This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I find this kind of thing from a WMF employee rather unseemly
If you want to bait me, you might want to try something more relevant. I was an admin long before being a WMF employee. Kaldari (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that it should be decided as a matter of policy that while under the WMF employ, admins should recuse themselves from taking any controversial action. The relationship of WMF and the editors of Wikipedia is sensitive and nuanced enough to not need undue complications arising from the optics of WMF employees taking admin action regarding any editor here, irrespectively of how right or wrong the action may be. Dr.K.λogosπraxis00:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Easy to say, but how many can recognise "controversial" even when it's staring them in the face? This all started, IMO, because of Kaldari's perception of the WMF's policy towards gender equality, and he therefore unwisely and ignorantly latched onto the controversy about labelling wife selling as either misogynistic, sexist, or both. MalleusFatuorum
Separate from the current situation, I disagree that WMF employees should not be (previously appointed) administrators, for the simple reason exemplified by User:Moonriddengirl. That's pretty conistently a flawless performance over a long period of time, and I can't imagine her having to cease her admin work in order to undertake the WMF contract. Excellence is not dictated by the paycheque. Franamax (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Did her admin work involve her diving into politically sensitive areas like gender studies? Surely even the dumbest of fools can see that WMF-employed administrators need to be very careful about where and how they tread. Kaldari has demonstrated himself to be completely clueless, and his employer even more so. MalleusFatuorum03:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
True enough, and if User:Mdennis (WMF) wants to throw their weight around in other-than-WMF ways... like I said, flawless performance, won't happen. You're right that it's a bit of an invalid compartison, but I did want to defend the general principle that good editors (admin or not) can have roles within the Foundation without giving up editor/admin-ship. I just chose to use a datum from the very high end of the performance graph. :) Franamax (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
While not dealing with the bottom end of that graph. Honesty demands ... well honesty, something that's in very short supply here. MalleusFatuorum04:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I was responding specifically to your "should not be...Period" remark, so pretty obviously I would be using a high-end exemplar, rather than the fourth-worst or some such. As far as the recent notion that women are delicate flowers who need an unrelenting thumb on the other side of the scale (and the related notion that a new editor is the best editor) - I can see it from both sides, an ingrained culture can be both benefial as a whole and repellent to newcomers. You tend to quickly move to absolute statements, which makes it difficult for others to discuss the nuances with the hope they'll get a reasoned response from you. Franamax (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
That's quite possible. Which half is misunderstood, and which one of us is misunderstanding it? I was actually trying to pursue a line of reasoning, so beyond the fact that you're pissed off about things, what was I missing? Franamax (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that Kaldari should necessarily recuse from admin action while a WM employee, but I do agree that his actions here have given the appearance of impropriety and should be learned from. I'm not a great one for demanding apologies, but if Kaldari could find it in himself to acknowledge that blocking someone he had been in an editing disagreement with was sub-standard, I think that would reassure me that he had learned from what happened here. I'd certainly be dismayed if I saw him using enforcement on one side of a dispute this way again. I'm still really pissed off at the whole episode and still feel partly responsible for starting it all off, but I think it's important to acknowledge that admins are entitled to make mistakes too. We've all done it, and we learn from it and move on. I don't agree that this is a fit subject for RFAR either; I wouldn't think anybody's actions here deserve formal remedies. Just a sorry episode of mutual misunderstanding all round, in my opinion. --John (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If this can be shown to be a pattern of using admin actions while WP:INVOLVED, I would agree with you. If not, and especially if he's able to say that he did the wrong thing, I'd say not. Remember, a desysop like a block is supposed to be to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not as a punishment. I didn't agree with your block either, on the same basis. --John (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's see what Kaldari has to say for himself. Unlike you I've had to put up with his bullshit for months now, and I've just about had enough of it. MalleusFatuorum03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh my; this whole thing is most troubling. And on top of it all, all because of that misguided crap that came out of the foundation about female editors? A very sorry state of affairs. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
(edit conflict) @John: Adminning while a WMF employee would give the appearance of WMF getting involved in editing disputes by proxy using WMF employees carrying around the admin big stick. It simply doesn't look good IMO and adds additional new dimensions to the currently accepted WMF mission statement. As far as you being responsible for any of this, I can't think of any plausible reason why you would be. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but (speaking as both, and also someone who Malleus doesn't necessarily hate) the normal rule is "When making office action, explicitly state it to be such. When making any other action, assume it's a personal thing". I agree there may be the perception that any action by WMF employee equals WMF action, which is why I take great pains to go "just my personal opinion expressed as an editor, but XYZ" to avoid dropping meself in the cack. Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
That's just bollocks. Any action by a WMF employee will inevitably be considered to be in accord with WMF policy, unless that employee is sanctioned. MalleusFatuorum05:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I accept your argument and I am sure that both identities can coexist fairly uneventfully most of the time. It is only when the situation becomes overly controversial and/or political when the criticism starts and in that case disclaimers or clarifications of the two roles don't look very convincing. Dr.K.λogosπraxis05:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make here is that disclaimers don't matter if the actions are so strong as to become controversial or political. Once the actions become controversial disclaimers will do nothing to persuade anyone about their propriety. Dr.K.λogosπraxis05:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I thought you were quitting, Malleus. Again(?) Do you want the diffs of all the times you've threatened to quit after an "unjust block", and then gone back on your word? Is that completely "honest" to concretely threaten such things, and then back out on them? I wonder: and you're starting to irritate many with all your inconsistencies. I've been doing my "homework"... take that for what it's worth. Like the "Occupy Wall Street" protests: the crusade against incivility, inequity and injustice needs a leader to be effective in achieveing any realistic goals. Do you have the stones? If not: put a cork in it ;> Doctalk05:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I've quit contributing anything other than criticism of your beloved project. I'm afraid you'll either have to sort it out or live with it. MalleusFatuorum06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You used to be so nice though. Nothing in your first year + of editing would indicate the powerful stance against incivility that you have taken. What went wrong? I know you've said off-wiki that Malleus is merely a "persona". Can't you just be nice to those you disagree with? We all have to do it every day. Doctalk06:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you calling me an "attempted annoyer" in not so many words? Are you calling me a "failure"? That's easily construable as some sort of personal attack, and I shall see you at AN/I forthwith. Doctalk06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Until the WMF agrees that the behaviour of their employees, such as Kildari, is a problem than I suggest that every editor simply abandons Wikpedia for one day, and let's see what happens. Something needs to be done to change things around here, and quickly. MalleusFatuorum
I took a couple of days' break myself; trouble is, I'm not sure now if I feel better or worse about it. Hey, I noticed this comment; that was very kind of you.--John (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In general, you and other leading writers should make a list of demands that are addressed to exactly one person: I would suggest presenting Jimbo Wales with this list on a day of maximum sensitivity, such as the start of the fund-raising drive. Even an objectivist should be concerned with minimizing bad-press and facing a writers' strike.
(If you really want to prioritize the WMF issue, then you should wait until another editor is blocked by a WMF employee, to have better chances.)
Hi, Malleus and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I mainly agree with these concents. But I think "WikiProject Writers' union" understates the problems. I think WP needs to decide whether it's the greatest free encyclopedia or just another online social club. If the encyclopedia aspect is not top, there's nothing to debate. But if the encyclopedia aspect is top priority, quality is essential and WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are by far it's greatest defences. It seems that "civility" is becoming a weapons for avoiding WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. IMO fixing this is a major policy matter, IMO demoting civility and AGF to a lower level. Phrasing this needs care, to avoid it's becoming its self a weapons, as unfortunately some people are bully, power freaks, etc. For new editors, I'd favour a "welcome" message that summarise the few rules in simple words, with links to advice (also simply); but also say that unpleasant behaviour is will be flattened. Vandals and "Randy in Boise" should be squashed immediately - many may grow up in their own time, and the rest are for a job for social works. --Philcha (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk of a strike was premature,.
A "WikiProject Writers union" would facilitate discussions on WP issues of interest to writers (who are often associated with content-based WikiProjects). Most of us agree that WP increasingly seems to care more about its being an on-line community (the encyclopedia that everyone can edit) over the quality of its article (the encyclopedia that everyone can edit).
Another benefit of having a writers' union would be to free your talk-page and SandyGeorgia's from cries from panicked/anguished writers, e.g. me. Just imagine how much easier it would be to read this page if the discussions about WP headaches were moved elsewhere.
It seems "Civility" (with capital "C") has been misappropriated by a loud but small groups, which don't even represent most fairly intelligent N Americans, let allow other users of English cultures and sub-cultures . For example, business, technologists and engineers are more direct. The "Civility police" should show the same same consideration that they demand for others. --Philcha (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no definition of civility on earth which would encompass Malleus's interactions with other editors of Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of business environment you work in, but at mine we don't call each other "prissy arsehole", "idiot", "shit", "dickhead", and "clown". And we don't tell each other to "fuck off". Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I also fail to understand how it is impossible to defend WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and article quality without viciously attacking people. Surely we have better tools in our arsenal than just calling bad editors dickheads or other juvenile reactions. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see what you're thinking you're accomplishing here, it's reminding me vividly of grave-dancing. May I suggest (quite kindly and very very civily) that you go somewhere else. Ealdgyth - Talk20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I really do hope you can manage to keep this up Kaldari. It would give me the greatest of pleasure to see ArbCom desysop a WMF employee for persistent harassment of another editor, and who knows, it may be even be the wakeup call that's so badly needed here. MalleusFatuorum20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The way you do it is, by lying about the number of good editors I've driven from the project. Now begone, and peddle your childish nonsense elsewhere. Or are you acting under WMF orders, and therefore must persist with this? MalleusFatuorum20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly think that you have a fair way to go MF before you even start to get close to the number the admins are guilty of. In any case, a well deserved barnstar for you young man. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a very American-centric barnstar over there. Wouldn't something which the colonials will be clueless about be more appropriate, in light of the comments here and there on this page? Though if we really want to be civil and non Anglo-phone centric, let's go with Cambronne's good faithed civil remark at the battle of Waterloo, along with an appropriate picture. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari's defense of professional etiquette on Wikipedia has been bothering me since I read it. It would be ideal to expect and receive professional behavior, but the way the project works now, were it a business, Great Jesus how could it ever sustain itself?
Is there a successful business that
has no clear mission?
has no clear operating procedure?
does not state its goals clearly?
Let's assume for the moment that everyone coming to Wikipedia understands and knows that free accurate information is its mission (an assumption I find highly problematic).
How would a business treat employees or customers that consistently worked against this mission?
How would I, as an employee or a customer, have recourse in such a business to make it easier for me to fulfill this mission despite an overwhelming majority of other employees or customers who worked against me?
And finally, how could a professional atmosphere exist in a business where everyone is expected to speak in a formal register, never being able to express themselves fully? I'm not talking about swearing. I'm talking about an atmosphere that demands people get along rather than solve problems.
The comparison to a professional atmosphere is flawed.
Let me know if you're thinking of returning to editing any time soon...
