don't forget that according to ArbCom I'm not and never have been a Wikipedian. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
But that's only what you told me yourself - and I like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You're playing with fire here Gerda; associating with me can only end in tears. Or alternatively it might end in the collapse of ArbCom and the whole corrupt admin hierarchy. Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 08:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There's fire on my talk! Feel invited to join my red cat, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And some people think Germans have no sense of humour. I spent 15 years years working for German companies, and one of the few problems I had was the German tendency to mistranslate "muessen" as "must", rather than "should". There's nothing more likely to incite a riot than telling a bunch of software developers that they "must" do anything. Also "This is not interesting for you", when what was meant was "You don't need to worry about that". Malleus Fatuorum 08:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You must (!) have missed my explanation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just remembered that I have some daft ArbCom sanction in place that doesn't allow me to express criticism of administrators or the process by which they're chosen, so I guess I have to be blocked now. Again. Malleus Fatuorum 08:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If any admin can block you, I could do it if you really want me to. The length of block would be proportionate to the seriousness of the misdemeanour as I see it, though. I don't know if I have to inform people I've done it either...  DDStretch  (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • re Malleus 8:09 comment. First apologies for the belated "Welcome Back", but I know it can be difficult to keep track of everything when there's an abundance of voices. Second, perhaps it's my imagination, but I'm sensing that any association with the much mentioned "George" has provided a sense of diplomacy which I rather admire. Now, I can only speak for myself, and as much as I appreciate the word of caution in regards to who one would choose to associate with - I have never been afraid to say when I'm proud or honored to consider any editor that I respected an "associate". Anyone who has tried to advise me as to who my online "friends" should be quickly learned that I can not and will not be intimidated by a website. While I appreciate that the comment was not made to me, I'd like to preemptively say that unless you (Malleus) consider me unwelcome here - then I will continue to post as I see fit when I feel the urge to. Best of luck to all, with all. — Ched :  ?  10:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    You're very welcome here Ched, and always will be. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Malleus, please convey my apologies to Dr. Malleus; I had forgot. (Note I'm using BE out of deference.) I guess that makes you Mr. Dr. Malleus. Yes, that's Fahrenheit; today we got up to 60. Our beer inventory is minus one bottle of Chimay Cinq Cent. Also, I'll be the asshole here to poop on the party, and reiterate (since I know where my imaginary paycheck comes from) that I don't think that ArbCom as a whole is out to get you. But that's more diplomacy/politics than I'm willing to entertain today. More beer! Best, Drmies (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    All I'll say about ArbCom here is that any body that distorts a request for clarification into a ban proposal ought to take a very close look at itself. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your back!

I thought you scrambled your password. What happened? Anyways welcome back.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I did, but that's a pretty meaningless gesture as it turns out. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
To be more precise: It's only meaningful if you also delete your email address from your user preferences. And even then there are (less easy) ways for the typical active editor to get back their account later on -- if other, trusted editors have sufficient information on them. Hans Adler 18:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

At least, at the moment, the cry is a greeting of "You're back!" (or it should be) rather than the warning of "Your Back!". This place gets worse and worse, and more and more sinister at every cock-up. I don't think even the witches who were victims of the original Hammer would have fought back in such a vindictive way.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be a warning really. I was quite prepared to quietly retire, but now I want some answers, not more of this interminable bullshit from ArbCom and their acolytes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was greeting, not warning. :-)—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Widney

A non-controversial area! <g> Actually I pruned it a lot a few years ago, got a peer review, and I rather think it can be honed into a GA but no one seems to have taken it off the table over there ... You might wish to see its status before I pruned it, though, and I know I could get it down another 10K r so just by removing "stuff" but I do not know precisely where it would mutate into a "good article." Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Still seems a bit too long to me, and you need to expand the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
At work - no one pushing back this time <g> and I will wait for the body to be done before polishing the lead. Collect (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Finished main trimming (feeling like a painter who must sandpaper a wall before placing a nice glossy coat on it). Anything I made unreadable? Collect (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's still too long and the structure is rather odd. You need to be more brutal with your pruning shears. For instance, I'd suggest moving the Later years section to the end of the article and moving the Author and List of works sections closer together, or perhaps even combine them. I'd also look to drastically pruning and consolidating the Real estate, Development of Los Angeles, and California booster sections. You need to do some work on the citations too. You've got something like 9 or 10 flagged as dead, the style is all over the shop, and it's not at all obvious what many of them are referencing. "Davis 116" tells me nothing if that book(?) isn't listed somewhere. To be honest, I think your GA nomination was premature. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Now down 75% from the start <g>. BTW, of course it was - but I have had trouble in the past getting other shears to the task, and hit resistance as well. As for "style" did you read its original state? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in its original state, no, but I see from the talk page that you've had some resistance to deal with. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope the new lead seems an improvement <g>. Collect (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[2] article at start at 194K size. Now down to 44K. Nearly an 80% reduction. Collect (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Note [3] but I was a tad discouraged from his objections to cleaver-editing <g>. Did I improve from the old version for Widney? Collect (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
God yes and look at my recent history. I've only scratched the surface. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you also review the "new" Widney article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's much more on point than it ever was. I've been down this road before, with Sitush and the Lady: from 280k to 120k. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another welcome back

