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.
Request for comment
Hi, could u do me a favour? I wld appreciate if u can u take a look at this & comment whether the remarks made are valid & the suggested course of action next. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You're correct, I left an imprtant part of the sentence out. Good catch, as it was written, what I said made no sense :D -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting there. Would you be willing to do a review? If not, I'm happy to...just that you stepped in first... Something I'm really not fond of doing is sending people back to the GAN queue when they were taken off it by a crappy review—it doesn't seem fair at all to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just my luck! Hope I won't be seeing any more 'monkey business' again, but I'll keep my axe handy & sharp in case it's needed to chop down some trees in future. 8) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Who cares
I laughed at that last edit to your userpage, especially the summary. I did same thing here, and with a message at the top of my userpage. Yay, here's a template. Feel free to delete this comment under the same edit summary you used a moment ago. Tan | 3901:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah YES. That's quite observant; that's exactly what I was doing. Sorry I didn't catch that last night, I had blown the froth off a few... several. Good thing I didn't casually stop by new page patrol for a few jaunty db tags. Tan | 3916:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think WP:GA is extremely important. I'm truly and sincerely sorry if the way I expressed myself led you to believe otherwise. I deeply regret seeing you put off of the idea of working at GA; it's a sad moment. I know i haven't expressed any of this well. I apologize.
I do not believe GA is crap. I think it has many fine reviewers. I think the GA system lets crap slip through. This is an extremely meaningful distinction. Best Regards, Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't join wikipedia to work at GA or anywhere else; I joined because there was an article that I wanted to work on. It was a while before I even knew that processes like GA/FA existed. I thought that GA in particular showed some promise in helping to establish a minimum acceptable standard, and I tentatively joined the GA project on that basis. I had thought, naively, that I was in some small way helping to improve the encyclopedia, but what has become apparent is that I have simply been wasting my time. Green dot on the main page aside, I am not inclined to expend any more effort on articles whose subject I have no particular interest in when the end result is a listing that is widely regarded as being worthless crap. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have adressed those comments, and I believe there was nothing wrong with the points you brought up. I individually adressed each comment. I had good reasoning behind each of those replies. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You could address the comments that I made. For instance, I am not in the slightest interested whether a softball is a standard measure of hailstone size in the USA. I don't live in the USA and I've got no idea how big a softball is. Or even what a softball is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have adressed that. However, I will keep local time throughout the rest of the article to show how people were impacted (At home in the evening, driving home from work, or asleep). Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that a few of the phrases that you brought up do not sound great, but I played around with them and could not think of any better way to phrase them. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But unless I see some serious effort to address the concerns that have been raised then I won't be changing my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just spent about an hour looking at each section and correcting any issues that I saw; I think that's serious effort. What other issues are there? The boldface has good reasoning behind it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Look. When I first commented on the article you tried to persuade me that I was talking bollox, everything was kosher. I have given my opinion in the FAC. I have nothing else to add, so will you please stop harassing me? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed most of the issues, although I welcome changes to my changes. it's a very obscure subject, so it's not the easiest to explain. Ealdgyth - Talk03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have too. Calling the subject "obscure" is underselling it a bit though; I'd probably have gone for "arcane". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
[1]. I just wrote about three hundred words on this, but they can't convey what I mean so I removed them before saving. Bluntly then - Your edit summary and comments made me feel good and that I'm doing good. I appreciate it. Sincerely. Again, thank you. Pedro : Chat 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You're becoming one of my heroes. Anyone can bitch, but you're proposing to do something about the problem. I really do wish you luck with the idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. And not just because I'm in love with Malleus. Besides that, because I think it has infinite potential to be better than admin coaching. Seriously, let me know how I can help you in this endeavor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a loose cannon at the best of times, and just about the last person I could imagine ever becoming an administrator. But even I can see the advantage of those who are more suited to the role being properly coached. Who knows, it might even mean that I have fewer RfCs to face in the future. :-)
There will be no RFA#2. I learned my lesson. There's nothing I want to do that I can't already do. Do you really believe that I could keep my mouth shut and not disagree with any other editor for three months? I don't think even my mother could believe that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you won't, it is clear that with 3 of us reverting him he is the one in the wrong and anybody can see his section is basically spam. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hitler also had a majority - was he right? I am not spamming, I am contributing material within Wiki guidelines. You and Malleus asked for revisions, I revised but still you refused to compromise. I suggest you sit back and consider if you have been reasonable - I think not. MSJ1958 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I never asked for any revisions, I'm just trying to keep the article clear of spam. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Beetlejuice
My sincerest apologies, I thought the article was explained well. I guess I missed on some parts the article was trying to explain. Thank you for catching my mistakes, once more, I am a shame I promoted an article that did not meet the criteria. ZenlaxTCS20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, nobody died. Hopefully the editors can tidy the article up over the next few days and it can keep its little green dot. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did leave a notice to the user who nominated the article. If the editor decides to clear up what's needed, then I guess the article can keep the Good article symbol. Again, I apologize. ZenlaxTCS20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just provided a few examples of what needed to be done. If you've only fixed those examples, instead of looking through the whole of the article, then it's possible that the article will lose its GA listing. Can you find someone to help you with a copyedit? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for help at GAR
Thanks for helping out at GAR, which is one of the parts of the GA process which works well, but only if enough reviewers contribute. I'm glad you haven't completely lost faith in the GA process, and hope you are stirred rather than shaken! Cheers, Geometry guy21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit that I was rather shaken, but my faith in the GA process is slowly returning. Just so long as it doesn't turn into some kind of FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, sorry - this is a bit spammy. You recently commented at my talk page regarding my proposal for a mentoring process that takes us away from "admin coaching" and moves towards a process to provide a support system to help editors who wish it become effective, high quality administrators, and not an administrator for the sake of it. I've created a header at User:Pedro/Mentoring and if you have any time to provide some feedback, or just tinker with it, I'd be grateful. Pedro : Chat 08:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping into the sweeps, we need all the help we can get if we're going to finish this within our lifetimes! Let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you enjoy doing the reviews. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Got a shovel?