No pressure and Geoffrey's got five supports... I figure he'll get promoted sooner or later. I will admit that this last week has sucked worse than the week before... this week's fun included our new kitten having seizures and the stepdaughter's school turning out to be bad enough that she's moving back in with us, instead of with her mother. This meant that all my office area had to be reorganized to make room for her. Ealdgyth - Talk20:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Your threat is counterproductive... if George wants you gone more than he dislike's Mkat's unblock, then your carrying through with your threat has a stronger incentive than taking Mkat to ArbCOM. You may not be blocked, but you're gone---which is george's real objective. Thus, you provide no further incentive to him to act against Mkat.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, in that there's nothing I can really do that will make any difference to anything here. I would still like to see the noisy GWH put his money where his money is, although he seems to have gone into hiding, perhaps on the orders of the WMF to protect Kaldari. What I've come to realise though, (very) belatedly, is that I've allowed myself to be pushed and provoked by herberts like George and many others when I should simply have ignored them. Kaldari is a different kettle of fish though, and I won't be ignoring him until his toy sheriff's badge is removed. MalleusFatuorum22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I won't be ignoring him until his toy sheriff's badge is removed. - Are you going to propose this somewhere? Because I don't see this happening unless some "body" does somewhere. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No I won't. What's he's done so far wouldn't justify a desysop, but if he carries on in the same way the accumulation of evidence just might one day. I had hoped that GWH would get off his fat arse for once and put his money where his mouth is and start the threatened ArbCom case, but no luck so far. MalleusFatuorum01:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I really am not interested I understand that, Malleus, and will respect your request that I do not breach the topic again. Incidentally, nice copyediting over at Hammersmith Ghost murder case. I don't have the opportunity to do that kind of work these days. The nostalgia's hitting me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.9.49.252 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Malleus. I saw you mentioned this issue a few times on the threads above. This caused me to wonder if anyone has come up with a specific number for the editors you allegedly drove away. And if a specific number of editors driven away by you is not forthcoming, could an approximate number be arrived at? I think the problem could be visualised/framed better if at least a rough estimate were provided. For example, what type of vehicle could be filled with these driven-away editors? A taxi, a bus? An SUV? I would also want to make sure that in case you drove a busload of editors away, you are indeed qualified to drive a bus. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question. We may have to wait for Malleus' confirmation of the alleged trip and if it did happen, maybe we can the get the details of the itinerary. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
My serious answer: I have never driven any good editors away, but perhaps a few bad ones. Editors like Kaldari paint me as some kind of demon, yet I get on perfectly well with JimmyButler's AP Biology students for instance, some of whom like Yohmom still help out their successors with researching topics. I am not all ashamed of what I've done here, and would do very little differently. MalleusFatuorum04:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep driving them off, the more the better, on average. All things considered, it's a net positive to the Wikipedia. Though the continued saturation of the site with these people makes one wonder whether one SHOULD continue to make net positive contributions to "the project". Volunteer Marek 06:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Malleus for your answer and for your sense of humour. I do not subscribe to this notion myself. Wikipedia is a very large place. If anyone wants to avoid someone they can do it safely without taking the drastic step to leave. And when they leave they do just that: Leave. Noone "drove them away", i.e. it was their decision to leave; except in the case of hounding. But there has been no indication at all of this characteristic in your behaviour. Dr.K.λogosπraxis16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
FAC review request
Hi, I'd like to request that you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3. The nomination doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Tony says he prefers to stay away because he's copyedited it, albeit lightly and before I undertook a rewrite. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA soon, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Might do. It's very interesting to see the predictable characters like User:MONGO turning up in search of their pound of flesh. The vindictiveness of Wikipedia has to be seen to be believed. MalleusFatuorum19:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And there was me thinking that page was supposed to be about the rights and wrongs of admins ignoring other admins. Half the people there are just using the occasion to have a go. Parrotof Doom19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What did you expect from the usual suspects? Although, to be fair, a number of people have actually thought about it and come up with some reasonable responses. Black Kite (t)19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I never realised. I really missed this place. Quick question whilst I am here: is Websters the US equivalent of our OED(subscription required) and if so is there a safe on-line version of it? --Senra (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Webster's is the oldest of the dictionaries in the US, but it's not quite the same as the OED. For that matter, a lot of US folks rely on the OED (I have a copy that I use occasionally). Random House is often used as a dictionary here also - Webster's is actually Merriam-Webster's now, I think. I use dictionary.com for online stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have had trouble using Merriam-Webster's; at least from the UK. My Chrome version of BT NetProtectPlus (McAfee) blocks content from that site with the frightening text: "We [McAfee] tested this page and blocked content that comes from potentially dangerous or suspicious sites [the US?]. Allow this content only if you're sure it comes from safe sites". That is why I asked if there was a safe on-line version of [Websters]. No matter. I will look for my word elsewhere. Thank you anyway --Senra (Talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
When are the Yanks going to realise that they don't speak English, they don't speak American English. What they speak is American, and that is what Websters is all about. If you want to look up proper English words then one uses the OED. #justsaying --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
An absolutely pitiful DYK. Who runs these things? The FA of the day is also about as big a piece of shit (complete with shameless canvassing after it was "guaranteed" DYK insurance) as I've ever seen. Doctalk10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Really interesting subject, really badly written. Could've been an excellent article. (Edit: oh hang on, I've just seen who wrote most of it. Give me a couple of days, I'll fix it.)Black Kite (t)16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a late-night early-morning series running on one of the freeview channels on "Great British Ghosts", so I guess that's maybe what inspired the article. But actually I don't see a problem with an article on alleged hauntings in Hammersmith, or anywhere else for that matter. MalleusFatuorum16:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I considered taking it aside and rewriting it but couldn't be bothered. It's rare though that I find an article so badly written that I have to read each sentence several times. Parrotof Doom23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
And neither could I. DYK checks for ... well pretty much nothing really, not even that the article is written in comprehensible English. MalleusFatuorum23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting to note that that article's main contributor is one of those calling for V for Vendetta references in you-know-what. Parrotof Doom00:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The whole thing on the main page had made me start looking for another obscure and offensive (to Americans) article to expand :) It's a shame there isn't more to say about Gong Farmers, just imagine an FA-quality article on that :) Parrotof Doom00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Gong farmers probably can't go much further than it has, as I haven't managed to find any more material: it's still a nice article though IMO, and I think it could be a GA. But it's unfair to consider Americans as a homogeneous group, much as I'm accused of considering administrators as a homogeneous group. Neither is of course, but American administrators by and large are just the fucking pits. Or perhaps there's some correlation between how far west they are and their corrupt incompetence. The truth is though that finding articles to offend the vocal crew of offended Americans is frighteningly easy. MalleusFatuorum00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
In a word, non-existent. But strangely I was taught a Dutch nursery rhyme by my mother, who lived in Holland as a kid before the war ... something to do with tying your shoelaces I've been told. MalleusFatuorum23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Give me a nudge before you nominate it for GA, if that's where you're headed, and I'll look it over as a GA reviewer would so you can eliminate any last-minute kinks and minimise stress. The same offer extends to any of your colleagues as well. A few years ago while on holiday in Lanzarote I watched a group of rays swimming around the harbour, which isn't very deep; lovely, elegant animals. Except if you're a mollusc I suppose. MalleusFatuorum00:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll be sure to let you know before I put it up for GA, I hope to put it up around Thanksgiving. I'll make sure I let my classmates know. Thank you for the offer. As for the seeing the rays, that sounds amazing. I really do like this animal. They are so pretty! I would love to see one. From a distance maybe, the barbs at the end scare me! I've seen the uglier gray rays up close while swimming, and I ran out screaming. I suppose if you were a mollusk that would be a problem.... Marissa927 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I was in a submarine at the time, so no danger of one of them jumping out of the water. How cool is that, eh? :lol: MalleusFatuorum18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sure mollusks cannot scream. And good thing about being in a submarine. Several people have been hit by the jumping rays! Not to mention the venomous barbs. They are pretty but dangerous(: Marissa927 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, and I don't mean the one regarding the block. It may be time to adopt a new designation; I'll seriously consider it. I don't know but I think the more I visit here the more I seem to pick bad habits. It must be in the atmosphere of the place.:)Dr.K.λogosπraxis00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why User:Jaguar's in this category? IIRC it was set up after I said something like (to whom I can't remember) "If you're a (whatever it was they were claiming) then I'm a Chinese whore from Mars". But obviously though I'm not Chinese, so that was a little hyperbolic. MalleusFatuorum00:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have only a very vague recollection of that. But did you see the CfD? I may have broken some terrible rule earlier tonight. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't watch anything to do with categories, and care about them even less. As an implementation of metadata they're pre-Stone Age. MalleusFatuorum01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I would join, but I suspect that since I only get paid in the sense that the cat gets shut out of the bedroom, it doesn't really count. Black Kite (t)00:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sedgley Park R.U.F.C. had a tour in Wales a few years back - the Shamlaggers Tour. I still have the shirt, in a fetching daffodil shade but with a spot of what looks like laundered blood. I cannot recall a thing that happened (aside from my world-class try).And that may or may not be a pun. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a minimum entrance fee for RFA, possibly something like "has turned a stub or start article into a GA" - and the GA should be reviewed by someone with a lot of GA experience. Parrotof Doom18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
But...but...then the NPP can't make admin! Well, GA, that is a lot to ask. It took me forever. "Significant content contribution" (even if unquantified), that is something one could ask, or "meaningful article creation" (maybe past the stub level, and "meaningful" meaning "not redirects"). Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
GA is harder than a lot of people give it credit for, largely thanks to the constant nagging of editors like SandyG, who were (justifiably) very critical of it until it cleaned up its act. A lot of us put a lot of effort into getting that little green blob into article space. MalleusFatuorum18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so bad, beginning to calm down a little now after recent events. Looks good to me, but where's Iridescent when you need him? He's the man for railway articles. MalleusFatuorum18:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I followed the incident and noticed your name mentioned. Perhaps the real story will never be known. Scary to think their security was so poor. --John (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, any old sentence will do for a DYK hook, ask Sandy! Personally I find it interesting there were people called "Warin" around then. It's a name you hear a lot of at any magistrate's court today. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a tough one. All I can think of is something like "... that Henry fitzGerold was responsible for paying all the knights in Kent from 1166 until 1168?" But chasing up some of the linked articles I came across this. What a crock that is. I just hate these articles copied across verbatim from ancient out of copyright sources. MalleusFatuorum00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Eudo's on my list of things to "fix"... I'm about burned out for a while on bishops, so I'm probably going to be working on some layperson's articles for a bit... not everyone can look like Urse d'Abetot but they can all look better than Eudo. Thanks for the copyedit to Henry, by the way! Ealdgyth - Talk00:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a weakness I have. I find it almost impossible to read something without seeing where I think it might be improved. Sometimes even I wonder just who the Hell I think I am to be so presumptious. :lol: MalleusFatuorum00:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know little to nothing about that book, but if you like I can check the sources I have to see what they have to say about it? Parrotof Doom00:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I have a busy day tomorrow, which consists of cycling, beer and curry. I'll see what I can do. I'm also thinking of making my own version of this, and hanging it on my talk page. Parrotof Doom01:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it synthesis for me to write 'Blakeman even goes so far as to say that "Grouped around [the cathedral] ... is the largest collection of mediaeval [sic] buildings still in daily use in this country"'? The full Blakeman quote is "Grouped around, it is claimed, is the largest collection of mediaeval buildings still in daily use in this country". Your experienced opinion, Malleus, would be very welcome --Senra (Talk) 11:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have reworded—Blakeman 1990, p. 13 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBlakeman1990 (help) reports the claim that "Grouped around [the cathedral] ... is the largest collection of mediaeval [sic] buildings still in daily use in this country" --Senra (Talk) 14:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Has been published in Studia Celtica: The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies volume XXXII (1998). The transcript is provided by Michael Richter and the title is "William ap Rhys, William de Braose, and the lordship of Gower, 1289 and 1307". Pages 189-209. Only a Latin transcript is provided, no translation. The original manuscript is in the Vatical Library, ms Vat. Lat. 4015. Might be worth adding in as a footnote or similar for the article. Ealdgyth - Talk21:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Could I put upon you to add that Ealdgyth? You've got a much better handle on how to format that kind of thing than I'm ever likely to have. MalleusFatuorum00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, look at Robert de Chesney instead? I've got a line on another book for the fitzJohn's and until I can figure out whether I can get it through ILL, I'd rather deal with Chesney. World cat listing - it always scares me when the third result for a book on World Cat is in Scotland... Ealdgyth - Talk02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, although it's rather disappointing that he doesn't offer the same opportunity for double entendre. I'd best press on with this, because I sense that ArbCom are girding their loins to try and teach me a lesson. Fat chance. MalleusFatuorum02:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to work on Pain also... it just might get some additions ... and I think I've about mined Chesney totally out. (For those watching behind the scenes, yes, I have ILL access now - turns out we are no longer in one library district and am now in another so I can abuse a much smaller and nicer library for ILL.. yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk02:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting my Spotted eagle ray article up for GA. I am waiting on the range map still, but somebody I know is willing to help so that should be up soon. After that, I think I can put it up. but I was wondering what you think of it. I'm not sure if the feeding and diet section is a bit too small? Any thoughts about it, just let me know! Thanks! Marissa927 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am truly disappointed in your lack of will to cooperate, as shown by your responding to an edit summary with an irrelevant statement and undoing an entire edit without addressing its explanation because "dowager is not a proper noun" (which itself is dubious). I know this will not achieve anything but I simply had to tell you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you could be more disappointed than I am in your surly intransigence, which is all too common here. You ought to have discussed your proposed change on the talk page instead of edit warring, and I hope you will learn that lesson for the future. MalleusFatuorum16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the page history, everyone can see that I was not the intransigeant one. After you reverted the first time, I suggested other options. You simply reverted with a summary that made no sense whatsoever. I then attempted to compromise by making another edit but you reverted again and again with a petty remark. It was a minor change in wording; had you produced any counter-argument, there is no doubt I would have started a discussion. It was also not edit warring as I was not the one blindly reverting every change the other editor made without (sensible) explanation. That was you. All I wanted was to make it clear that she was not Queen of Aquitaine; all you did was revert and revert. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