Only just found out. I may often disagree with you, but I'd be very worried if I agreed with everyone. Keep on creating good stuff to replace the junk I delete... Peridon (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah feck

The worst thing about all this kerfuffle is that we haven't been able to hijack 1 April's TFA again. Parrot of Doom 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

After all the bollocks surrounding wife selling I'm not sure I'd want to, but we had a good run. What are you working on now? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a lot, I lost any impetus I had watching this saga unfold. I'm still tinkering with the grave robbery article, there's an organisational problem but it isn't big. Parrot of Doom 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Andreas Scholl

Thank you for following the invitation above and looking closely at Andreas Scholl!. Inspired, I also looked closer, please check my changes. Some questions left: I don't like the long list of famous conductors, should we drop at least those who are mentioned elsewhere in the article? - What made you choose the two of them selected for the lead? - "Buben" is a colloquial expression for young boys, - is there an equivalent in English? (I dropped the translation.) - "in the Avery Fisher Hall" or "in Avery Fisher Hall"? - "inappropriate departure" as the last words of the article seem a bit inappropriate ;) (pictured above?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I chose randomly Gerda. I don't like that long list either, I was just trying to summarise what was in the article. I don't think there is an equivalent of Buben in English, "hoodies" is the closest I can think of, but someone may be along to correct me. German has a number of words for concepts that we just don't have in English, such as zeitgest or schadenfraude, and if we find them useful we just steal the words. As for that "inappropriate departure", I also stumbled across that when I saw it earlier; I don't like it at all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I will prune the list and pick two candidates then ;) - (teacher corrected the German above) - the Buben deserve an article, but don't even have one in German, there's that Paris theatre also in red - when I met the article in 2011 it had practically no ref, and the last section still is unreferenced, I'm not really interested in what it says, so not too eager ... - will now make an appropriate departure, more tomorrow/later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Gestalt is another word that comes to mind. By and large we don't tend to translate words, we just steal them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"steal"? - how about "sharing"? (no ownership, no stealing) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

how florid should I get?

Widney looks in better shape now I hope - but I do not wish to get too far from terse leads on him. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi - just poking in - the lead is very choppy at the moment. It should be revised to be more fluid. ceranthor 22:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
<g> Look at the original article I had to work with at [4]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What you're working with is what you have now, not what you started with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

James May's guitar tuning

Following up on your tip from December, I'll mention that I've done a little work on Open C tuning and a new stub Overtones tuning. Each of the open-C tunings (or more generally each of the major-chord open tunings) allows one-finger strumming of major chords, up and down the neck. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll have a look. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The articles are weak and the prose dull, but these failings reflect the sources used and lack of sleep. (There is a conflict between two sources describing one string of Jimmy Page's tuning on "Friends", whether open C or open C6.) The overtones-tuning has been approved for a DYK. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the fine copy-editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a go at trying to improve some of these guitar tuning articles, but got stuck with a total lack of sources. (Yeah, I get it, these places called libraries, have these things called books.....) Watch out for Led Zep sources, some of them get a bit carried away with WP:FANPOV to make a quick sale, especially Richard Cole's stuff (which admittedly doesn't apply here). Cheers for lending a hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, Malleus.
I used harv() templates because in other articles, adequately developed, they are used, and I like to be able to freely use the material in all related articles. They don't help in the current articles, I agree.
Thanks, Ritchie333, for your suggestions regarding the ISBNs (etc) of major thirds tuning. It is difficult to find reliable sources, because the intellectual level of the advertising-driven guitar journals is so low, that one needs to use them with care. But we do what we can. I tried to clarify when I was using a blog-like source, and show where it had been used with approval by a reliable source (often academic), in some of the articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think you need them in those other articles if you don't need them in this one? Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I prefer to write in LaTeX with BibTeX (with hypertext links), and the harvtxt() template is the closest substitute.
I would argue that harv() templates are useful when there are two (or more) citations to different sections in one source, which have well separated footnotes, as in larger articles on guitar tunings or e.g. Tom Kahn. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages....