I have some digging to do. :-). Thanks for your encouraging words to Porterjoh (someone I've never "met" before). Looks like he's back on track, with thanks more to you than anyone else. Nice work. Your reward is intrinsic. Sorry, no cash, and no bullshit. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've got a good chance with this FAC nomination, but it's still not quite there yet I don't think. I'll help with the copyediting if you help with my abyssmal lack of knowledge on meteorology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping copyedit it. User:Hurricanehink changed his vote from a weak oppose partly because of the copyedit, so it really helped. And sure, I'll be happy to help teach you a thing or two about meteorology. :) Also, I fixed your suggestion about the small sub-section. Thanks again, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Before you go removing every word that adds flavor to the article, keep in mind that I did not plagarize the article. Now, I am not of tha style. Youc an check out my contributions in other Byzantine articles. Nikephoros was brutally murdered, have you read how he was murdered? If so, then why is there a problem? Although I acknowledge that the Arabs did in fact recapture Antioch in 1260's by the Mamelukes, that was a mistake on my part. Tourskin (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was. I suggest that you go back and write an article that is worthy of the GA dot, without any further undue pov drama. Just say how Nikephoros was killed, and let the reader make up his or her own mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there (again)
Hello there Malleus,
I've been thinking over the last couple of weeks, about taking the first steps towards adminship (traitorous I know!). Having seen a few pages in need of semi-protection and deleting/moving, I believe WP:UKGEO and WP:GM would benefit from a more dedicated admin being around. My preference would be for User:Ddstretch and yourself to go for it, but I know you've both expressed concerns/a dislike with the process/role.
I seem to meet the basic "criteria" for sysop candidature (though me and you both know the realities of what kind of qualities and attitudes are needed), but (if I am to go for it) would like to have some mentoring from an admin to ensure I fit for the job (although admittedly, I wouldn't start patrolling the AfD pages and getting involved with cabels and such). I have a user (admin coach) in mind to ask for some input, but wondered two things: a) what your honest thoughts are, and b) if you can recommend any coaches that have a sound approach to how the role should be treated? --Jza84 | Talk 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I shamefully stole his signature style a while back, which, is a shame now! I think I will approach them. If nothing comes of it, then, no problem - I won't be doing a vanishing act in retaliation like many of my fellow over-enthusiastic, unrealistic userkin have been known to do.
I've had loads of disagreements with many-a-user. Some quite very heated, though never ever (at least on my part) vindictive or murderous! I'm aware that there will be a number of skeletons found and spun out to prove I'm an evil untrustworthy user who shouldn't even be here. If it does to the point that everyone agrees, well, so be it -- I'll still be happy to work on writing articles just the same.
I'm well aware on what I've helped to achieve (sorry, the arrogance is popping out for a moment!), and I know in my head and heart that it is good. I'm certainly proud of it. That said, I know you had comparable acheievements under your belt at the time of your RfA, so I know it may be inconsequential.
Whatever happens, and I may not go for the big A anyway, I think it'll be an enlightening experience and I'll learn from it - I know you did. --Jza84 | Talk 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Just stumbled into this, checking your contribs after you joined the mentoring page. Although Malleus meant Pedro, and not me, after reading this, I would nominate you for adminship, Jza. You are an article builder. We need article building admins. Period. You obviously need the extra tools to advance in your contributive style to Wikipedia. I've offered to nominate Malleus several times, ad nauseum even, and he refuses. Alas, I really believe he might actually pass, but he refuses. The mere fact that he is a strong supporter of you makes me a blind supporter of you :-). A Pedro nom would be exponentially better than a Keeper nom though, so if I were you, I'd wait to see his response on the Mentoring page :-) If you never here from Pedro though, hit me up. I'll nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been nice knowing you. I might as well come clean now that when it comes to digging out skeletons, I'm probably the Harold Shipman of Wikipedia (I certainly feel that way!... which makes me think... should he be assessed for WP:GM?!?!... anyway...). But seriously, even if I get 1000 opposes and three supports, and I'm proven to be some evil, ruthless, relentless, hopelessantagonist of Wikipedia, I don't mind; I'll still be here armed with WP:UKCITIES and a book on my lap the following day.
The only trouble now is, I can't nominate you for a while now, a long, long while!! That'd look far too dodgy! I think Keeper76 has a point though. I believe I've been a user here slightly longer than you, but I still look to you as friendly giant, and have to thank you for your support. --Jza84 | Talk 23:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. You could oppose if you wanted! haha!