(Some) Americans may find it hard to believe that that kind of language is not at all unusual in the rest of the world. What I found quite charming though was his addressing the interviewer as "Sir". Quaint. Hard to disagree with his analysis of the bankers though. MalleusFatuorum23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In my personal experience of Aboriginal Australian English, and Australian Englishes heavily influenced by Aboriginal Australian English, cunt is the generic noun. Not sure about verb, but in some Australian Englishes cunt is a generic verb. In these Australian Englishes, fuck is often the standard generic verb, and a secondary generic noun behind dickhead. This is, of course, on top of fuck as a generic emphatic adjective/adverb. Its like eggshells with some. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Piss off, sir, I'm getting a pint. Malleus, please don't put naughty words in another editor's mouth: I'm sure he would never say anything like that. No one would, of course. We don't even think such bad things. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Two decades back, I was delighted to spend some time in the company of some Italian ladies learning the Queen's English, such that "pass me the fucking hammer" was part of the curriculum. I don't remember that being part of mine, but perhaps I have Herr Doktor Alzheimer to thank for that. And thank fuck for that. Whatever it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's efforts to stifle honest discourse under the guise of civility really is one of its low points. Why not call an obviously ignorant arse an ignorant arse? In what way is the project improved by the contributions of ignorant arses? MalleusFatuorum19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A horse has but one arse. Many Wikipedians appear to have a superfluity of arse-ness. Bring back the horses and the Italian ladies, when life was actually worth living. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, but where can I cash in my DIGWUREN warning for calling an editor arrogant for believing their original research amounts to reliable sourcing. Read this comment in the context of my previous comment in this thread. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
LOL, two decades ago I went skiing in the alps when I heard some foreigners "practicing English." I scooted forward so that I could hear them better and try to decipher what they were saying... it took me about 2 or 3 minutes to realize that they weren't practicing English, they were Brits.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
In Scotland among certain milieus "cunted" can mean "tired" or "intoxicated". See also here for rather a good album with the word in the title. --John (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that phrase as "munted," by first preference; though "cunted" makes sense too, other local definitions of "cunted" tending towards "betrayal" or "an attack upon" normally weigh stronger in my mind. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"I can't stand him any more, he's a liar", said Nicolas Sarkozy of Benjamin Netanyahu according to BBC News. Silvio Berlusconi calls Angela Merkel an "unfuckable lard-arse". Obviously what the international community needs is a good dose of wikipolicing. The wankers who believe that people in the real world are by some mysterious process more polite than those on the Internet are just that, wankers. MalleusFatuorum03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I do appreciate your candour, Malleus. I think there is a fine line between telling it like it is and making such an arsehole of oneself that one has to resign. I think you almost always fall on the right side of it. You have definitely sold me on the idea that civility is not always to be measured by the use of particular language. On the specific matter of your last block I think it was a silly one, as I shared your frustration in being lectured on English grammar by someone who was not a native speaker and whose grasp of idiomatic English was visibly imperfect. --John (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
Thank you for all of your help to the quoll article but more importantly, the WP:APBIO project. Your edits are greatly appreciated. Without them the AP Biology project would not be what it is today! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, the first AP Bio project missed the memo on filling your talk page with baked goods? Glad to see that you are still a guiding light in the project.--Yohmom (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hardly a guiding light. I think that's more you and the others who've been there, got the T-shirt, and are still around to help those coming behind you despite no doubt being very busy with your own studies. BTW, what on Earth is a stroopwafel? MalleusFatuorum03:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
NO! NO! Come on now! (Sorry, haha.) It is a million miles away from a biscuit, and I'm not even sure you can buy the fresh ones in Angstydam. Listen, they consist of two somewhat thin wafers pressed together with a cane syrup/butter syrup in the middle; in lots of medium-sized towns you can buy them fresh, hot out of the press, all sweet and crumbly and gooey! They are delicious. Hey Malleus, I only dropped by to tell you that I posted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:RIDICULOUS; if that essay gets deleted, the redirect is up for grabs. I thought maybe you'd have an idea for using it. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Haha.. Glad the stroopwaffels are a hit! I had them once in Europe. The barrissta put them on top of our coffee, and the caramel got warm and melty. They are kind of like the american wafers, like nutty bars, but instead of peanut butter, they have caramel. Needless to say they are delicious! :) Thanks again for all the help!--Savetheoceans (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Savetheoceans, be careful now that you don't get blocked for having an offensive user name. Any destroyer of oceans could rightfully claim you're intentionally offending them. (And yes, that's the way to serve them. Glad you enjoyed.) Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you or one of your talk page watchers possibly help tidy up the refs on Bob Shaw? I don't have time right now to figure it out. --John (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made a few changes, changing one reference to a template, adding publishers where needed, and making sure the authors' names are presented consistently. Having looked at the Robert Reginald book, I think it's a 2009 reprint of the 19754 second edition, but haven't changed the reference yet. Generally I don't see Google book links with retrieval dates, I assume because while the links may change the books won't. Sometimes I see links to Google books removed althogether because they don't work for everyone and they're still accessible via the ISBN link. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast work Nev. Please feel free to finish referencing cleanup as you see fit; it really isn't my field of expertise. --John (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Think I'm done. I changed the Reginald reference to reflect it was the 1974 edition. I double checked WP:CITE on the guidance for Google books. It says "When a book is available online through a site such as Google Books, it is useful to provide links to the relevant pages ... Although there is no requirement for such links, working links should not be removed once added" so I'll leave them as they are. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Stylebook
Malleus, I'm having more and more fun reading Fowler. I found another one, though, that's kind of interesting. It has sample sentences like such as "The girl I had anal sex with freshman year has a great set of tits" (for restrictive comma usage), "'I'm going to finish this drink, and then you're a fucking dead man,' he said" (comma inside quotation mark), and "They're too drunk to realize I sold them oregano" (they're/their/there). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, unarchive that thread where you were asked to be in the banner-- it is entertaining even without you, but it would be undiplomatic of me to say why :) Check this one out; the response was fitting for the flawed logic, but youda been blocked already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I spoke with Matthew for about an hour via Skype. I'm not in the banner and I never said anything that could remotely construed as appropriate for the banner. It was an interesting conversation. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How does this "ass" "arse" stuff work here exactly?
A short while ago I was blocked by the saintly WMF employee who goes by the name of User:Kaldari for this comment: "Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are", not addressed to him I might add.
Yet this evening what seems to me to be a rather similar comment goes by unremarked: "I have found Keepcases to be a major horse's ass", which follows another editor and I being called "jerks".[6] There are only two explanations for such discrepancies: incompetence or corruption. MalleusFatuorum01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
What a pain in the arse. I am usually inclined to put such things down to incompetence rather than corruption, though at a certain point there is no practical difference. Do you mean to say that Kaldari hasn't apologized to you yet? --John (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd been thinking somewhat along those lines anyway, since discovering the significance of metal pins to the Pendle witches story. But the flesh is weak. Would I have time to finish it (or even start it) before the next clod-hopping administrator has a mind to block me? MalleusFatuorum21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ooohh, that book (Botany of Desire) was assigned reading in my freshman college-level English class, as a study in metaphor. Really quite good, and some fascinating history, too. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
... and I find female administrators even more intimidating, although also cuddly and snuggley; in the nicest possible way of course. :lol: MalleusFatuorum22:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You can cuddle me any time pet (...just don't tell my hubby). I have half a dozen capital sources on the subject of witches flying ointment, including a rather OR one from someone who had the national collection of Henbanes (bet I need a latin name for that link), and brewed beer from the stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I worked on a VT for the upcoming 2011 Turner Prize this week. One of the exhibits was Landscape with Dog Shit Bin, by George Shaw. His series of paintings, created with Humbrol oils, was just about the most abstract and realistic I've ever seen - I hope it wins, individually they're representations of all the shitty forgotten urban landscapes we take for granted, but they each possess a strange beauty. I found myself staring at two of them for many minutes each. Of course the Daily Mail will hate them almost as much as they'll hate the two exhibits from female artists, but it got me wondering. Why, when Wikipedia is becoming obsessed with wimmins [sic] editing rights, do Karla Black and Hilary Lloyd not have articles? You'd think that someone would have jumped at the chance to create articles for two artists shortlisted for one of art's most infamous prizes. Parrotof Doom22:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank You so much for the edits on the Greater Scaup article, I really appreciate it. I'm going to try to keep a steady pace on the article and my goal is to get it up for GA before Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Malleus,
selection criteria have mostly been word of mouth as we interview editors. I personally love foul-mouthed uncivil louts, so I'd be down to interview you, if that's what you were implying and if you're inclined. Moni was recommended by another editor who enjoyed working with her. As for what we're looking for in the process, it seems to be editors who inspire readers to click the donate button. The most successful appeals have been the ones from people who feel that Wikipedia is changing the world for the better. And they are able to express that sentiment in a convincing, interesting way. More on the fundraising tests this year here and here. Would you want to participate? Please let me know. Cheers, Matthew (WMF)21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I also turned Matthew down, but mainly because I felt me on a banner ad would not endear me to fellow Wikipedians. He didn't even call me names.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, I was only using the name Malleus used for himself on Moni's talk page. I wouldn't volunteer that if I didn't think it was in the spirit of his humour. Matthew (WMF)16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, I turned Matthew down, assuming that the most upbeat and positive of editors would be ideal for this project. Ones who are aesthetically pleasing and superhumanly excited about giving money to Wikipedia. I can't muster that kind of impossible enthusiasm. Perhaps Matthew should explain how he might edit an ad using interviewees who treat Wikipedia like a the last magic grizzly bear on earth; a fascinating creature that can recite poetry but hasn't eaten for two years. --Moni3 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I used to play College Bowl for my university, including one year it was televised on the Disney Channel. I heard later that the reason Disney only ran the one year was that the players were not aesthetically pleasing, having been selected as good players rather than good lookers. I suspect the same is true of Wikipedia editors. Matthew may have some difficulty there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't make claims about him aesthetically, but Brandon's banner has been the most successful to date. As for editing an ad for an interviewee with that disposition, I personally think it would be fun. I can't say it would work for fundraising, but I'd gladly try. Matthew (WMF)17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense, Malleus is just the guy to be our Bob Geldorf. Otherwise it will end up looking like "I'd like to teach the world to give money to Wikipedia". Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I just hope when or if Malleus accepts to take part in the fundraiser that at least he is better looking than those two dudes currently appearing on the banner. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There's more chance of England beating Spain 10–0 in Saturday's friendly at Wembley than there is of me ever taking part in a fundraiser. So you'll never know how good looking and distinguished I am. Or conversely that I look like a refugee from ZZ Top. MalleusFatuorum22:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither one of those (good looking and distinguished or ZZ TOP refugee) fits my mental image of Malleus. I won't tell you what does, as I don't want to offend. Of course, mental images aren't too predictive of reality; my own mental image of myself is much younger and more handsome than the hideous wretch I see when I'm stupid enough to look in the mirror. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh no. Another anatomy-related edit from you Malleus. I wonder who will react first; the civility control people with a block or wikiproject medicine with an invitation for you to participate. Dr.K.λogosπraxis23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Acceptance of the use of such terms depends on the circumstances and the actors involved. The actors, the terms, the context, the agendas and the politics involved may create an environment where any satisfactory resolution is impossible. Dr.K.λogosπraxis23:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
At least the gentlemen currently on the banner represent a wide spectrum of Wikipedia editors. Between the office and heavy metal types I'm sure Malleus will comfortably fit somewhere inbetween. Dr.K.λogosπraxis23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting four that keep popping up: Jimbo, a male author of 2400 articles, a female author of several hundred articles, and programmer Brandon Harris. I can't find anything that reliably suppresses them for an extended period of time either. NW(Talk)21:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What relationship do the words of these two editors have to the reality encountered daily by the 25 to 50 editors who put up and defend quality content on Wikipedia?
MF routinely gets blocked for words like "arse". An editor once told me to "fuck off" in a discussion that involved several arbs -- not even a warning. An editor told Moni3 "fuck you" in a discussion that was linked at ANI-- only warning came after the fact from me.
The meme that valued contributors get away with incivility is propogated by long-time respected editors, who overlook the real complaint we have, which is that civility is unevenly enforced. So ... here is our latest example:
"Shut the fuck up" from an admin (no warning on his talk page that I can see)
A slightly different reaction than we saw in Kaldari v. Malleus, no? And where does this notion that it's "content contributors" who "get away with uncivil behavior" come from, anyway? Answer: admins who don't create content and support other admins saying "shut the fuck up"?