Is ... mostly done. I'm sure I'll keep tinkering, but I think I've got most of the "bones" of the article up there. At some 14K words, it's a monster, but I think it's pretty evenly balanced in coverage and comprehensive. In the process of writing the thing, I've discovered some rather glaring gaps in our articles - we don't have an Agriculture in the Middle Ages article nor a Education in the Middle Ages article ... nor some other things I may have to write. Blech! I've got it at PR right now, but when it's about ready for FAC (I may run it past Milhist's A class) I'll be back here begging for comma help. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm constantly amazed at what isn't here, given that there are well over 4 million articles, which reminds me that maybe I ought to get back to manorial court ... can't remember why I got involved in that ... have an idea that I had to explain halmote court ... not sure. Anyway, if you need some commas moving around you know where I am. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we had an article on a Pokemon character nearly 10 years before Fatimid architecture for instance. Says it all really.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

talk

1. You're a good man Malleus Fatuorum .. don't ever let anyone tell you any different. — Ched :  ?  15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Passing of Leon

Dear Malleus and friends,

I thought that you would wish to know that ThatPeskyCommoner's grandson has passed away.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, so the litle chap finally lost his fight. How distressing for Pesky and her family. Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to hear the news.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Personal attacks at the Village Pump

I've started a thread at ANI about your personal attacks: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malleus_Fatuorum_has_a_vendetta_against_editors_who_use_tags

-PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your accusatory title will hardly help your case. Why don't you start another sock account, and state that you are a transexual teenager in Sudan who doesn't don't know what to do but you that you feel bad after Malleus's comments, and probably will stop editing. (Let others decide to ban MF, since you are new and all.... 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Go play your childish games elsewhere PraetorianFury. I'm just not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That turned out better than expected. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
PraetorianFury (or whoever it really is) seems to have learned nothing though, and really ought to have been warned for making repeated "personal attacks" and harassment by initiating this ANI. Still, could have been worse I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Somebody who calls himself a fury is aware that re-thinking quickly may not be his strongpoint. Give him time.... (John von Neumann had a policy of avoiding arguments, which are just a waste of time, which I try to follow when I have my wits about me.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with him, slopping tags over articles and expecting others to do all of the cleanup is utterly lazy. Clive Mantle was in a "tagged" sloppy state yesterday when I found it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Meredith

this is a rather nice read...I am reviewing it for GA and I am thinking that the prose is on its way to FA status with a bit of spit'n'boot polish...thought it might be of interest given its Mancunian nature....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Should he be included on the list of notable people with a toothbrush moustache? Ning-ning (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed a nice read, and I agree that it's well on its way to FA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything.....

Wow, I've digested some interesting talk pages over the past few years but these recent turn of events take the cake......left me speechless really.....and I've seen alot.

Anyway. I wanna help George Harrison get over the hurdle and have sat looking at it comparing with John and Paul...but I am scratching my head over what it needs...the prose needs something but not sure what....see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Harrison/archive2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The prose doesn't really work at all for me, too much listing of facts without regard to an over-arching narrative. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well-put. That's what I was thinking but was having trouble putting it into words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
When you're writing an article I think you have to have an overall idea of the story you're trying to tell, but that gets very difficult the more other editors get involved. So an article on a character like George Harrison is almost guaranteed to be a bit of a dog's dinner. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(belatedly) yes some collaborations I have had have definitely gone awry (funny, when I was a kid I'd pronounce that "aw-ry") - but interesting in that both John and Paul read well in which case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it at all possible that at least one factor with John and Paul "reading" better is that they are/were more open and vocal people? Is the prose in the FA IG Farben Building, "brilliant and engaging"? Also, as I said at the last FAC, and which several authors have confirmed, George was, with the exception of his belief in Hinduism, an almost pathologically private person. Clapton said he was never really sure where he stood with Harrison, or if they were even close-friends at times. Just a thought. BTW, I've made some additions to "Early years: 1943–57" that might have addressed this concern, at least in this small section. Trouble here is, now we are at 8,300 words, and 50 kB of readable prose, which is too large according to Sandy Georgia's oppose during the last FAC. Any thoughts on article size? Is there even space for an attempt at more narrative, or should some facts be trimmed out to make room? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
My 2c is that the page is fine and can easily take some more detail without being excessively long. It is getting better. I'll post some more soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Casliber, your efforts are much appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To boldly go...