I think you've been a user here for quite a bit longer than me. In fact, one of the early postings on my talk page is an invitation from you to join WP:GM. The rest is history. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As I just shared with Nev1 (who's not far from RFA himself too), I'm stating here and now that I seek the tools for our project, not as a trophy, and not to bugger off to a trendy, obscure backroom noticeboard! My passion is with WP:GM. --Jza84 | Talk 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed this edit. Please do not change the oldids of old events. The oldid provides a link to the version of the article as it existed when it passed GA in 2005. You can add a "GAR" event like this (action 7). Gimmetrow18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to convince you that you would be much better off with the extra tools. Not because I think you'd stop editing articles, and GAs, and start editing WT:RFA and WP:ANI prolifically, but because I strongly believe that you would never dream of being abusive with the extra tools. In fact, once you had them, I don't believe you would really use them that often. But when you needed them, there they are! You would be a rather sour addition to those admins that float around AIV. Ditto for AfD. Some of us (myself included) are meant for such arenas, because we frankly suck at writing and citing good/featured articles. You, on the other hand, are a terrific writer. And reviewer. And you are exponentially more dedicated to this ridiculous website as those "admin coachees" that view RfA as a hurdle to pass in order to expand a trophy case. You're already an admin in my eyes. I wish there was a way to give you the extra buttons without RfA#2. That said, you keep saying you'd "rather stick pins in your eyes". I'm starting to wonder if you might actually enjoy sticking pins in your eyes. And then accepting a nomination for adminship. I'll do it myself if you'd let me. Just accept it, answer a few friggin questions, and let it fly. Don't reply to opposers (there will be some), and don't get sarcastic beyond what is normally expected and enjoyed. I think you'd pass. Ok, done with my bazillionth pitch. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right to say that I very likely wouldn't make much use of the tools anyway, beyond the areas that he mentioned in his (yet to be transcluded) RfA. I really can't see me suddenly developing an interest in chasing down sockpuppets, or worrying unduly about "inappropriate" usernames. I'm not sure ... I promise I'll think about it, can't say fairer than that. Jza84's RfA may be a good bellweather. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah!!!! Damn!!!! Shit!!!! Other swear words!!!! I was able to get you to at least type something other than "needles...eyes" or "hell....over". Fuck. I really really wanna nominate you. Post Jza is understandable. His RfA may fail. Your Rfa#2 is about 60/40 in your favor. If it means either of you may leave, then screw it, I'll withdraw my Jza nom, and never mention it again on your talkpage for your own nom. But you both deserve it. I'm saying this as an editor that freekin never contributes to the encyclopedia beyond copyediting. You both deserve it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Comments
Well I hope that comforts thee at least. My own opinion is that it's ridiculous to force good content editors with an impeccable history of dedication to have to go to other users in order to perform moves to edited redirects and such run of the mill stuff. Looking over your RfA, frankly you didn't pass because some people had grudges not in the slightest bit relevant to adminship. So there's the lesson. Keep your mouth shut and tolerate nonsense for a few months, go before the tribunal with honeyed words and other nonsense, and then you'll get the tools. What a great system, eh? You can only get through by avoiding conflict and hence avoiding difficult content editing or making up for some conflict by acquiring many many friends. I.e. we've got an inbuilt preference for chatterers and the content-shy vandal zappers. And they wonder why the place is in a mess! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I am very reluctant. I've never been one for keeping my mouth shut, and honeyed words tend to make me feel a little queasy. One particular post-match comment did stuck in my mind: "When you've had a couple of tussles with people within the three months preceeding the nom, opposes will inevitably arise". I somewhat doubt if there would ever be a three-month period during which I didn't "tussle" with someone. Still, water under the bridge now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked thoroughly at the changes you have made, and while many were practical, many were not necessary. I must point out that if you change a word that has been used deliberately and with caution to one that makes a false claim, then that single (significant, in this case) error which you have introduced can negate the good you might have done elsewhere in the article. I'm referring to the change of "conceptualising a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator, the double hull" to "invented a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator, the double hull". I've fixed it. Amandajm (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
None of the changes were necessary, of course, I could simply have taken the article to WP:GAR. Please feel free to revert all the changes I made and that's what we'll do if you'd prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't prefer to revert all your changes. If this was the case, I certainly wouldn't bother to check the changes carefully, which is what I did. I'm just asking you to be a bit more careful about changing words that carry specific meaning, as against reordering words into a slightly different grammatic form.
I must say quite frankly that I would rather have an article that is as accurate in content as we can make it, than have one that meets the GA criteria on technical grounds but contains errors of information. Because the bottom line here is that the formatting of the dates and numbers may score points in wiki assessments, but it is the content that is used in school assignments. Amandajm (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with your assessment that the article's accuracy was affected by my changes, except in a positive way. So I would encourage you to revert back to the version as it was before I touched it, I'll remove the GA listing, and then we can take the article to WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read exactly what I have written to you here. You changed the sentence that said that Leonardo "conceptualised" a helicopter, tank, solar power, calculator and double hull to saying he invented these things. He did not invent any of them.
This is the inaccuracy that you introduced. That particular change does not affect the article "in a positive way". It affected it in a very negative way.
Your suggestion that you should remove the GA listing because I let you know that one of your edits to the factual substance of the article was incorrect seems to me to be highly inappropriate. As I have already pointed out, most of your other changes to substance and ALL your changes to formatting remain intact.
If you wish to revert all the worthwhile changes that you made and if you really believe that the removal of those changes is justifiable (in Wikipedia terms) then do it. On the other hand, reverting appropriate changes for the specific purpose of downgrading an article from its GA status might be perceived by other wikipedians as an act vandalism. It would be more appropriate to leave the changes as they are now.
On the other hand, if you can find justifiable reason for removing its status, and you have the authority to do it, then I suggest that you get on with it. But if your reason is no more than that the dates and numerals are not properly formatted, then there is probably a better way of handling it than simply demoting iit. It is one of Wikipedia's more important biographical articles, and justifies the best possible technical tweaking in order to maintain its status. Or doesn't it?