Well, maybe Wikipedia could better promote the "gender gap" issue by putting up the Commons picture of one female admin whose photographer employed the age-old tricks of 1) position the camera slightly above, while you 2) show cleavage and 3) cross your arms tightly, while 4) pushing upwards. Wanna bet ten dollars that same female admin has decried the gender gap? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That works for me, especially the cleavage bit. There's a list of admins with photos on a site that Wikipedia doesn't allow links to, presumably on the basis that it's a link to photos of admins. The ones I find scariest are those wearing hats indoors. I find people wearing hats outdoors scary enough, especially when they're driving cars. I expect the increasingly daft DSDM has a term for those like me with a fear of people wearing hats, or will do soon. MalleusFatuorum05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are far better examples of arbitrary treatment of incivility out there, to be honest. In fact when two people run off to the useless cesspit that is WP:WQA, and then continue to bitch and moan at each other there, frankly they always ought to be told to shut the fuck up. In fact, we should have {{uw1-shutthefuckup}} for the purposes. Black Kite (t)18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
yea, but. You're both getting off topic. What if Malleus had said it? And where does the meme that vested contributors only get away with it come from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you know what would've happened if Malleus had said it. My point really was that something like that shouldn't be blockable, but is, depending on who reacts to it. Black Kite (t)19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I of course reverted the deletion. I wonder how long that edit will take to come back and haunt him and bite him on the arse/ass (delete as appropriate)... taken out of context of course. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
@TPO, It might be good to chill out for a while, and let others respond for you. Somebody named JamesBWatson just tried to threaten TPO with a block---again after TPO had disengaged from the conflict. One wishes for more of GWH's intelligence, humor, and light touch in the civility police. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The (bad) block was made, appealed, and (hardly a surprise) the review found that (regardless of the alleged reason for the block, which was BS) unspecified other behavior justified a block. This is a good opportunity to read a book, and make notes for Pink Floyd. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't really care when editors tell me to fuck off. Everyone has a breaking point and it's not like I'm actually going to fuck off at someone's command. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
What if fucking Malleus had fucking said "shut the fuck up" instead of "arse"? How fast would he have been blocked? And why is it claimed that the priviledge of being uncivil belongs to vested contributors rather than admins? Now, answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. By the way, for anyone who hasn't seen it Go the Fuck to Sleep is the Funniest Book Ever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not the topic. The topic is that everyone pretty much recognizes that everyone else in uncivil. The Civility policy seeks to support the knee-jerk block reaction to any slight, insult, or plain-spoken comment. But this is just another form of laziness. Of course it's easier to block when you see an editor use "fuck". That way you don't have to read anything or understand the nuances of what's happening. And of course we all know that this kind of block is ineffective at solving anything than temporarily bolstering the shaky self-esteems of some admins. The question is HOW we get admins to understand that they were supposed to have been chosen because they are smart and heady individuals who don't react quickly without any thought. One editor can bump in a hot thread and calm it down by saying the right things and it really helps if that helpful editor understands the issues at play, which are a lot of the time, how articles are constructed. The conflicts here represent real-life, life and death conflicts in the real world. How anyone can logically justify the existence of the current civility policy is a mystery. --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thanks for sharing Go the Fuck to Sleep. IMO only a very few days could make it a GA, as it's well organised and has almost enough citations. I told these who worked on the article that they should get the credit, but should not delay, as I'm so tempted myself. --Philcha (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That is frankly fucking awesome. With a three year old that doesn't understand the concept either, how could I have not noticed this until now? Black Kite (t)21:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Carnivorous Marsupial: the Quoll
I would love to know your opinion on the status of the article. I think that it may be ready for GA, but a second pair of eyes can never hurt. thanks --Savetheoceans (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Do not feel pressured in the least, but I'd appreciate at some point your feelings on how much work I need to do on United States Assay Commission to take a reasonable shot at FAC. Sources are available but inconvenient, for example the National Archives. You will probably appreciate it, it is the former US version of the Trial of the Pyx.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Even peasants have rights here, especially if they co-write good articles. There's a good addition being proposed, but it needs the right weight and form. See what you think if you have time. --John (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd hoped that we might be able to take Thatcher even to FA, but I'm afraid my motivation tank is running on fumes. Apart from helping out Jimmy Butler's students, and Ealdgyth with her bishops, I can't see me doing very much more here. So well done to User:Kaldari. MalleusFatuorum01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
TPO, I think that this would be a good chance for you to edit articles. I suspect that you are on many administrators' watch lists, and you have too much to contribute to get yourself blocked. Be safe! Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'm just bored and practising the well-known technique of prevaricating to avoid going upstairs to my office to start work. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Spotted Eagle Ray
Thank you for the help on the peer review page! I tried to address all the issues, I believe between my partner user:UND77 and I we got to all but a few. The article is really coming along! Your help has been great! Marissa927 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is coming along really well, and its now probably about time you expanded the lead. It's way too short to get through GA right now. MalleusFatuorum00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately images are my bailiwick and dexterity with words is less than ideal, especially as a series of mini-strokes just recently have affected my ability to spell correctly, not to mention the difficulty in remembering words (especially names of things). --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Quoll Help?
Hello Malleus, I was wondering if you could possibly make your way back to the quoll article. I think you will be impressed with the amount of information that has been added since your last visit. Then again, that means a lot of grammar mistakes probably hiding within the article. I would greatly appreciate your help and hope that you will consider revising the article. Your work with the AP Biology wikiproject is not underestimated, as you are, to our class, a Wikipedia God. Thank you so much for the time and effort that you put into the project and I hope that you will help the quoll article progress to GA, and maybe FA one day. Thanks! :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Any help, anytime is a blessing in itself. I'm so excited that you think the quoll is fascinating... If there is one thing this research taught me, it is that there are some interesting animals out there :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There are indeed. Just remind me, are you in a part of the US where it's allowed to teach evolution without giving equal weight to intelligent design? I only ask out of interest, nothing to do with the quoll. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a very fine job with that, and it's close for GA I think. Let me look through the whole thing again this evening and I'll post up at the peer review anything I think needs attention. For instance, this is a bit unclear: "Females have six nipples and develop a pouch which opens toward the tail only during the breeding season". The way that sentence is structured makes it look like the pouch opens toward the tail only during the breeding season, and toward somewhere else at other times of the year. But presumably it doesn't have a pouch at all except in the breeding season? In which case something like "Females have six nipples and develop a pouch during the breeding season that opens toward the tail" would be clearer. But from what I've looked at so far I don't think there will be anything major, so I think you could reasonably be looking to have a go at GA in the next day or so, by the weekend certainly. MalleusFatuorum16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Being the ignorant American that I am, I have an incredibly hard time deciphering if what I have written could be spelled in a British way. I am also just awful at spelling, as with all of your edits you are probably aware of by now. I have fixed all of the other peer review requests but the spelling. I was wondering if you could help me with that? --Savetheoceans (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not ignorance, it's just lack of experience with Wikipedia. I think we've pretty much fixed all the British vs. American spelling stuff (things like "center" vs. "centre", "color" vs. "colour") so no worries there. Neither is the "correct" spelling of course, but the convention is to conform to the spelling variation used by whoever created the article. I haven't finished going through the article yet, and I'll have a few more comments to make tomorrow, but please don't be discouraged by my apparently never-ending stream of criticism; I'm only trying to help you make this article the best you can make it. When it gets that little green GA badge, which I'm sure it can, I want to you be able to look back at it in a few months time when you've moved on to other things and think "Wow, did I really write that?" MalleusFatuorum00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of your help. It is a bit discouraging to see a huge stream of corrections, because it shows you how wrong you are. But then again, being humble is a good thing. If you look at the glass as half full, as I do, I don't see a ton of corrections, but a genuine interest in helping out the world's youth. Every correction is also a lesson, it teaches one what they did wrong and what they can do to fix it. This project has definitely inflated my ego to extreme proportions. Whenever a relative comes over, the first thing I show them is my article. The never ending criticism has led to never-ending praise from my family and friends and I thank you for that. That little green badge will be so rewarding once I get it, because it will show that after all of the "blood, sweat, and tears" I produced something that others see as professional. I am sure not in a few months, but in a few years when I go to write applications to colleges, I will remember this project. I think it will help me stand out from the crowd as far as applications go, so the amount of work I put in, I might get out of it to help me better my future. Thanks so much for putting up with my teenage writing abilities, and for fixing all of my mistakes, as I am sure that reading this probably pains you, as this little blurb is likely riddled with grammatical errors. Thanks again --Savetheoceans (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to help where I can. A lot of the praise ought to go to your teacher though, for his foresight and perseverance with the AP Biology project; I'm sure it hasn't always been easy for him. MalleusFatuorum19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Should I include medicinal opium-eating in the Ely article or should I self-censor? Ely, more specifically the Isle of Ely, was apparently a nineteenth century centre for the sale of opiates to the people of The Fens. According to White (1865) quoted by Darby (1956) "One thing is certain, opium-eating for medicinal purposes prevails largely in the fens" --Senra (Talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was used as a palliative for malarial symptoms. The emphasis on the death rate is a bit innumerate- deaths due to opiate poisoning appear to have run at 0.1% of total deaths per annum during the 1860s. That review by the Texan is quite annoying. Ning-ning (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Why would you want to self-censor? It was legal to use it at that time and, even if it wasn't, it's part of the history of Ely. Richerman (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes @Richerman, fair comment and indeed I will include something in the article. My reticence was built on my concern that adding opium-eating into this article would further advanced the poor view of the place already expressed by writers such as Defoe, Byng and Cobbett. I love the city and am struggling to find sources that support my WP:POV :) <-- smiley face --Senra (Talk) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On a completely different note: I really wish I had the critical analysis and linguistic skills necessary to be able to adequately express my frustration at seeing such a talented and dedicated editor being systematically hounded to destruction by the loathsome toads that frequent—usually uninvited—this and related pages. I have no idea why this is occurring, though I suspect there is some form of cause célèbre going on. To paraphrase someone who can express such concepts much better than I can, "It may seem counter-intuitive, but the very closeness to a[n issue] that comes with working on it intensively can inhibit [our] ability to appraise it" --Senra (Talk) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I firmly believe that being offended isn't automatic, it's a choice the offended person makes. Many people go through life actually looking to be offended so that they can voice that they are offended. I can't believe how many people complain about the offence this redirect could cause. The most basic problem with political-correctness is that it's based on not offending people. That's an impossible feat. People will always choose to be offended by the strangest, little things. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, you've made your point, but you're not going to persuade anyone here. And I find it rather ironic that you have just called TPO an asshole, when I was blocked for a rather similar remark only a couple of weeks ago. That kind of double standard so very evident here is what offends me, not childish name calling. MalleusFatuorum12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that really is irony in capital letters written large. As you may already know, Kaldari believes that I have driven away many new editors, without even a shred of evidence to support his claim, which to me is way beyond "incivil". So I take anything he says with more than a pinch of salt. MalleusFatuorum02:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Editors like Malleus Fatuorum keep me on the project, when I would otherwise depart and cease conducting citation, sourcing and reviewing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Well done to you, yet another spot for your collection. I don't suppose you could put a little star on the GM map? I must say after all that hassle it worked out rather well.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't do much, but at least that little green button will put an end to the childish bickering. I'll add to the map later; who said the GM project was dead? MalleusFatuorum21:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It's another strike for WP:GM (although I can't claim any credit). I know there was discussion a few years back about the "leading" English WP, is that still the GM WP or has someone else taken the crown? Parrotof Doom21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there are, just that for whatever reason the momentum has gone. So far as WP:GM vs. WP:YORKS is concerned, a quick look seems to show that GM is ahead on FAs (38 to 29), but slightly behind on GAs (67 to 70). MalleusFatuorum22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think some of those FAs might need a bit of attention, particularly rubbish like Chat Moss ;) Manchester is certainly a bit behind the times though, and could probably do with a good haircut.
As for momentum, I still need to get Flixton to a GA (it doesn't need much), and I would like to do something with Bury one day too, but that would be a big old article and a lot of work. Parrotof Doom22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Jza84 was a great one for the settlement articles, but I've always found them to be exceedingly hard work. In fact it was the Sale, Greater Manchester article that effectively sunk my Wikipedia "career". And as for Chat Moss, well ... MalleusFatuorum22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
After I discovered that Manchester Corporation used to charge farmers for the privilege of having human shit dumped on their land Chat Moss was irresistible. MalleusFatuorum22:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The statistical stuff can be a complete bore, but if anyone needs a demography section knocked together for an article I'm happy to help out. I couldn't find the motivation to write an article on a settlement I know nothing about, you really need some link to keep the interest. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've always been drawn towards Manchester's Radicals, like the Anti-Corn Law League. But you're right; there's so much that needs work, and lots that could fairly easily be upped to GA at least. Problem is though, just look at the hassle that J3Mrs and I had to put up with just to get MediaCityUK up to that level. And where have the kids who objected so vociferously to our fiddling with their article gone? MalleusFatuorum23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about airport articles but if it were up to me, I'd remove the destinations box, and I'd remove 90% of the images too. Parrotof Doom00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is some good information in that article Malleus... some of which would be useful for Coronation Street. Could you add it to the Coronation Street article, sometime you a free to do so?RaintheOneBAM04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not like you to turn a challenge down. I would never have thought Coronation Street would be the article that had you running for a chicken suit. If I were one of your regular abusive talk users, I wouldn't have even requested your help. Chickens. That page needs a kick up the backside and I'm not sure anyone else interested in Manchester topics has a harder virtual kick.RaintheOneBAM04:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you available for email contact? I actually visited your page for another reason, I'm ready for mentor advice, which I requested a while a go and you said something along the lines of "so be it"...RaintheOneBAM05:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That was completely UNSAT, Speedy. When the little Japanese guy tought Ralph Maccio how to kick ass, he put him through a lot more work and lot more pointless seeming...and it paid off, when he beat that blonde guy in the tournament. And Ralph did not bitch about painting the cars or the like.
Malleus, gave you a practical suggestion. You should have gone and done the work and then come back and said...I did it...here are my questions...please coach me on article X.
Now go...perform the Tony exercises, then come back, say sorry and ask for help (and no mouthing off, whatever the answer, even if you don't get help).
Don't act like a kid. You will be a man, soon.
And when the sensei tells you to sweep dojo, grab the damned broom.