You know there ain't no such rule, Dr. Fowler. Which reminds me, I had a student with that last name in a grammar class a few years ago who sat in the front row trying to up her grade by showing her impressive cleavage. Anyway, I'm done for tonight, see feel free to assess the damage and clean it up. I'm collecting all the articles I could find and pulled out a few to make a few quick edits. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was really objecting to "moon" rather than "Moon" when I spotted that split infinitive, but I still haven't finished reading the book yet. Maybe tomorrow, or by the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't quote my grammar book to you, haha. I will gladly stand corrected on capitalization and lots of other things. Enjoy your reading, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't let's fall out out over a poxy split infinitive, which I actually don't feel strongly about but recognise that others do; I'm much more interested in your student's cleavage display. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ha, she managed to join the student organization I'm running without even seeing me, because she didn't appreciate the C she got, despite cleavage. But her essay did not get accepted for the convention of said organization, so the next few days (we're about to fly off to the convention) we'll have to do without that cleavage. Also, I may not be around much until Tuesday, unless I get bored in my hotel room and I have free WiFi. Nice to be working on a real article again: that language stuff was interesting (not the details, but its place in the Enlightenment and in speculative fiction). Drmies (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no hurry. Perhaps I'll have finished reading the book by the time you get back. It's a bit hard going in places, and I keep stumbling over those damned archaic "f"s. Your lunar language addition was interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Those were some serious edits you made: thank you. "Knews"--mea culpa. I'm going to the bookstore later today--need anything? (I've been there before: it is a sight to behold, or rather a lot of sights.) Drmies (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Powell's is a great bookstore, the Strand of the West Coast (and with a much better mathematics section). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
When I lived in London I used to love visiting Foyles. I've not been there since it was modernised, but I'm sure a lot of the fun's been taken out of it. There's a large second-hand book store just a few miles from me, which I keep meaning to visit, but never seem to get around to. Which reminds me of a gift that someone once gave to my step-father: a round tuit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Aha, I recall going to Powell's as I have relatives in Portland...also liked teh Strand too.....now I am a couch potato and having trouble with storage for too many books... :PCasliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Grave robbery

Well, it's at FAC now. I managed to remove a good deal of info from the later legal sections, but there's still a fair bit there. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 12:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a read through later, but I'm sure it'll be excellent. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you're back then. That retirement didn't last very long!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Three weeks or so I think, but why make it sound like an accusation? I was quite explicit in my reasons for retiring, which ArbCom subsequently voided by their investigation into the departed George Ponderevo. And in fact I retired from certain areas of the project some time ago. When did you last see me do a GA review for instance? I doubt you ever will again unless I nominate an article at GAN myself and do a review or two in return. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not that, I miss Georgie, a gentleman I'd like to enjoy an afternoon of bowls with followed by a glass of chardonnay and a fine cigar! That man had class, and was a mighty fine editor and persona, a real English country gent, sorry to see him go.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
George doesn't smoke, and I suspect that he'd be guzzling the chardonnay during the bowls match. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I miss George the Gentle, miss drinking with him to help "the creative juices to flow", and I advertise his ability to learn and his polite request to do so ("we should propagate good ideas whenever we find them"), also missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Manchester City News

Spotted this in The Times: Established 2 January 1864. Published weekly on Saturdays, price 1d. "Circulates in Manchester, Salford, Bury, Bolton, Preston, Rochdale, Ashton, Oldham, Middleton, Stockport, and the towns in Lancashire and Cheshire. The City News deals principally with commercial and local matters, such as town council proceedings, the boards of guardians, and the various law and police courts, but a selection of general news is given, as well as reviews of new books. Proprietors - The Manchester City News Company (Limited). Publisher - Charles Hadfield." ("Papers Published in England." 24 February 1868. The Times. 26055:5.) Keri (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks very much Keri. Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not related to the matter at hand, but here's another magazine that has no coverage in Wikipedia. Seems quite interesting too. [5] Parrot of Doom 23:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    There's so much that's missing, and even more that's not fit for purpose. When I was hunting around for sources on the Manchester City News I came across a mention of The Daily Courant, Britain's first daily newspaper. The article incorrectly said it was started by Edward Mallet, but it was actually started by Elizabeth Mallet, who despite having an ODNB article didn't have one on here. You'd really expect to find an article for everyone in the ODNB I'd have thought. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Some cookies!