Please take the trouble to read what I actually said. The article as it stands is fine as far as I'm concerned, but it did not meet the GA criteria in its initial state. If the changes that I made were reverted - I'm not concerned about the awkward and imprecise use of "conceptualisation" btw - then I would be left with no alternative but to delist the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
John Frederick Bateman
Hi, Thanks for contributing the above article - I am in the middle of a project to include every president of the Institution of Civil Engineers on Wikipedia and I am always glad of help! I have merged an existing article, John Frederic La Trobe Bateman, with your new one as it makes sense to have the article at his birth name. The pre-existing article is a copy from the public domain (1901) edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which listed him under his later name and hence the confusion. The merger has left a few things to be tidied up (and ideally the PD text will eventually be superceded by fully referenced text) which I will try to get around to in the next month or so (I am pressed for time at the moment with exams) but if you have more time then please feel free to take over. Cheers (please answer at my talk page, I find it easier to spot) - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I will endeavour never to become a wikimandarin. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank no, I don't. Argument by analogy is notoriously unreliable anyway, but in the particular case of Majorly, both he and Kurt Weber were doing exactly the same thing in Majorly's eyes. It wasn't a case of "Oh, he's stolen my watch, I'll have to whack him with a baseball bat." It was a case of "Oh, he's stolen my watch, I think I'll steal someone else's." I really don't see the analogy at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone direct me to its GA review? (moved here)
I feel like reverting that right now. I do not call (from what I see from that diff) that a proper and thorough GA review against the WP:WIAGA criterion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it back into GAN as it was, and sort out the listing, so need for you to do anything. Here's hoping you get the proper review that the article deserves soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you'd kept it shut you might have got away with the GA listing. :-) I noticed from the time stamps that the "reviewer" only spent about five minutes between flagging it as being under review and passing it. Pretty fast considering the article's length and detail. I had a quick look, and I don't think it should have too many problems though. Some obvious MoS things that ought to be fixed, but nothing major jumped out. So good luck, and thanks for being so honest! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for wishing me good luck!! Yes a proper review is what an editor needs. That helps in improving the article. Just hoping somebody will review it now that you have commented on the article. Coz some reviewers may wonder whether they can spot all those obvious MoS things that ought to be fixed!?! Or maybe I am getting a bit paranoid!KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk)
Oh, get thee behind me Satan! If it doesn't get picked up in the next few days I'll probably do it myself. --Malleus Fatuorum
As I am going on a vacation, I have withdrawn the nom. But (hopefully) if you are still willing to point out the glitches in the article please inform me on my talk page or the article talk page. I really need some good feedback. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't want the buttons?
In your last thread, you said "you don't want the buttons", and then blamed your wife (a common recourse of mine, I'll admit, similar to "Sorry, can't go out tonight gents, you know...the wife..."). An honest question, do you "not want the buttons", or do you "not want an RFA"? Two different animals for certain. Let me know if/when you start another thread to unbundle. I'll support an (un)reasonable proposal.. :-) That said, I think you should note that several of your compatriates (you know, article builders), are coasting through RFA right now. Tis the season for article builders. The pendulum will swing back to "Oppose, yes he has 47 FAs, but has he posted to AIV before?" soon.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you do, let me know and I'll certainly swing in behind you again. I still think the last one would probably have passed - the dozen-or-so people who dislike you had all pitched in before the full weight of the Content Builder Brigade had a chance to comment (exactly the same thing happened last week to Risker, who eventually passed with 100+ supports). If you're going to run again, I'd recommend leaving it for a couple of days to make sure you don't catch any of the backwash from the firestorm of idiocy currently going on regarding Lara. — iridescent17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Iridescent. I was a bit stunned by the strength of opposition from a small number of editors I'd tripped over, and the influence that was having on the vote. Wasn't really prepared for that. If I do decide to walk barefoot over those hot coals again, at least I'll be able to do so a bit more philosophically next time. I haven't seen what's going on with LaraLove - I'll take a look shortly - but I recall that her RfA wasn't entirely plain-sailing either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To be truthful Keeper, I'm not sure. As my mother would say (she's a Scot) "a'm haverin'". I am thinking seriously about whether to go for another RfA or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Her Rfa stumbled, yes, but it passed. So would yours. I wouldn't be bugging you otherwise. If only I could canvass all those other article builders that see your contribs and know that you would never abuse the tools. I'll give up my own (as often purported by me) if you were ever desysopped. That's how much I know that you could not only use the tools, but deserve them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would gladly co-nom you, were you to believe such a thing would not amount to a kiss of death. I think you are guaranteed a ton of support, but I don't know how to advice you here. Been on any one side of any drama recently? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just it. Malleus is always on one side or the other of drama. That said, I'm convinced that, despite that, he would pass an RfA. As an admin, Malleus, you would certainly be more able to improve Wikipedia, if only because you can see deleted edits. I don't expect, nor would I want you to, start frequenting AIV. Bloody that, it's not your arena. But seeing deleted edits will only make your work that you do here even stronger. I'm talking about GA/FA. I'm talking about AN/ANI even. You need to think about this, seriously, this weekend. I'm going offline myself in abit, looking forward to seeing your response on Monday....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very flattered Deacon, and not a little touched by your offer. Even if I believed that a co-nom from you would be the kiss of death – which I don't – I'd gratefully accept it, such is the respect that I have for you and your contributions. Keeper is quite right though, I doubt that I would ever have a quiet three months prior to an RfA. Just off the top of my head, there's the Leonardo GA sweep topic a bit higher up here. Then only last night there was this. I am what I am, I ain't gonna change for the sake of a few extra buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That diff you provided is meaningless. It's an archived talkpage, WT:RFA no less (which is one of the most worthless talkpages out there). I'll step aside though. If Deacon and Iridescent are willing to co-nom, and if you really think you'll accept their noms, I'll be the first to be a strong supporter. I'd rather nom, but that's my own ego talking. Looking forward to your reply. Going offline for 36 hours....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, it refers to the Analogy topic, just a bit higher up.