If you are going to correct me, especially publicly, you really should get your facts right first. "Circa" is just Latin for "approximately". Although we normally use it WRT old dates (which are inherrently difficult to pin down) it can be applied to any approximate numerical values - such as stadia capacities. I also don't see the purpose in changing <br> to <br/> ... in my experience, they both work exactly the same, and so you have just added redundant characters. If I'm wrong - WRT "br/', I know I'm right WRT circa - please elucidate the differences for me. Cheers. Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe that "br/" works with all browsers, whereas "br" breaks some older ones. And I was brought up to only use circa with dates (otherwise use "approximately") although someone will probably correct me there. Black Kite (t)02:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"<br>", whether it works with any particular browser or not, is not well-formed HTML. And if Lasagne took the trouble to consult a proper dictionary he'd find that "circa" is a preposition used to define a date, not a stadium capacity. MalleusFatuorum02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I said came on a little strong. I'm perfectly calm. I feel quite ambivalent about the change and haven't reverted it. My comment was really just a passing FYI; the HTML question was the main reason for my post. However, I do believe you can use "circa" in situations other than those pertaining only to dates (which are only the most frequent / common uses for it) - e.g., circa-continental. I would defend your changing it to "about" on more of a style basis than on your own more arrogant "I know you're wrong" basis. "Circa" is a fairly formal term, while "about" is more casual / colloquial. In fact, many guides to "writing good English" would claim "about" is too casual (and is therefore just as incorrect) and that the correct word should be "approximately". I was always taught to use "approximately" in preference to "about" when writing in a scientific or engineering context ... and I would like to think that an encyclopedia entry falls into that context. OTOH this is Wikipedia ... so forget what I just said! Thanks for the "br" info. Even though "br" might indeed not be well-formed HTML, if it stills works WTF cares ... other than perhaps a pedant! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ... sorry, that should have been Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"<br>" is not guaranteed to work with any browser; that it may currently do so with those browsers you're familiar with is irrelevant. Can you name a dictionary that claims "about" is casual or colloquial? MalleusFatuorum03:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Update. Just found this in the OED (I'm assuming you consider the OED a proper dictionary) ...
Around, round about, about. The prep. is often used in Eng. with dates, as circa 1400 (c 1400); it sometimes occurs in comb., as circa-continental adj., etc. Also as n., an instance of this. (My emphasis added.)
I'm also assuming you know the difference between only and often. :) I'll get back to you re your "casual / colloquial" reference question if and when I can find one. Unfortunately, not all knowledge can be supported with an RS citation to the The Sun newspaper! Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk03:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
MF is quite right, if it were the only issue with the article it might be a big deal, which you're making it. I find plain simple English works best as most people understand it.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
MF is quite wrong. The OED says he's wrong. So does Dictionary.com, but we have it on equally good aurhority from MF that that is not a "proper dictionary". I'm not disputing the change based on style or simple English. I agree with the change and have stated such. I simply pointed out to him the obvious truth that if he insists on being a pedant then he had better first make sure he's right. I originally wrote a mere 2.5 lines here stating that. It is everyone else, including yourself, who is making a big deal about it ... mostly because you all can't admit you're wrong despite two quoted dictionary sources that states you are. End of issue. :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Differing impressions on English usage here may be due to the following: whereas "circa" (in full) is rarely used for anything other than dates, "c." is more widely used as an abbreviation for "about" or "approximately", cf. "i.e." as an abbreviation for "that is" (rather than the literal "id est", which is never used in English). And of course "cf." for "compare" from "conferre" :) Geometry guy17:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You are exactly right. Thank you for that. What MF et al do not appreciate is that there is a big difference between "good style" - or, in the case of Wikipedia, MoS mandated style (whether it is good or not) - and "correct usage". Perhaps one day he'll get off his high horse and learn to live with it. :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to HarryTalk23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take the trouble to post here again Mancini. One of the things all writers have to learn to do is to conform to whatever style guide is mandated by whoever they're writing for. And in this case, for better or worse, it's the MoS. I really can't make it much easier for you. MalleusFatuorum23:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Was the first sentence really necessary, Malleus? I was recently asked not to comment again at another user's talk page and I complied, but found the request unsavoury and my esteem of the editor making that request dropped accordingly. Geometry guy23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Necessary? No. But I find the whole tone of Mancini's postings here to be unsavoury and I would prefer to see no more of them. The consequence of my request on his esteem for me is unlikely to be very significant in any case, even if it were of interest to me. MalleusFatuorum23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Added to which the MoS is very clear: "To indicate approximately, the unitalicised abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx." And as this article is an FA it must conform to the MoS. MalleusFatuorum17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that "skirting around the truth" is appropriate here:
"Garnet later claimed to have been ignorant of the plotters' designs following his meeting with Catesby, but this ended on 24 July when he was approached by Oswald Tesimond, "an intelligent and thoughtful man" there to seek his superior's advice; Tesimond had recently taken Catesby's confession.[11] He told Garnet of Catesby's plan to kill King James, but as the information was imparted under the seal of the confessional, Garnet was unable to warn anyone of Catesby's intent. Skirting around the truth, he wrote to Aquaviva claiming to have prevented several outbreaks of violence, but that he suspected that "there is a risk that some private endeavour may commit treason or use force against the King".[12] As he had done following the failed Bye Plot, he urged the pope to publicly warn against the use of force, attempting to hide his knowledge of the plot by suggesting that the warning be aimed at recusants in Wales. He also sent Sir Edmund Baynham to deliver the same message, and when Parliament was prorogued on 28 July, Garnet satisfied himself that the danger had been averted.[13]"
Or would "avoiding the issue" be less contentious? I'm not certain if skirting would be considered similar to obfuscating, or avoiding, or plain lying. Parrotof Doom00:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I think "avoiding the issue" is definitely better, and better to avoid any mention of "truth", skirting around or otherwise. But I'd probably avoid the issue entirely by saying something like "... Garnet was unable to warn anyone of Catesby's intent. But he did write to Aquaviva claiming to have prevented several outbreaks of violence, and of his suspicion that 'there is a risk that some private endeavour may commit treason or use force against the King'" MalleusFatuorum01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, we haven't fed him to the Pirhana, if that's what you mean. Last I heard from him by email was a good bit previous to the last time he edited (and that was over a month ago). I gather wherever he works isn't phone/email friendly, and I got the impression he rather expected to be out of contact for a bit, so I don't think there's anything worrying in that sense with not hearing from him (I hope). Some of you guys know him better I think maybe. Any of you heard from him? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Question: Do your schools provide equal time for evolution and intelligent design? Student response: We leave religion out of our discussions. Inference: Intelligent Design = Religion. Teacher: "Mission Accomplished". Now if I can just "brainwash" the other 15.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Mission accomplished indeed. Mention "intelligent design" to most Brits and they'll just stare at you blankly, but we are a Godless people. It's nice to see a few of your students getting stuck into their articles, and even a couple now up at GAN. MalleusFatuorum00:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Church of England has failed us all; however, with hope, fundamentalism will spread back across the Atlantic. Serpents and strychnine... just have faith. Ken Ham (answers in Genesis) actually did an appearance in our tiny little town. The local churches funded the trip. I now have multiple copies of Evolution:The Lie, courtesy of well meaning parents. As to student's efforts: I just completed a review on content of the spotted ray, I'm holding off on posting until after a GA reviewer has their say. The students get enough of my criticism in class. I am pleased with their efforts and somewhat mature responses to criticism. Although Yomomma (my daughter) called and stated she finds the constant sharing of cookies incredibly annoying. I'm inclined to agree. I am not pleased with their writing skills, six mis-spelled words in one 10 word sentence, not our finest moment. I am insistent that they check each of your edits with threats to their lives if they repeat the same mistakes. I can only hope you are seeing improvement. Regarding class size: My smallest class is 11 and my largest 19. Last year I had 7 in a bio class. Numbers make a difference, despite the rhetoric of those swinging the budgetary axe. Unfortunately, as political conservatives gain control, education will fall under the heading "social program" and no doubt we will return to classes of 35 and I'll have to give up my desk. But for now... it is incredible. What is typical in the Mother Country? Well a bit of a long post... but I've checked my spelling twice now and with just a little fear will now hit the save option.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Classes of 30 or more wouldn't be uncommon here. I have fond memories of my first school in a small village in Scotland. There were only two classrooms, one for those aged 5–8 the other for those 9–12. Each age group sat in rows, but all with the same teacher. Didn't doo me no harm.
Your students are what, 14 or 15? I'm not sure what it's realistic to expect of their writing skills, but they don't seem much worse than lots of the other stuff I see around here every day. So long as they're learning, even if it's about English rather than biology, that's got to be a win. MalleusFatuorum02:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus, you're "fond memories of my first school in a small village in Scotland" is a pleasant surprise - I'm a Scot, although I've lived in SE England for decades. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought schools in the US were obliged to teach the debate: one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Geometry guy14:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Most are 15, with a few seniors mixed in that are 17-18. The underclassmen are the more prolific editors. Regarding ID: The constitution keeps getting in the way... some nonsense about separation of church and state. I may move to Texas, I think they will soon be succeeding from the Union. A final note... My daughter shared this link with me, its a long read, I suspect you know most of the editors. It bothered me; especially since I felt that experienced editors found the opportunity to collaborate with high schoolers a positive experience. Apparently not a widely shared perception. If you have time: Public Education invades Wikipedia. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I just read that as it happens, and it's a depressing story. I think the poorly organised Indian initiative coupled with the foundation's increasingly desperate and ill-considered attempts to increase the number of editors whatever the cost has jarred with those concerned about quality more than quantity. But you and User:Jbmurray were singled out as beacons to be emulated I thought. All I can say is that I've found your students a delight to work with, and I'm very happy to continue offering them whatever help I can. And it's particularly encouraging to see old hands like your daughter still pitching in to help out with finding references and so on. So far as your programme is concerned, I think it's all good. MalleusFatuorum20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
PA
I don't attack your work on FA, so if you are going to stalk what I do and persist in minimising my work, at least have the decency to sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This is how precious it's got, this is what Kudpung calls a "personal attack". Basically, disagreeing with an administrator is now a personal attack. MalleusFatuorum06:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung accused you of attacking his work, not him, so I don't think he accused you of a personal attack.
I agree with MF's comments. MF identified himself as helping with the AP biology project, and he was easily identifiable from his earlier contributions to that page (and elsewhere). Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a general rule- the more personal info an editor puts on their page, the more likely they are to assume PA. Tony1 threatened to haul my amphibian arse to ANI for alleging that he canvassed some other frog into supporting his de-cap campaign. Ning-ning (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I am starting to see your POV on the double standard, Malleus. The other day an admin called me a "pompous ass" and a "troll" in one breath. After pointing out that I've never even been blocked for anything with almost 10,000 edits in almost 4 years, he kicked me off his talk page and reverted the discussion. It doesn't seem very professional: and I'm not happy about it. If I did this to an editor in good standing I'm sure I would be blocked, especially for the blatant personal attacks. But admins can get away with it. Doctalk03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You probably wouldn't, but I almost certainly would. The project is in self-righteous hypocritical chaos, otherwise known as a death spiral. MalleusFatuorum03:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I know you'd get blocked: you were blocked for calling someone an "arse", but a "pompous ass" would have made people salivate. I see the double standard very clearly, and I think that scrutinizing you for civility blocks is untenable when admins can't even unilaterally abide by the rules of civility. Doctalk03:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
MF, you know I called this guy a pompous ass after he pissed vinegar on WebHamster's talk page, right? As for civility, Doc, you know where you can shove it, to cite WebHamster--esp. after your pissy little comment on ANI. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're one of those admins. Allowed to be uncivil only to those you disagree with. The audacity of you preaching to others about calling other editors names and labeling them is astounding. Doctalk04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And, FYI, it wasn't "pissing vinegar", he answered me and I didn't post anything else, and he didn't delete my post or kick me off his talk page. So your chastising was completely unwarranted. Doctalk
How hypocritical. He was trying to get unblocked; of course he was playing nice. You will have noted that I was not the only one who referred to your comments there as trolling. And that's because it was. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment there is actual policy: WP:SOCK is for every editor to observe. I had already conversed with the sock The Pink Oboe (talk·contribs), so it wasn't like I wasn't "invited" to the party already. Again: if WH had reverted me, do you think for one second that I would have pursued attempted conversation? Do you think I would have "pushed" anything? Hear me now and believe me later: you do not want to call good-faith editors "trolls" and "pompous asses" as an administrator. Show some respect for your position. Doctalk04:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ely workhouse(s)
Malleus. As one of the authors of our workhouse article, would you be able to point me in the right direction for the location of a specific parliamentary report? According to Peter Higginbotham's (SPS) site "The workhouse" there was "[a] parliamentary report of 1777 [which] recorded parish workhouses in operation at Ely St Mary". I have ordered his source (Denton, A (1986) Ely Union Workhouse) from my library but in the meantime I suspect that such papers may be available from here but I am no expert in the matter and your help would be appreciated. In any case, neither my Cambridgeshire nor my Lancashire libraries accounts access that site --Senra (Talk) 14:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Is what you're looking for perhaps "Report from the Committee appointed to inspect and consider the Returns made by the Overseers of the Poor, in pursuance of Act of last Session:- Together with Abstracts of the said Returns. . Reported by Thomas Gilbert, Esq. 15th May 1777"? It's 244 pages long. I can access the HCPP, but it's not something that I've used before. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Yes. That is what I was looking for. So, iff the document is digitally searchable, please may I see a copy of the Ely in Cambridgeshire section? --Senra (Talk) 19:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Senra, I believe this is the relevant page- if not, I can take another look, but I have to look it up manually. This is the cite info- if you can't access that page, let me know. Although the page scan may be public domain as far as WP is concerned, I'm not really comfortable uploading it here- grab it quick! Hope it's helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both. Have you read the one above yours Sandy? I think I might vote for an amendment to the blocking policy that effectively excludes me from being blocked. :lol: MalleusFatuorum21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to find that WP:Malleus goes nowhere. Perhaps we should think of an appropriate redirect, something to enrage people as another redirect recently did :) Parrotof Doom21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
@Fifelfoo. Now there's a furpy if I ever saw one. My understanding is that it is fair dinkum for all Australians—not just the aboriginals—to express themselves in a rather forthright manner: stick that up your rooting feckle and smoke it! Figjam or what? --Senra (Talk) 13:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked the Queensland case which was found in favour of the appelant on the same grounds, that it hadn't seriously changed policing. Offensive language is used in NSW by police to start a trifecta going. Of course, disproportionate policing also happens to non-Indigenous Australians; in higher volume but at a much smaller rate. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Peer review of Ely, Cambridgeshire
Malleus. I am notifying you of this peer review as you have recently edited the article.