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/March, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Err ... thanks I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This is how some editors torture each other, by giving out pictures of delicious cookies that you can't actually eat so that you go crazy over the fact that you don't have any delicious cookies.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, that was not my intent, but I do see your point. I've done some WikiProject tagging of pictures of desserts and some of them are incredibly tantalizing. Still, they are fun to look at. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Cookies...Americans cherish them like they're special. Anyway, Malleus, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, since this is probably also your fault. Tsk tsk. Also, I still have a couple of boxes of unsold Girl Scout Cookies for you; I hope you like peanut butter and chocolate. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that might be my fault; AQFK and I were discussing incivility and personal attacks on my talk page, and I guess he didn't like what he read. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You used to be a nice guy, and then you became an administrator. Why don't you make yourself useful and tag some articles. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Y'know, it's funny: I would've said that AQFK's intransigence was considerably less nice to Mathsci than anything I or indeed Mathsci said, but what do I know? Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, actually The Devil's Advocate, I typically actually go to the store and purchase some cookies when I received messages like this ;) TBrandley 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely hate peanut butter. Malleus Fatuorum 05:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
A shame. Thankfully there are many other kinds of cookies. Now I must decide if I shall cause TBrandley a trip to the store by leaving him some cookies as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban this sick filth

How many articles here have we, or people who frequent this page, been involved with? I won't be running for public office anytime soon... Parrot of Doom 12:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly recognise a few names there. Can't understand that scoring system though; how come Peterloo Massacre (a political event really) is ranked so much higher than Halifax Gibbet, which is nothing more than an engine of death? And the Cock Lane Ghost has got pretty much nothing at all to do with death has it? Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no linked explanation of the scoring system, which seems to be related to the importance rating by the project(s) and to the number of viewers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That's the script which is used to select which articles are included in the CD-ROM version of Wikipedia which the WMF periodically mails out to schools in developing countries. In that context, it's not surprising that Peterloo ranks higher than Halifax Gibbet, as it's much more likely to be of use to schools. IIRC the scoring system is a mix of internal assessment (a stable FA is less likely to contain glaring inaccuracies or vandalism than a newly-created stub), number of incoming links (a page with very few incoming links is likely to be an obscure topic of limited interest), and page-views (something with lots of hits is likely to be something a lot of people will be interested in). MZMcBride can probably explain the exact scoring system if you care. It's not always accurate (because of Reddit's fascination with it and QI's blatant verbatim plagiarism inadvertent failure to credit sources, Tarrare scores in the top 50 French topics, despite being arguably the article of least use to The Kid In Africa), but since the alternative is just asking each project to nominate their 20 favorite articles, the script is probably the least-worst option. – iridescent 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
From the above wikilink - "checked for suitability for children" - well that's most of the articles I've improved, out. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been involved with most of the art ones. It is puzzling - why would Sinking of the RMS Titanic get 808 and 1740 Batavia massacre slightly more at 857, with Tomb of Antipope John XXIII over 1000? They may be over-rating stability, ie articles few feel the urge to vandalize or add something not very relevant to. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Civility rises to a new level

Just a note I thought may have you questioning some of the "civility" issues which love to plague the project. And I take this directly from a 5 and 1/2 month RfC/U here.