I'd consider it a great honour Keeper, if you and Deacon would co-nom. Had it not been for your support during you-know-what, I might not be here now. I'm a bit of a visceral thinker though, something has to "feel" right for me, and that takes time, so a'm still haverin'. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've only just come on-line, and I haven't reviewed fully the above, however I will state categorically that my opposition to your last RfA was a mistake. Had I thought about it further in reagrds to my now (rather well quoted) net positive essay I would not have opposed. It's a mistake I am keen to rectify. Pedro : Chat 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The absolute first thought that came into my mind > You show me yours if I show you mine! :) The serious thought that came after is what is good for Wikipedia?. You having sysop bits is far, far, far more important than another 'crat. You'd be able to help so much. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, you've missed the point — once you're a crat, you can promote him whatever the result of the RFA is! — iridescent20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you want me to co-nom; if the above two are both planning to, three might look excessive. As I said earlier, you might want to leave it a couple of days, as you're associated with Lara in some people's minds, and Lara has (ahem) been somewhat controversial today. — iridescent22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely blown away Deacon's nomination, I hardly know what to say. I know that some oppose on the basis of too many co-noms, but you put your faith in me before, so I'd be honoured if you did so again. Hell, I'd like more co-noms than votes. :-) BTW, Lara thinks that I'm a dick anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Too many noms! Don't worry about it. If a lot of editors think you'd be able to help out further, so what. RFA is explicitly not a fan club, but we're all here to make Wikipedia better and the fact is that a lot of other editors believe you getting +sysop will do so. It's no popularity contest - it's about how we all want Wikipedia to improve - in terms of quality clean content - and you're an ideal person to help that endeavour. Pedro : Chat 22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol ... you know, if you accept and answer any time soon one of the first things they'll see in your contribs is the edit summary "bloody hell". ;) Seriously though, there's no harm in taking your time. Any co-noms that wanna get involved need time too, but as this is all being done on wiki, any co-noms should feel free to add themselves. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You have my full support too for this RFA, and I'd even be willing to co-nom. Pedro makes a very strong case that isn't easily dismissed! Like I said, folk can only say "no" - and what harm does that do? - none. Are you a better Wikipedian since your last request? - absolutely. Would the buttons help your work within the project? - I think so. --Jza84 | Talk 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a very generous offer, but you're in the middle of your own RfA and I'd hate to see it affected by any backwash if mine went tits up with you as a co-nominator. Your support though, of course, would mean a lot to me. If I go ahead with this I'll be doing it with my eyes fully open this time, in the certain knowledge that there will some who genuinely believe that I'm not to be trusted with the admin tools for whatever reason. All I can hope is that there will be sufficient others who take the opposite view, and trust that I would never use the extra buttons to gain personal advantage in a content dispute, or anywhere else for that matter. Whatever happens, it won't be the ego-bruiser my first one was, and succeed or fail I'll still be plugging away just as before, with or without the buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>. I just added co-nom #3. I'm about to pee my pants I'm so excited about your future adminship. Malleus, whatever happens, promise you won't leave. You're too valuable. When you're ready, type "I accept", fix the time to be 7 days past you're acceptance, and transclude away. I'm so pumped....thank you so much Deacon and Iridescent for seeing what I see in Malleus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just gobsmacked, I really don't know what to say. I'll answer the mandatory questions tomorrow. All I'll say for now is that if I thought there was even the slightest possibility that I'd leave because of the result then I wouldn't submit to the process. Been there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. I'm offline for a coupla days. Looking forward to seeing it live, with lots of support. I'm planning on adding my support late in the game. And, please note, I really really like the extra tools. I just put in a public non talk page that I'd give mine up if you screwed up. Don't screw up. Consider it a proxy. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know this debate was happening & just came here (as usual) to ask for help - that describes the esteem I hold you in. I supported your nom last time & would happily do so again if you decide to go for it.— Rodtalk10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I can make you a sig
I don't know you, but you seem nice and cool. I can make you a nice looking sig if you want.SimonKSK —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The irony is that Malleus's sig is simple and functional, while Simon, to be honest, it took me a while squinting to even read the letters in your name. Although it does look cool. I personally like the "regular" sig, I think it works easiest for everyone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwynand, my sig is just italicized. I like the regular sig, I do. But, I like personalized sigs better.SimonKSK00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Here's my old sig, think you can read that? SimonKSK
Thanks. It looks like I may need all of the luck I can get! Ah well, life's too short to get worried about a little thing like an RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Bath Abbey GA comments
Hi again, Bath Abbey is currently a GA nominee. Although I didn't nominate it I'm trying to improve it in line with the reviewers comments on the talk page. As ever, it needs a copy edit & you are so much better than me at that - I would appreciate it if you had the time & inclination to take a look?— Rodtalk10:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, don't panic at the way the opposes are ratcheting up; these are the people who've watchlisted it waiting for a reason to oppose, and the supports haven't had a chance to come in yet. Compare this and this. — iridescent20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm older and wiser now than I was last time. I fully expected to get a bunch of opposes. Heck, I could probably have drawn up a list. :-) Whatever happens this RfA will run to the end, and I'll carry on just as before succeed or fail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm feeling quite sanguine about the process. I quoted somewhere from Rudyard Kipling's If recently, and that's exactly how I feel about this RfA. As I'm sure you'll feel about the RfB I understand you're about to undertake. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather knowing that poem (my father is a poet so I had little choice!) I'm wondering if ;
Hey Malleus. I wanted to comment here on your RfA, as I believe I am going with a "silent" neutral, as I am personally having issues with the effects of adding to discussion or neutral within the RfA. This is also somewhat of a message to Keeper and Pedro regarding nom/support statements, I'm sure they will see it here. I'm quite neutral to your RfA, I think I have had minor interaction with you on wikipedia, all of it likely positive. That being said, the reason I am not supporting is because of the civility issues, which I found without first reading RfA 1 or seeing the oppose votes this time around. I didn't have to dig too deeply. The reason I am not opposing, is because there is certainly a ring of truth to Keeper's nom and Pedro's support. They both do their best to make a strong case that there is no way you will abuse the tools. After doing my research on your diffs, I further looked at nom statements and sup/opp votes. Immediately I noticed Keeper and Pedro seeming to try to assure the community that your civility issues aren't large enough to make you a net negative. Why, then, do they need to be addressed in so much depth? Because of issues with RfA 1?