It's a tricky area, but there are a few rules of thumb, such as don't provide a conversion with greater precision than the unit you're converting. Contrary to what your teacher seems to believe we switch between imperial and metric units apparently at random here in the UK. For instance, we buy petrol (gas) by the litre but drive by the mile. It really makes no sense at all. MalleusFatuorum04:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, I didn't know that you switched either. I'll have to remember the rules as I keep going now. I'm glad I got these last things fixed before the GA review came! Marissa927 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Copy edit, pretty please?
As you may remember, I'm gradually writing about all the listed churches on Anglesey, and one of the few that got to GA status recently without you being the reviewer was St Edern's Church, Bodedern. I think I'd like to have a crack at FAC with it, particularly to justify to myself spending just under £20 to get an article through the British Library that told me nothing I didn't already have... Peter Vardy made a couple of suggestions (it was your idea to ask him, I think), as did Ealdgyth at its peer review. Might you have the time, at some point in the next year or so, to polish my prose (or perhaps I should say, like garages, "remove, renew and refit"...)? If so, eternal gratitude awaits, as do the benedictions of a probably fictional saint. Regards, BencherliteTalk00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect you to do it immediately - unless of course you needed something to read that would be likely to send you to sleep... My weekend editing time will be limited, as my selfish wife [who has a doctorate when I don't - sounds familiar?] and kids think that I should spend my time with them after a working week away... so don't be surprised if I can't pick up the threads again until after the weekend. G'night. BencherliteTalk00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
All too familiar, at least the wife with a PhD and the working away from home does anyway. Where would you prefer me to comment? I can always find things to complain about. ;-) MalleusFatuorum00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody has bothered to inform you of this discussion, I thought I might. Be warned though, the editor proposing that change has taken it upon himself to remove comments he doesn't like - mainly mine, from another section. That's what you might end up dealing with. Parrotof Doom20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather than trying to patrol other people's talk page, how about you rise to the challenge at WP:ERRORS and actually try to find evidence for the accusation you made against me. Or failing that, have the decency to apologise for making an unfounded accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And if Parrot is here, then please note that it was only your comments that I was deleting, because there where entirely unsuited to that page. Be honest about it if you are going to denounce my edits on other pages. Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You have no right to remove my comments from any talk page other than your own. I'll be the judge of what is suited to where I edit, not you. Parrotof Doom00:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Luckily, I'm not a "hippy" nor a "tree-hugger"... I do not play the pan flute nor do I eat granola. (I'm sure you're all happy with that knowledge...) Ealdgyth - Talk23:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I juggle (not very well, I struggle with the clubs), which is kind of hippy I guess. One day I thought, bloody hell, if he can do it then it can't be so hard. It is though. MalleusFatuorum00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, yesterday I watched a presentation to the WikiMediaUK chapter by Sue Gardner. I think that any sane person watching that could see where much of the craziness is coming from. MalleusFatuorum00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw it, too-- most disappointing, and THAT is the sort of thing that chases off real editors, but that's OK, we can be replaced by children and students editing for a grade ... but more to the point, Peter Damian (WR) misrepresented what Gardiner said and the context of the conversation, which was DYK (she said she was told some articles could never make FA because of the nature of the sources ... yea, and ??? ... her point is?). Really, Damian's misrepresentation of the conversation is as irritating as what was actually said. Somehow they all (on all sides) missed the point that the problem at DYK has nothing to do with increasing quality-- it's the need to deal with copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste. Apparently not big problems if we listen to the WMF's screed on the "quality" problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sue Gardner is obviously as nutty as a bag of squirrels, but don't underestimate Peter Damian. He ought to have been a great asset to Wikipedia. MalleusFatuorum01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
"His shows do not assist children in learning to deal with negative feelings and emotions. As one commentator puts it, the real danger from Barney is 'denial: the refusal to recognize the existence of unpleasant realities. For along with his steady diet of giggles and unconditional love, Barney offers our children a one-dimensional world where everyone must be happy and everything must be resolved right away.'"[1]
All too true I'm afraid. My favourite example is the football match between two primary school teams that was abandoned at half-time when one team was losing 9–0, to avoid any further hurt to the losing side. Hell, what their coach ought to have said at the break was, "OK, you've just had your asses kicked, but get back out there and kick their asses". Sadly though the civility police don't allow use of the word "ass". MalleusFatuorum01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
They also missed an opportunity to understand their importance in this universe, which is negligible. When I was retrieving the 10th ball from our net, our stopper complained, "KW, we are getting killed!". I replied, "Don't worry; in 120 years, everybody we know shall be dead." (C.f., Joseph Brodsky's "In Praise of Boredom.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I just wandered by, and had to read (yes, I was the kid who used to read every damned line on every damned cereal packet ....) I'm a kinda superannuated hippy. So what?! And re - juggling, my oh-so-sober-during-working-hours older son (a financial risk assessor) juggles ... flaming torches ...! Rather him than me. And when it comes to trees, the only reason I ever hug them is in the act of climbing :P You should never grow out of climbing trees. (>**)> <(**<) Forcible hugs to all and sundry. [screams of "abuse" ...] Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hey Malleus, I wandered by your user page yesterday, which took me to WikiSpeak :D
Thank you so much for having that link in your page! It had me in fits of teary-eyed laughter all the way through; absolutely wonderful stuff! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I began that page in a moment of jaundice with the project, which to be honest never really wore off, and over time many others pitched in with their own entries. When I look back on my Wikipedia "career" it's up there among the things I'm most pleased with, so I'm glad you enjoyed it. MalleusFatuorum21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how this might help to bring editors together, rather than encourage extreme views and polarization. If you believe the article is a lost cause, then why comment? Geometry guy00:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see why you think chiding me in this way is likely to lead to anything other my telling you to ... well, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks for yourself. As for MONGO and AQFK, I have no interest in anything they have to say about anything. MalleusFatuorum00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am losing interest rapidly myself. But to answer your question, I have found in multiple previous discussions that one of your most admirable qualities is that you generally agree with me. Occasionally you disagree, and I chide you when you are wrong. Typically, I am subsequently proved right that you were wrong. Geometry guy00:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of retracting it. Why should I, as it's the truth? The real problem here is that you just can't see it. Your problem isn't that you don't know where to begin, it's that you don't know when to stop. MalleusFatuorum16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
MONGO, I sometimes consider myself "American" (or some USA version of that), and sometimes consider myself redneck even, and I don't find anything wrong there. Neither apparently does anyone at ANI so far, but your section heading certainly lacked originality. It may be time to think about whether you are too close to the material and your objectivity is affected. On the other hand, I'd be much happier if Malleus would start to acknowledge the superiority of California girls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Why would I spend time tracking your edits MONGO? But I understand from the comments above that you've initiated an ANI without informing me, as you are required to do. Tut, tut! MalleusFatuorum18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy...you got it backwards...Malleus was griping that a section was missing in that article which discussed the the reactions of the USAF...so I added it...I made hundreds of edits to that article and worked to clean up MOS issues and the citations...Malleus has but a fe ce edits to the article and has filled the talkpage up with little other than insults and if not overtly so, still some pretty borderline anti-American sentiments. There is zilch in Malleus's talkpage banter or edits to that subject matter that indicates he is there for anything other than disruption...most others would have been to troll away. There is no sense detailing this here...I'll get an arbcom case together asap.MONGO19:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so now here's your warning. If you persist with these personal attacks on me then it will be you who will be sanctioned at AN/I. Now bugger off. MalleusFatuorum19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, since the ANI was closed and re-opened and closed before I got to put in my sometimes Northamerican, sometimes Southamerican "version of the truth", I'll put it here for MONGO et al. I sat around a pizza table in Caracas ten years beore 9/11 (maybe more) with a bunch of Venezuelan commercial pilots discussing how absurdly aviation was not controlled in the USA, and how easy it would be to fly into the towers and bring them down. This was after a dumb Argentine did almost just that. So, yes, the idea of an analysis of how the USA got so lax and allowed it to happen is not offensive to "all" "Americans". You are too emotionally involved, MONGO, and you should stop attacking Malleus on this lest you be the one to be topic banned, and I don't think that would be a good thing-- I'd rather see you work with others to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I personally never investigated if it did or didn't happen-- what I knew for sure is that I sat around the table in 1982 with a bunch of Venezuelan commercial pilots who were talking then about exactly what happened years later, how easy it would be, I wasn't surprised when it did happen, and I found myself strangely out of sync with everyone around me, as most US Americans were so shocked at how it could happen. US Americans are a curious lot-- so insulated. It was waiting to happen-- totally foreseeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole conversation is pretty sad. Thousands died horribly and disgustingly because a powerful nation thought it was invincible and could do and fund what it liked. Putting aside the obvious and unjustifiable blame on the truly evil perpetrators, some amount of blame must also be with America's former leaders and those who elected them. I personally will never forget the horrors of the numerous bombings of the 1980/90s, in particular the Warrington bomb attacks; there "only" a couple of kids died; but where did the funding for this terrorism come from? That's a question many Americans should ask themselves before berating those who have a measured and distanced understanding of the 9/11 attrocities. GiacomoReturned20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure any leaders can alter the culture here, Giano; the country is so big and the demographics are such that US Americans can really be isolated in ignorance and a lack of global awareness. I just couldn't connect with the shock of 9/11 here, since it was so foreseeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Bin Laden was an absolute moron. He thought that the attacks would cause the US to leave the Middle East. Instead, it triggered not one, but two wars and lead to even greater US presence in the region. 9/11 was a complete disaster for Al Qaeda. If he had any brains at all, he never would have approved the attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Well he did not have any brains did he? - if he had, just imagine how many people he could have killed in "defended" America. Sandy: the culture may not be changeable there - it's more important to alter the perception here. GiacomoReturned21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, given that, do you accept that some editors could read it how I have done so, and if yes, would you be prepared to re-factor it in that case? Also, do you accept that there's probably a better way to critique the quality of an article on its talk page than by asserting it would only look fine to rednecks in its present state? Do you accept that there's probably a better way you could have got your point across to the current/future editors of that page, if the goal is to somehow get it out of the poor state you think it's locked into? MalikPeters (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not accept that your interpretation is a reasonable one, and I have no intention of refactoring anything. Neither do I have any idea whether the editors of the 9/11 article, with a couple of exceptions, are American or not anyway, much less rednecks. MalleusFatuorum22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As for your second question then, the answer is also no. I could certainly have used different words and phrasings, but they wouldn't have had the necessary cutting edge. Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a fucking shovel. Many suggestions have been made as to how the article could be taken forward, both on the article's talk page and during its recent GAR, but MONGO in particular has been aggressively intransigent right from the off, and continues to be, as evidenced by his posting here. In which universe does it make sense to you to be asking about my use of the term "redneck" while being apparently completely unconcerned about accusations of anti-American bigotry? MalleusFatuorum22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, not to be flippant, but the universe in which MONGO's comment came after yours and was obviously made in response to it, however wrong he is in what he said. I'm interested in your thoughts and motives, I'm not here to act as mediator between you and MONGO. Given what you've just said though, how much of your frustration expressed in that comment do you think is down to something inter-personal with MONGO, and how much of it is directed against the general editors of the article. 60:40? More? MalikPeters (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK then, how about 'inter-editor' dispute? You accept there appears to be an editorial dispute between you two over that article, yes? MalikPeters (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really, as I have absolutely no intention of ever editing that article. My involvement began when I nominated it for a GA review, since when MONGO has been acting like a PITA. He's in conflict with me, not me with him. MalleusFatuorum00:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather not say if that's all right. I don't want to cause anyone any embarrassment. If it concerns you, I'd be happy to discontinue. MalikPeters (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Very strange that someone would feel the need to create a new account to 'investigate' something that was recently thrown out by ANI. Under what "legimate use" does that account fall I wonder? Richermantalk22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