Incivility

Most (though not all) of these are relatively minor, but should be considered as part of the broader problems with Niemti's editing style. Here are a few instances of clear incivility:

--- All I can say is "WOW, simply amazing". If that is what's going to pass for an acceptable (now WP:AE) ban - I can guarantee that I won't be lasting much longer here. Not that my own efforts at article work are worthy of mention, indeed, it's been ages since I worked on any of the NASCAR stuff. Still, I see things like this - and I am simply flabbergasted at what people use to run content editors off the project. Incidentally, I recently had a read through Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard which you put some time into. Very moving article, thank you for that. Best of luck in all Mal. — Ched :  ?  19:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet it's considered acceptable to refer to "posses," "puling masses" (from an Admin, no less), and other assorted jibes designed to silence discussion and prevent any meaningful changes (since there's so much OWN about policy here). It's the rules/policy OWN that is the biggest threat (just look how many come out of the woodwork if you mention unbundling Admin tools, for example) to any meaningful success here. Intothatdarkness 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Niemti's case as I try to stay as far away from the admin kangaroo courts as I can, but if he's been blocked for those sorts of comments we're all in trouble, and we'll all end up banned. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic? Intothatdarkness is quite right of course; the risible civility policy is only applied to non-administrators, who desperately try to hold on to every vestige of power they can possibly grab. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Content creation will always get in the way of OWN of policy, simply because content creation is dynamic. It also brings in (or can bring in) intelligent, skilled people who quite often can be rather irascible (or at least used to...uh..."spirited" discussions about their fields of interest). I tend to think it's that intelligence that is especially threatening to the OWNers of policy. If you don't know squat about, say, Scottish history or the Indian wars in the US it's far easier to beat someone down using a collection of daft wiki-linked "policy" or "essay" hammers than it is to actually sort out the real information and discover that the garbage cite you pulled from Google books isn't worth the electrons it took to link. Intothatdarkness 19:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
... "OWN": just mention "infobox" on an article of a composer, for example Handel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of WP:Ownership and the mention of infoboxes remined me of this exchange:
"'Your' articles? Please read WP:OWN, twice through, before you ever make any more edits, please. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)"

I've created {{Bad linked references}} for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You tag-bombed articles without describing the links needing improvements, when at best you should have tag bombed sections. Please either provide specific links by editing the articles (what a concept!) or diagnose bad links on the talk page.
Also, please consult with an editor proficient in English before creating further templates on Wikipedia. I corrected this one, but I don't have time to correct others, if they are similarly ungrammatical and prolix. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You have removed the template from two articles. You should not have done that; not least as you know which references it concerns. Your comments about my use of my mother tongue are unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ummm... if he knows which references it concerns, then so do you. Why do you not actually FIX the problems you find, rather than just tagging them (which probably makes you feel good about yourself, but doesn't really help very much). Victor Yus (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Bingo. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Andy, your use of one of my languages is unacceptable, particularly on a template that is posted on top of a good article on an English-language encyclopedia. You created your latest little toy just for my articles related to DGM, and then used it to tag bomb my articles---do you think that the community approves of tag-bombing?Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
'Your' articles? Please read WP:OWN, twice through, before you ever make any more edits, please. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please think before writing, Melodia. I own the copyright and moral rights to my contributions, which I license to Wikipedia. Before you accuse me of violating the idiotically named ownership policy, you should have checked to see whether I have actually violated WP:Ownership. Either cite an article where I have violated ownership or apologize.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue that opened this thread has long since been answered and a consensus is clear. All you are contributing now, KW, is petty and irrelevant sniping. Unless you have something constructive to add, this thread is done and you should consider the linking question resolved against your position. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I answered a badly expressed accusation of violating WP:Ownership. Learn manners, Postdlf. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread about KW's conduct here; please contribute your observations and concerns there. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This was the page to which GP and MF both contributed. Oddly, I was not then also named as a sockpuppet. :)
The joys of editing.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert: I was surprised to myself on my watchlist! [8]. Watching trolls take note: it's always a silly idea to use babelfish when wanting to insult.  Giano  19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian, but the word "merda" didn't look good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, no, shit is shit in any language. More seriously, do you remember the mailing list scandals that the Arbcom always handle so badly, well they are resurfacing in a very big way. I expect it was connected to that - North of the Balkans, they are not known for their linguistic skills. Who was it who said "The Balkans produce more history than they can consume"?  Giano  20:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I remember them? I think my discussions with Iridescent over the William Leadford account was among the first, if not the first to be leaked last time. My effort to create a quiet little spot failed, so here I am again, being dragged to ANI every week because I disagree with some plank or other. What I remember most about that episode is that there was never a satisfactory explanation offered for how the leak occurred, although I'm quite certain that ArbCom knew exactly who the source of the leak was. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect I'm thinking of another mailing list scandal, but when badly handled, one is as bad as another. Fundamentally, they are all the same - a load of editors think they are being very clever, a few admins feel praised and appreciated, and a daft Arb or two gets sucked in - whatever, the result is always disaster followed by a cover up.  Giano  20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Are they ever handled rather than being covered up? Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, for the record - I must point out that being pretty sure is not the same as having proof positive, and that unless someone possessed a figurative smoking gun, one can't make accusations/sanctions/whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
One can, but only if the target isn't an administrator. Which in this case it clearly must have been. 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)(that's not signed by Malleus)
Casliber, I have been around here long enough to know that when I smell a rat, and then I see a rat, that it most certainly is a rat. Pages deleted quickly like this one [9] which was begun by an Arb, subsequently edited by Eastern Europeans, who then having heavily edited the page (cut off its balls and references) nominate it for deletion; whereon, more people suddenly dutifully all vote for it to be deleted, and Abaracadabara! while the debate is ongoing, the page is suddenly deleted as an attack page [10]. That Casliber is a rat in anyone's book!  Giano  21:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Those goddamn Eastern Europeans!!! ... Editing articles about Eastern Europe!!! ... What has this world come to???. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I rest my case.  Giano  21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Uh... ok.Volunteer Marek 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sicily 1: Poland 0. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I had not seen that .... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Civility improvement required.