Looking further into your history, I see that there is a theory put out that your first RfA may have been unfairly derailed by early oppose votes due to civility/conflict resolution issues. Do you hold this belief, that those opposes were unfair, or inaccurate, or improper conclusions were being drawn? I'll be up front here about two things: 1. I have serious concerns with supporting a candidate who has showed questionably civility in the recent past, in a consistent manner. 2. I believe this issue can be outweighed by other positives and an ever-growing user can learn to overcome them.
And here-in lies my primary problem with supporting, and might explain my disagreement with Keeper and Pedro, two users whose opinions I hold in the highest degree. I don't think you believe the civility concerns that some users have are viable enough for you to consider attempting to improve yourself in that regard. In all of your quite long answer to Q3, you don't seem to acknowledge that you could certainly improve your talk page interaction. Many of the diffs given, which I don't feel necessary to reproduce here, don't have much of an explanation other than... well you could have handled those situations better. If I were to give support, at any time, I would need to believe the candidate agrees that while disagreements are natural and healthy to this whole process, incivility really never helps a situation.
So anyways, I posted this here because you certainly seem open to community input, and well, here's mine. My comments may represent what some others think, I don't know, but they definitely sum up my feelings on your request for adminship. Good luck to you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm certainly open to community input, but I've never felt under any obligation to agree with it. This "incivility" issue was bound to come up again, and it would be true to say that my attitude towards it has not changed, nor is it ever likely to change. If that makes me unfit to be an administrator then so be it. I'll not hold back from saying what I think just for the sake of a few extra buttons that I'd probably make very little use of anyway.
So you're quite correct in believing that I see no reason to "improve" myself in that regard. In point of fact I think that the "incivility" card is too often used as an excuse by those who are themselves "incivil", in a community-supported illusion that being "nice" is all that matters. I do understand your concerns though, and I don't think, given those concerns, that you have any option but to Oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. I missed your first question, sorry. No, I don't agree that my first RfA was derailed by early oppose votes due to civility/conflict resolution issues. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I hope you don't mind my adding my 2c. I have !voted neutral in your RfA, and my concerns are not about incivility. But I very much agree that "the 'incivility' card is too often used as an excuse [. . .] in a community-supported illusion that being "nice" is all that matters." It's disappointing when people focus on how you say something, rather than what you are saying. My answer, however, would be to try as much as possible not to give people that excuse. You can say what you think, and express strong opinions, without being rude. Of course, some people will still miss the wood for the trees (see the long discussion here). But by giving people as little reason as possible to accuse you of "incivility," you can be much more persuasive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I had to oppose. MF I was serious when I wrote that I wanted to support you. I approached your RfA with the attitude that our exchange might have been an abnormality. You're contributions are invaluable and you have gained a lot of my respect over the past month or so. Unfortunately, I saw too much 'incivility' in your comments and your admitedly lack of any desire to change. This made it impossible for me to support. I do hope that you don't take this too personally as you are a HELL of an asset to the community---when you aren't being rude ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm off to bed in a moment I'm afraid. Sadly, I think the odds are long on this passing. The good news is that you'll still be here, either way. That's what matters at the end of the day. Pedro : Chat 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'd thought that I'd get worried about the RfA, or take too much to heart whatever anyone says – good or bad – then I would never have signed up. I'm happy to have been able to provide the opportunity for people get a few things off their chests. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know when you are in Malleus, and I'll call round. I've even dug out some pins for the occasion! Seriously, its a surprise, but I hope you succeed, and I think some of the opposes are revenge and just plain incoherent (sophistry! You!! Don't make me laugh! Note that I did say that some would say "blunt to the point of rudeness", which is not at the point of rudeness or beyond it'.) Good luck. DDStretch (talk)23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I did take exception to the accusation of sophistry, I must admit. The rest is just water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I did notice the subtlety in your "to the point of rudeness" remark, and I'd have to say that I agree. Does that make me a bad person? Not in my eyes, but others are perfectly entitled to think otherwise if they wish. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DDStretch, some of the opposes are getting absurd, I'm particularly thinking of the people talking about spelling!! Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Even now I think there's a good chance of it passing; your Sworn Enemies and the usual driveby trolls people who have legitimate reasons for opposing everything have all said their pieces now, and (assuming the usual 75% bar and a couple more opposers), a total of around 70 supports will get you through the hoop. — iridescent00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have exactly the right (relaxed) attitude to this RfA, and consequently, you and your nominators are not getting drawn into pointless extended arguments with the opposers, which is good. I hope the vote now moves forward into more productive territory. Geometry guy01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen enough RfAs to know that disagreeing with an opposer is more often than not completely unproductive at best. People are entitled to their opinion, and I doubt there's anything I could say that would be likely to change it. Que sera, sera. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey MF. Shit man. Not exactly what I was expecting. I think Irid. is correct though, I think those that were watchlisting the RFA#2 redlink have all seen it pop on their screens, knee-jerked the O-section, and will now smugly move on. I'm very glad you decided to try it again, regardless of the outcome, which has a slim chance of passing yet. Very slim though, because RfAs that run the 50/50 line tend to garner a lot of "per _______" opposes from folks that don't read at the same level of depth as when there were less participants. One of my RfA overhaul ideas, that probably wouldn't fly) would be to limit comments (both support , neutral and oppose) to what they truly are - votes. No elaborations. 