To get to the bottom of what you meant by and why you made the 'redneck' comment, what you thought it would achieve, and whether you appreciated how it could be taken by others (not just MONGO, who has made his feelings pretty clear). As a fellow editor interested in the health and well-being of the site. Nothing more suspicious than that, I promise. MalikPeters (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a term "little Englander" for those with a parochial view of the world; I used the expression "American rednecks draped in red white and blue" as a comparable expression, referring to the readers who would find the article in its present state to be satisfactory. Bear in mind that I have made similar observations to MONGO and others in the past, that the article looks more like a memorial than a comprehensive and neutral account of the day's events and their aftermath. You may not have been aware of that background but MONGO certainly was, so I find his interpretation to be disingenuous. MalleusFatuorum00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's something very strange going on. It seems very clear to me from MONGO's posting at the top of this section that he understood I was referring to those Americans who might find the article to be an acceptable account, and not to the editors of the article. So why is Malik pursuing the path (s)he is? MalleusFatuorum00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I blocked the account - was very very tempted to leave "autoblock IP address" ticked, just so we could see who sheepishly had to request it to be cleared... but I'm not vindictive. It's a disappointing level of wimpishness when someone has to create a bad hand sock just to harrass another editor :S --Errant(chat!)00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I thank you for striking what you have, but really it's little better than it was. It still claims that I posted a "revolting and disgusting screed". Given that it wasn't a screed anyway, and you've now removed "anti-American" and "bigot", how do you square that? MalleusFatuorum00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I can cross the entire thing out, even ask for oversight if you wish...please define what you think a red-neck is. The manner in which you used the title indicates that in your estimation, a red-neck is a dullard, perhaps even an idiot. I was born in Montana, I own a black 10X beaver felt cowboy hat, I drive a pick-up truck, I currently live in Nebraska, I like to go camping and build a campfire...and I sometimes even spit.--MONGO00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried to explain above what my interpretation of "redneck" is, and it has nothing to do with dullards or idiots. It's to do with parochialism, the lack of a world view. Nothing to do with the car you drive, the hat you wear, or how you like to spend your free time. MalleusFatuorum00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In what way do you think using that derogatory term helped to advance your argument?...Some Americans such as myself may refer to ourselves as "rednecks", but it isn't okay for outsiders to do that..it is much akin to African-Americans sometimes calling each other "nigger" in jest, but it is completely unacceptable for a white American to ever use the "n" word.--MONGO01:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't attempting to advance my argument, simply to bang some heads together by pointing out the self-evident truth. Look, it must surely be obvious to you that I don't have even the slightest interest in whether or not you or anyone else finds the term "redneck" to be derogatory. You came stomping on here with claims of "repulsive and disgusting anti-American bigotry", which nobody could see as anything other than a clear, unwarranted, and outrageous personal attack, and you went on to initiate a frivolous ANI report. You ought to be examining your conscience, not trying to reignite an argument here. MalleusFatuorum01:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Curious
Why did you just remove my comment? I thought it was reasonable to say that it's up to people to build bridges if there's a gap in relationships, or was that a moment of stupidity on my part? PanydThe muffin is not subtle20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of removing any comment of yours and I certainly didn't do it deliberately. Maybe it happened accidentally during an edit conflict? MalleusFatuorum20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Two things: deliberately removing comments made by other editors is something I just don't do, never have done, and never will do; secondly I happen to agree with the thrust of the comment anyway. MalleusFatuorum20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
dismissive or what?
Well a power point, ugh, I've skimmed through it, it's just like work! And so dismissive. I can't imagine anything less motivating for the editors who have freely contributed to this project. There's no way I, or I suspect most editors, will be coerced into writing what wikipedia thinks it wants, wikipedia will have to make do with what it gets. I disagree about giving the masses what they want, my experience is most don't know what they want. I noticed a sentence that suggested paying someone, unless it's me I won't be contributing if it happens. Is the author touting for a job? Well business as usual, best ignored.J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think many of us felt the whole thing to be demotivating, coupled (perhaps coincidentally) with the WMF's Sue Gardner's expressed distaste for the FA project. Which you can see the ongoing ripples from at WT:DYK if you're interested. Everything needs to be dumbed down, so that we can recruit gangs of semi-literate five-year-olds to replace all the editors getting hacked off with the way things are run here. MalleusFatuorum20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's clear from comments here and elsewhere that you and I have interpreted Sue Gardner's pronouncements somewhat differently. And I certainly have no intention of wading through that dreary treacle again just to pull out a quote or two. MalleusFatuorum20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Now I've read through it again, I feel really annoyed much as I do with the bits of feminist claptrap I've encountered. I just looked at the GM page, and there is some really interesting stuff. Somebody told me something about the ship canal a while ago, it was what you & PoD had written. I don't think the average reader has that much idea of quality or what goes into producing even half-decent articles and the effort it takes to check what is subsequently added is sensible, or the battles with pov pushers and semi-literate. J3Mrs (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I read it and found it hilarious: talk about "those who can do..."! The analysis of FA is a joke, full of statistical nonsense. Why do we have so many FAs on mushrooms and hurricanes? Because we have User:Sasata and User:Juliancolton! What statistical conclusion can we draw from this? None whatsoever. On the plus side, the article did at least praise User:Jakob.scholbach's work on Logarithm, and noticed that GA is delivering on its promise to be a scalable workhorse for improving content on a larger scale. Geometry guy22:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I felt sorry for Ucucha, whose rodent articles got a bit of a grilling. The great thing about esoteric FAs is that they are often the only place where the information on the subject matter has been collated which is accessible to the general public - amazing when one thinks about it really. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Some kind soul, perhaps SandyGeorgia upon first seeing me trying to pretend nothing happened after my lunch money was stolen, gave the friendly advice that people who stay on Wikipedia edit in quiet corners, where they don't have to defend their work from POV-pushers enabled by the babysitters' club. Kiefer.Wolfowitz05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
@Geometry guy: SandyG said on her talk page a few moments ago that FAC was the last working process left on Wikipedia, but I think that's rather a harsh verdict on GAN; that also seems to work pretty well. I've found it encouraging that people these days often talk about FA/GAs together as our quality work, a big difference from the darker days when SandyG was (rightly) so critical of the project and we had to fight so hard for that little green blob. And you're quite right about the mushrooms and hurricanes. As has often said elsewhere, and Casliber repeats above, anyone who wants to know about cooking or houses has a plethora of places to go, but obscure mushrooms? And dare I suggest obscure mummies? Or little known resurrections? To say nothing of Ealdgyth's amazing work on early Archbishops of York and Canterbury. What a resource that will be if she can ever finish it. You and I will never agree over all of the details, but there's no doubt we share the same vision. Just we go about it a little differently.
@Casliber: I too felt that the demeaning focus on Ucucha's work was grossly unfair, for exactly the reason you suggest, and in his position I'd be feeling more than a little pissed off. Hopefully he's made of more forgiving stuff than I am. MalleusFatuorum23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, ok, I goofed again ... I'm trying to decorate for Christmas and had unexpected guests for an afternoon visit and I type too fast, ok ?!?!? I'll go fix it on my talk next. Sorry-- y'all should know me by now. And on the Ucucha thing, yea, that set me off. If some nimwit had attacked "me", I would have taken it in stride, but the injustice done to Ucucha and Iri just stunk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about the criticism of Iridescent's article, but the same point applies about the value of articles on obscure topics not likely to be found elsewhere. In fact TCO's main criticism, an issue about coverage, was discussed at length before and during the review, including by me. How clever of him to ignore the conclusions of those discussions. MalleusFatuorum02:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I found that ridiculous too, but my reaction is that it reflects badly on User:TCO (the writer?), not on Ucucha, even though TCO included many apologia before the analysis.
I also think it is great that editors who champion content improvement generally pull together these days, even if we have different approaches. I have in the past been critical (perhaps more in my mind than on record) of the way that e.g. WP:WBFAN tends to encourage editors to work on more obscure topics, but I entirely agree with you that this also makes Wikipedia a unique resource, and all good contributions should be celebrated. Those who spend 105 pages plotting such volunteer efforts on charts, with pejorative labels such as "star collectors" and "dabblers", should consider whether they could have made better use of their own time. Geometry guy00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There's another reason low vis articles get worked on: fewer people that care about a topic, the less hassle it is to work on, ie, you don't have to get as many factions and cabals to agree. PumpkinSkytalk00:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Extraordinary hassle indeed. I really wasn't prepared for that, and I don't think PoD was either. I just thought it was an interesting social and pseudo-legal topic that was in danger of being forgotten. MalleusFatuorum00:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I too am finding the mutual support among those editors committed to a quality product to be one of the bright points among recent events. I also think the way the feuding between GA and FA was worked out a couple of years ago ought to be a model for DYK, which can then hopefully take its place in the quality processes. So far as WP:WBFAN is concerned I can only speak for myself. I think I'm in the top 20 or so there, but I can honestly say with hand on heart that I have never written an article thinking "Ooh, here's a nice easy one for another star", and I doubt that anyone else has either. My view on the star, or indeed with some articles the green blob, is that it's a form of closure; once an article such as the Samlesbury witches has been through the wringer it's a feeling of job done, let's move on to the next. I just checked how many that hits that article got last month, and it's 901.[17] But for me the important thing is that if anyone wants to know about those accused women they're likely to be directed to our article first, which is quite possibly the best online account available, free or otherwise. MalleusFatuorum00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The second part of your post here speaks volumes about the motivations for writing excellent content. It should not simply be lost here in user talk archives, nor should your exemplar of Ealdgyth's work on archbishops be forgotten. Geometry guy00:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm still struggling with the concept of writing an article or nominating something at FAC and thinking "Ooh, here's a nice easy one for another star" - NONE of the FAs I've worked on or even the GAs (heck, even the DYKs!) have been "easy". The amount of time spent hunting down sources, dealing with libraries, copying articles, downloading articles, tracking down obscure journals/pamplets/etc for the research, then the hard work of writing the article .. all that goes into any article, whether it goes to FAC/GAN or not. I figure I have at least 10 hours of hard hard work in any GA, and the minimum for an FA is 20 hours. Most take a lot more time - and spend months getting prepared before I'm ready to nominate them anywhere. No FA is an "easy star"... at least if it's worthy of the star. Ealdgyth - Talk04:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have been reading this with interest. I have to agree with Casliber's point about being a collecting point. That is what drew me here, when an article is decent, it's a great starting point as otherwise you often have to search all over to get a decent set of info on an article. Where is the thread/link that started this thread here? I'm not sure what you're referring to. PumpkinSkytalk23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I find myself agreeing with Malleus a lot. As he said, if we work on an article, we should make it as good as possible. A few comments on what is said in that PDF: 1) most wiki articles are crap, just click on random article 10 times and see how many are good (however you define good), for me not even 1 in 10, 2) FA regulars are way too entrenched, agree that needs a shake up 3) I totally support Ucucha to write on whatever he/she wants and anyone who is like him--great writer, kind, helpful to others--I'm only come across him a couple times but that's my initial impression 4) wiki is totally ineffective in helping new users and controlling disruptive users 5) wiki's model is broken and beyond repair without a total shakeup and reorganization 6) FA/GA are in fact Sue in % of total, as they say--numbers prove it--and it's because of the total BS those processes have become, esp FA/FL 7) "be assessed versus what its customers want", uh as a volunteer project you can't force that 8) the focus of the PDF is on "core" topics, but we can write whatever we want, it's a volunteer project 8) FA process: "How does FA better train new contributors?" it doesn't, it like a lot of wiki, browbeats people 9) This PDF was written by TCO? Where does the connection to Sue Gardner come in? PumpkinSkytalk23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