Hello, Please take a look at the comments I made in the Workhouse talk page. I wrote those comments before I read your latest edit on Workhouse. I read the comments in your latest reversion afterward and they illustrate my arguments perfectly. The article isn't your turf for you (and your pals?) to harass anyone walking by. Don't be a little man. Contribute constructively. Please.

108.7.2.66 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's always the rudest people who first complain about civility. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not sure that it even gets to the level of rudeness, actually. It looks more like the sort of normal stylistic bilge that happens when someone wanders by and attempts to impose their stylistic preferences on an article while disguising it as improvement of some sort. A style preference isn't academic content. It's a preference, pure and simple. And from comparing a couple of diffs there, I'd say that it is really preference as opposed to improvement. Intothatdarkness 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a much bigger man than you'll ever be 108.7.2.66. Now fuck off, there's a good little man. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Case in point. You are full of venom (Doom & Into passively, and Malleus directly). Haughty. But strangely, I can't help but be bemused more than anything. Wow! Carry on guys. I hope I never see you again in my wanderings. Have fun bullying people around your little turfs. I wish well on the other innocents who stumble there. 108.7.2.66 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The civility improvement required is quite clearly from you 108.7.2.66. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're losing your touch, man. :-) 108.7.2.66 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If you're trying to wind me up, which you clearly are, then you need to try much harder. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm never trying to "bait" anyone, just trying to stand important ground. If you really want to attain FA for that article some day, you're going to have to let others contribute in ways that make you uncomfortable. Shouting insults at them in passing won't do the trick. And, you won't be able to do it yourself (or with a small cabal), as smart as you think you may be. 108.7.2.66 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A little man deserves a little text. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTCt)
I'm one of the smartest people I know little man, and I've never had any intentions of taking workhouse to FA, so I don't know where you got that idea from. My only intention is to stop planks like you from making the article worse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"I'm never trying to "bait" anyone,..." Then you underestimate yourself; I thought you were trying to be a master at it.Some would say you have succeeded.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that civility improvement is needed: I have experienced more more robust debate in academic meetings that would have had the seemingly maiden aunts of Wikipedia civility police spill their lemon tea over the neutred cats in their laps, whilst reaching for their smelling salts, at the mere mention of even a small fraction of it. I recall almost being thumped by someone who attempted a very poor rebuttal of an argument I gave about the pervasiveness of mathematics in any scientific subject, and who had his argument described as a "inconsistent, self-refuted comment". On another occasion, I was described as a "bastard" for finally demonstrating that a completely dishonest argument was being used merely to change other's opinions. These things happen; they are part and parcel of normal robust debate. If some people on wikipedia cannot handle that, I am more and more of the opinion that they need to go out into the real world more, do a bit of maturing, and become stronger, so that they never confuse robust debate, firm criticism, or a principled stand against sloppy critical thinking as "lack of civility". So "civility improvement" is required; it's just that it is wikipedia's civility procedures that need improving, so that they cannot be used as a means of penalising those who can write with knowledge and authority by those who can only administrate.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2013/March&oldid=1151016632"