5 words or less. If you're username is five words long, SOL. :). Have a drink for me my friend. I'm stuck at work for the next 11 hours, it's only 9:45 am in my midwestern world, I'm fully expecting you to be rather garbled before I even get to think about it :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I was quite prepared for a flurry of opposes, so it didn't concern me unduly. Anyway, it's not over 'til the fat man sings; last time I looked I only needed another 100 or so Support votes. :-) I'm really not too concerned about the result anyway. I think it says more about the RfA process than it does about me, so I'm content to let it roll on to its conclusion, whatever that might be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's going about how I would have expected it. But I too have to agree that the process isn't the best. When I review potential candidates I do so with two things in mind: A) will this person make a good admin and B) will this person be able to pass the RfA process. There have been a few people (Moni3 and Happyme22) who I think would be great admins, but wouldn't make it through the RfA process. (Happy is very close and at Sandy's recommendation is now a coachee.) But yeah, while *I* oppose, I know it's not the best system.Balloonman (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand why anyone would oppose, and I've got no doubt that in the vast majority of cases – including your own – they have done so in good faith. Heck, I might even have opposed myself! Come to think of it ... :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of being a bit Dr. Pangloss in all of this, as E. L. Doctorow once wrote: "The problem is in separating common sense from common nonsense, and making uncommon sense more common." People can hold onto their beliefs for too long and cherish them greatly, and some others might even say these cherished beliefs become a kind of intellectual security blanket for people. It can take a great effort to help people become more inquiring and self-critical of their positions, especially when they are not as sound as they may think they are. Close critical arguing is one example of a tactic that tries to persuade people that there are problems in their opinions, and there are others, some of which are used by different people to different extents. The process of challenging poeple to be more critical in their thinking can be uncomfortable to experience for some, and, because of this, there is a tendency to see it as a kind of attack aimed at them, just because their cherished beliefs are so cherished. Thus it becomes interpreted as being uncivil on wikipedia. I am convinced that in every case, one need not assume an intention to be uncivil behind so-called bad behaviour; instead one can interpret the intention more as being means of helping people become more self-aware and better at thinking critically about matters. Indeed, to make assumptions about someone having bad intentions, or of engaging in subtle, deliberate, deceitful reasoning to deceive (sophistry) is almost always an unwarranted personal attack upon him, because the problem of identifying intentions with certainty is fraught with unresolved difficulties. DDStretch (talk)16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The irony of being subjected to a personal attack in an oppose in which I was accused of being uncivil did not escape me. Still, this is not the "best of all possible worlds", and RfA is not the best of all possible processes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)That's understandable. I deserve to be punished for telling you that I didn't think much of the graphic you didn't produce, and were asking for an opinion on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-- actually I'd better mark this as a joke, otherwise someone might cite it as a genuine conflict!... It's a joke! --Jza84 | Talk 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, you can block him yourself in a few short days...:-0. Ooh, sorry MF, too soon? Salt in the wound? :) And good job marking it a joke, I'm relieved...I was just about to retract my noms for both a ya....:)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no wound to rub salt into, and I've got everything crossed for Jza84's successful RfA, even if he does intend to ban me from certain of his pet articles. JOKE --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm. This is the behavior I was hoping to see. I think this is why I have claimed confusion with this RfA. I believe Mall wants/intends to act this way, but some of your responses (the one above to me) seem to contradict that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt that way about my response to you above. All I was really trying to say was that I fully understand why anyone would be inclined to oppose, and I wasn't entirely joking when I said that I might even have opposed myself. I recognise though that there's no argument I can muster that would be likely to persuade anyone who has doubts about my fitness, and in truth nor do I want to persuade anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me reading this again that there may be some misunderstanding here in Gywnand's mind. I was not apologising for anything, I was making a rather silly joke about the absurdity of one of the diffs that had been produced as evidence of my "incivility". So need for any confusion, WYSIWYG remains my middle name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. If anything, we've accomplished getting a whole bunch more editors visiting (and likely watchlisting) your talkpage. :-) Sorry 'bout that....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hubert Walter could use a good looksee AND some switching from Yank to Brit spelling. (hint hint hint) Im currently trudging through the complete lack of sources for the Anglo-Saxon bishops of Hereford. Whee. Ealdgyth - Talk21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It took me like 3 minutes to figure that out. The irony of course being that none of us can see you. So what we see (nothing), is what we get? :-) My personal !vote for your "middle name" is DIYDDIYD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I ought to have recognised it. I think I might have chosen DIIC for myself. I've been told a few times on wikipedia that I'm a dick – apparently it's not uncivil to call someone that – so it's appropriately homonymic. Stands of course for damned if I care. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm pleased to hear that GimmeBot is consolidating all these various tags now, but I'm not a &($"&(£ mind-reader, if you'll pardon my French. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Your RFA
Let this unsuccessful RFA not make you feel down. Keep up the good work in Wikipedia. Hopefully you may get some take back points from your Oopose votes and possibly work on them. It is actually sad when good contributors miss adminship but you know being an admin is NO BIG DEAL ! Cheer up and Have fun
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'll guarantee it won't get him down. It's a great shame, but I agree with your summing up Malleus. Back to FA and GA my man. Pedro : Chat 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My RfA non-spam
I don't intend to clog up many talk pages thanking editors for their comments in a process that most have probably forgotten about anyway, so I'll take a leaf out of the book of another editor I saw do this a few days ago, and thank everyone who took part here, in one place. I had no great expectation that my RfA would pass, but I thought that it might just be worth a shot. It was becoming apparent though that it was wasting not just my time but more importantly the community's time. Therefore I asked that it should be withdrawn:
Although I have said that I intended to keep this RfA open until the end, it has become clear that to do so would be a waste of the community's time, time that would be better spent looking at more suitable candidates. Also, the longer it goes on now, the greater the risk that I may begin to take the opposition personally, which would be unfair to those who have taken such trouble to express their honestly held opinions as well as potentially demoralising for me. Consequently, I would request that this nomination be withdrawn.