FAs are *not* decreasing in percent of total (I don't know about GAs): see WP:FAS. Also, it's not "where does Sue Gardner come in"-- it's really, where does this obscure TCO come in and why did anyone even care about his pseudo-presentation? It's because they were already upset about Sue Gardner's presentation, and TCO simply fed the flames. If not for Sue Gardner's recent presentation where she distinctly (no matter what Johnbod said) laid all of Wiki's problems at the feet of "quality" and FAs, I don't think anyone would have given TCO the time of day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you've got it just about right, it was the conjunction of the two events that's caused the rancour. And why Johnbod persists with his selective deafness is a mystery to me. MalleusFatuorum02:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't feel bad about agreeing with me. You'd be amazed how many have started off arguing with me and then come round to my way of thinking. MalleusFatuorum23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously a sensible (fellow?) then. ;-) So far as a connection between the two presentations is concerned it's really only a temporal one; TCO and Sue Gardner just happened to have made their misgivings about the FA process and the importance of quality in general (or the unimportance of quality) known at about the same time. MalleusFatuorum23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if TCO understands why I work on obscure topics. It isn't because I'm not interested in vital articles; it's because I find obscure topics like Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies fascinating, and also because their very obscurity means that most people don't start whinging about masks and cartoon characters which MUST BE INCLUDED NO MATTER WHAT. Parrotof Doom00:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but you're a champion PoD, whereas I'm a mere starchaser. Maybe the world looks different from your elevated position. :lol: To be serious though, one of the reasons I have always worked on obscure topics is precisely because they're obscure, and therefore in danger of being forgotten. Take Bradford Colliery for instance. How many people visiting Manchester City's match tomorrow will know that the stadium is built on the site of a former colliery, and sits on some of the richest coal reserves in the northwest? Or even that there once many mines in and around Manchester and Salford at all? MalleusFatuorum00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from using profane language, as I'm a mad as a button Californian and it's illegal to swear here ... fuck, what am I thinking? Where did I leave my tin foil hat? MalleusFatuorum01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm into a phase of inventing new idioms. For some reason "mad as a button" struck a chord with me, maybe something to do with those Levis jeans that have the pretentious brass buttons rather than a proper zip. MalleusFatuorum04:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even a "dabbler" :P I (don't) own a grand total of four articles, two of which are GA simply because I liked doing them. When I did the first GA/DYK, I'd never even heard of DYK/GA, and had no idea what people were talking about when they mentioned same ... far from dabbling toes in the water, I just fell headlong into the pond without seeing it. But now I know it's there, I like the idea of making sure that anything which is "mine" is GA standard (preferably before it even leaves my sandbox), purely for my own comfort with the article. But then I also obsessively-compulsively clean kitchens ... maybe there's a link here? And as for "what people read" - how can one possibly really predict? My first DYK (subject not exactly what one would think would appeal to a huge audience) got between 9,000 and 10,000 hits over two days. Weird. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'll note I was also disappointed with your comment on the 9/11 page -- I'd expect someone who is allegedly a good editor to know that "redneck" does not have a hypen in it. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Afrikaners use "rooinek" to describe English people settled in South Africa, a bit like the Australian "Poms". Sorry I missed your latest AN/I; maybe for once this conflict will lead to article improvement, I hope so. --John (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry John, I'm sure there will be another along soon. As for the article, there do seem to be some hopeful signs developing, largely thanks to Geometry guy's efforts. MalleusFatuorum00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting article. Given Wikipedia's global contributor base I doubt that anyone could come up with a satisfactory definition of civility that didn't look like a code of conduct for nursery school children, which is why I've long argued that it should be dumped and the spotlight turned instead on NPA. MalleusFatuorum01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
A few notes: I'm trying to teach my 2-year old daughter not to speak like a redneck. Those vowel glides (see Southern_American_English#Phonology) irritate the hell out of me; the things they pick up at daycare. Also, please don't take my remark too personally: I am a cunt, after all, perhaps even a fucking cunt under some circumstances, and to pounce on you (a pouncing cunt?) for that tiny thingy was too much to resist. Finally, I wish we had a barnstar for metaphor bending (I'm giving a redlinked neologism away for free)--you deserve it for this one. Happy thanksgiving holiday, MF--do you Brits carve up a turkey as well for that venerable international feast? I am sure it was delicious. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yank? Them's fighting words when addressed to a Dutch expatriate Southerner, boy! Hey, I hope your satellite dish is working properly: get ready for the Iron Bowl this afternoon. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I remembered after I wrote it that the Yankees were the northeners in the civil war, but we don't tend to discriminate. Speaking of accents, I watched The Searchers on TV this afternoon. Ever seen it? The accent of the Charlie McCorry character played by Ken Curtis is just unbelievably irritating. Do people really talk like that in the south? I felt like jumping through the screen and winding him up, to make him speak at a normal pace. MalleusFatuorum17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen it this century, I think, and I don't remember--my Waybackmachine is a bit faulty. But I will report, in the next decade, if I get around to watching it. Yes, some Southern speakers' accents are grueling and painfully slow, but others are charming. This lady's dialect was widely praised and celebrated (some samples here, though she read a bit too slow for me. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually we do have a Thanksgiving celebration in the UK - it's called the Harvest Festival but it's now only celebrated in churches and church schools. For those who don't go to church (the majority of people in the UK) it just goes by unnoticed. As for Yanks, there was a joke going round during WWII when the GIs first arrived in Britain "Have you seen the new utility knickers? - one Yank and there off." The other one was "It's all over for the Americans - over-fed, over-paid, over-sexed and over here". Richerman(talk)20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yay, Harvest Festivals! I remember the internal snickering once I discovered that corn dollies were allegedly paganly-symbolic, and seeing them all over the (allegedly-Christian) celebration. But who are we kidding, eh?! Favourite thing about Harvest Festivals, and I can;t remember the original, but it was immortalised by Thelwell in one of his cartoons, was when the vicar-of-somewhere-or-other said something along the lines of "Due to the widespread flooding between here and [somewhere], we will omit the line about "soft refreshing rain". :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Somerset Coalfield
Hi again. If you (or your talk page stalkers) had the time and inclination (and I see from above you may be busy with other things) to cast a critical eye over Somerset Coalfield that would be really great. I've been tidying and updating to "current standards" this article which I started back in 2006. I'm hoping to get it to GAN standard (I know a few page nos etc are still needed), but, as usual, it is the standard of my prose which is most likely to let it down. If you are too busy I quite understand and there is absolutely no urgency.— Rodtalk17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits - I don't have any problem with any of them but your edit summaries show up my poor level of English (I wouldn't know what "two gerund-participles" were if you hit me with them).— Rodtalk17:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not important--I'm just trying to impress MF, lest he think that all Southerners, adoptive or otherwise, are rapers of English. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty important piece of industrial history in the local area but I recognise it might not have quite the same significance on a world wide (or wp wide) basis. (only getting about 1,000 page views a month). — Rodtalk18:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Lot of interesting stuff there. Just a thought perhaps the geology section should follow the Lead, a sort of natural progression coal was formed, then it was mined. MF & I did this for Bradford Colliery and I hope to copy it when I can get going on some more collieries (sometime, whenever...) I can't understand why anyone would need to be apologetic about industrial history it's infinitely more interesting than tv programmes or football, to name but two things.J3Mrs (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
With only a very few exceptions I agree with you, and it's a very under-represented field as well. Anyway, when are you going to finish Astley and Tyldesley Collieries? And you've got that list of Poor Law Unions to sort out. Stuff the so-called "vital" articles. :-) MalleusFatuorum19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What's all this "vital" article malarky? I will finish in my own good time, I have other things to do like forgetting my camera when I go out walking.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You haven't seen this analysis then, of how we've been wasting our time here by chasing FA stars for articles on trivial topics? (Trivial is defined by fewer than 3000 page views per month.) Here's something strange though; do you remember Tickle Cock Bridge? That consistently gets well over 1000 views each month. MalleusFatuorum19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Not good enough then!! I really don't read much on here (usually things less than four lines or I lose interest) but I'll have a look. 3,000 views :-( , I might as well give up. Oh well I do this to amuse myself not anybody else.J3Mrs (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Any help appreciated & I agree geology before mining makes sense. I don't think I've ever edited an article on TV programmes or pop music & like others I work on areas I find interesting.— Rodtalk20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That presentation demotivated me too but perhaps for a different reason. I have been tinkering recently in some hot areas such as Falklands, Muhammad/images and I stood well back from yesterday's 9/11 attacks (plus the blast radius). I just cannot see qualityvital articles being collegiately produced in volume. Maybe my glass is half-full. I know I am not a quality editor—though I feel pain arising out of this for those that are—nor have I produced quantity but I had, until that presentation, felt I was making a contribution --Senra (Talk) 20:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up, many felt and still feel the same. And who told you that you weren't a quality editor? You tell me who it was and I'll go sort them out. ;-) MalleusFatuorum21:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have. I've even edited Japanese Manga articles. Basically, unlike the present climate, I think that quality is everything; if we're going to have articles on soap characters or lists of Manga episodes, for instance, then they ought to be the best we can make them. I don't think I've ever refused to help with an article because I didn't consider its subject matter to be important enough. MalleusFatuorum21:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of this? I haven't done a re-read since I copied it across (just scanned random bits and fixed things here and there), but does it make much sense to a layman? I ask as a layman myself. There's a lot of religious detail I'm rather ignorant of, and I'm slightly concerned that the pre-plot sections are sourced a little too closely to the ODNB. I think it might be good enough to be a GA at some point, but not before religious experts have taken a look. Parrotof Doom23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
(tps)I find the bit about his head puzzling. It's described as having a pallid appearance, which drew attention; suggests that it wasn't treated with tar or similar as a preservative. Secondly if the head's on a pole which is shoved up the windpipe, and you want to rotate it so that the face is not visible, shoving the pole through the face seems to be a bit easier than shoving it through the back of the head (maybe an admin could try this out with one of their collection). "Pallid appearance" and face turned upwards to heaven seems like the invention of a martyrologist. Ning-ning (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
At least one image of old London Bridge shows the spiked heads set at an angle, looking down, so turning the head would have made them look up. Parrotof Doom10:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Having read the above responses, my squeamish disposition prevents me reading the article. Er. Natural inquisitiveness trumps squeamishness. Give me a few minutes --Senra (Talk) 13:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but I'm not much of a userbox person. Your offering is nevertheless appreciated and accepted in the spirit in which it was offered. MalleusFatuorum22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hehe! Never mind. [slips into house-slave mode] ... "I must have spent whole minutes on creating it ... slaving over a hot dirty keyboard ... tsk!" Actually, I made it for me, and thought you might like a clone. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
GA review?
Hi, Malleus Fatuorum. Could you please send an email, and then I'll respond with the subject. Sorry for it, but you make find it amusing. --Philcha (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hating to draw your time from articles: policy shite
You may have an interest in the views I have expressed at this useless navel gazing forum post regarding swearing without making personal attacks, or you may not; I don't particularly care but I thought some of my invective was particularly witty and connected to conversations I've observed in the past about en_US cultural imperialism regarding the bloody bastard fuck shits of every day conversation. The policy discussion was, of course, fairly trite and not worth your time. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
"This would lead to constructive editors like Malleus be blocked, you know?" Likely the point of the suggestion don't you think? Naturally though I do take exception to the accusation of "incurably gross incivility", but better that than "vomit-inducing saccharine faux politeness, with all due respect". MalleusFatuorum01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the lack of paragraphs alone in that post is reason for an immediate community ban. I don't want someone who writes like that near my pets either. Who knows what they're capable of! Drmies (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You did the heavy lifting and the credit is all yours. Show the article to your friends and family and bathe in their amazement at what you managed to achieve. And may it encourage you on to greater things in the future. MalleusFatuorum02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations Marissa. Isn't it great to do something that you can actually point at, that thousands of others will read and admire? Also, some of them will vandalize it, but we'll take care of them, haha. Yes, bask in your glory. I hope you posted the link on Facebook already. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just been listening to the book of the week on BBC Radio 4 - Charles Dickens a life They did mention that next year is the bicentenary of his birth (7 February 2012) so I had a look at the article to see if it was a FA. Sadly it's only C class and was last assessed for FA in 2005. I can see I'll have to buy the book and do some work on the article. Anyone else fancy pitching in so it can be put up for TFA next February? Richerman(talk)11:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Two and a half months is rather short notice. Still, it should not be dismissed for that reason. I have a few books on Dickens—my father had some interest in that and I kept some of his books. I have a few early editions which may be helpful for high quality scans of the illustrations. That being said, I am very busy with my McKinley project and I don't have the time to devote to being a full partner in the enterprise, but will be glad to help out with images, copyediting and the like.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
On an article that size I think I'd start from scratch, using the new book you have as a template. Then I'd compare your new sandbox article with the existing article, merging them where you can. It can be done. Parrotof Doom13:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a worthy aim Richerman, and I'd be happy to help. Might even encourage me to get William Harrison Ainsworth in shape as well. As I think PoD's suggesting, probably the best place to start is with the article's organisation. I really, really struggled with workhouse when I initially tried to work within the structure I inherited, and it didn't start to come together until essentially what had been there before was either ripped out or completely rebuilt. MalleusFatuorum17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and offers of help. I don't know if it's do-able in the timescale either but I know I certainly couldn't do it on my own. Come what may we'll end up with a better article so I'll get the book ordered and take it from there. Richerman(talk)21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
When things get further along I'm game to give it a non-lit, non-brit perspective with copyediting. Just ping me when it needs that outside eye. Ealdgyth - Talk21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
After all those bishops and archbishops... I now spell honour and favour rather than honor and favor. It's actually kind of a problem with another of my jobs... Ealdgyth - Talk22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:MediaCityUK for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](http://i.imgur.com/FRLyR.png){kind=link}