In a masochistic kind of way I quite enjoyed the process though; I think not expecting it to succeed made it much easier to be relaxed about both positive and negative comments. I do realise that it's the convention to use honeyed words on such occasions, and to promise to take even the most outrageous criticism to heart, to confess of all sins, and to give serious effort to a process of self-improvement that very often revolves around dubious practices as "admin coaching". Well, you'll see very little of that here, so if you're brave enough, read on. ;-)
EJF. Thank you for being brave enough to be the first one to stick your head above the parapet.
CycloneNimrod. Many would think it was the other way round, that you were foolish in your support. I thank you for it nevertheless.
Ealdgyth. Alas, RfA long ago stopped being a straightforward decision about whether a candidate would abuse the tools.
iridescent. What can I say, that's twice now, ;-) I thank you for your continued faith.
Pedro. Your support meant a great deal. Thanks.
Deacon of Pndapetzim. Ah well, at least we gave it a shot. Thanks for your very encouraging nomination.
Nousernamesleft. Thanks.
Jza84. I am infinitely more pleased that your own RfA succeeded today than I am disappointed that mine has failed.
Rod. Thanks Rod. I was a bit worried that the extra buttons might prove to be a distraction anyway.
Acalamari. Thanks for your honest appraisal.
Ecoleetage. Like you, I think I'd have made a bloody good admin, but now we'll never know. :-)
Juliancolton. Thanks. Many might have been tempted to oppose because of that perceived lack of admin experience.
Keepscases. Thanks for being one of the few people that has no problem with my attitude.
PeterSymonds. Thanks. It's a shame that RfA has moved so far away from being a simple discussion about whether or not a candidate would be likely to abuse the tools, but c'est la vie.
Nev1. If I hadn't at least managed to get your support, I think I might have been tempted to slash my wrists. Joke
DDstretch. Rational as ever, thanks.
Dean B. Yep, I certainly can be grumpy and stubborn, you got that right.
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I can't believe that I've somehow managed to miss you as I've been rampaging around wikipedia being "uncivil" and rude to all and sundry. Ah well, I'm sure your time will come. In the meantime, thanks for your support.
Joshii. Thanks Joshii, time to get back to WP:GM now.
Siva1979. Thanks.
naerii. Sorry I made it so hard for you to make up your mind. And thanks for believing that I reserve my "brusqueness" for those long-standing editors who may perhaps deserve it, and that I don't bite newbies.
Majoreditor". I think I'll put your support statement into my CV.
ShoesssS. Telling it like it is obviously doesn't win many friends, or at least it's likely to win many enemies. But nobody ever said that life (or RfA) was fair.
Casliber. Acid tongue? Most definitely. Malice? Not even a scintilla of it.
dihydrogen monoxide. In the larger scheme of things it may not have meant much, but it meant a great deal to me. Thanks.
Peter Andersen. I only wish that more had shared your opinion Peter.
SusanLesch. Thanks Susan. Naturally I agree that I have impeccable judgement, but then I would say that, wouldn't I. :-)
Neıl. Saddened, but surely not surprised. I certainly wasn't.
Malinaccier. This "incivility" card is obviously going to dog me all the way through my time at wikipedia. I don't accept the charge, I have never acepted the charge, and I never will accept the charge. So thanks for supporting in spite of your reservations.
Dlohcierekim. One of the few positive things I've been able to take from this RfA is the support of editors like yourself, with whom I have tangled in the past, so thanks.
Sluzzelin. I pretty much agree with your analysis. I don't go looking for confrontation, but neither do I back away from it.
Keeper76. I'll deal with you later. To be serious though, I'm slightly worried that you may have taken this harder than I have. I kind of expected it, so it was no big deal. Don't let this one fiasco put you off looking for good RfA candidates, as opposed to crap ones like me. ;-)
Tanthalus39. Personality is OK, so long as it's a wikpersonality. I've already been offered wikicounselling and wikibehavioural modification.
barneca. If I'd tried to write my own nomination statement I couldn't have put it any better. Thanks.
Rudget. I want to say a special thanks to Rudget. He was one I'd have banked would be right at the top of my list of opposers, and probably for good reasons in his eyes. I look forward to being able to resume the productive editing relationship that we once enjoyed.
Sunray. Sure, I've crossed the line a few times, but not nearly as many times as some appear to believe. Mea culpa, I'm only a human being after all.
Polly. Stand by for some serious pissing! :lol:
Laser brain. Thanks. I'd like to stay and chat, but I've got a few more eggshells that need breaking.
Zginder. Put me out of my misery, please. Is there a right answer to your optional question? Or any wrong ones?
Queerbubbles. It means a great deal, thanks.
The wub. Thanks.
Noetica. Spirited and committed sounds about right. Thanks.
Ryan Postlethwaite. Thanks for setting out the reasons for your opposition so clearly. I really think that you made a good case.
Al Tally. Not sure what I can say really, but thanks for taking the time to pop in in vent your bad temper anyway. I hope that it least made you feel a little better.
Maxim. I don't agree with the accusation of "blanket opposing", but if it's wrong to expect administrators to be accountable for their actions, then I am indeed guilty as charged.
JayHenry. If you send me your address I'll send you an up-to-date dictionary, so you can check on the meaning of those big words like "sophistry". ;-)
Sceptre. Thanks for your input.
Wisdom89. I understand your concerns. All I can say is that I very much hope that you will continue to see me make what you consider to be "outrageous comments".
Epbr123. If you hadn't popped up with your oppose then I'd have thought that I was definitely heading in the wrong direction. No hard feelings from me though.
Icewedge. Did you spot the spelling error in "good faith querys" yet? ;-)
Koji†Dude. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. Doesn't make either of us wrong, bad, or "uncivil". It just means that we disagree. The day that disagreement becomes impossible on wikipedia is the day that wikpedia dies.
Sharkface. I would especially like to thank you for being the first to bring up the concern about my maturity, it really did make my day.
Spartaz. Another well-considered oppose, for which thanks.
Jack. Thanks for your input.
Gwernol. The day that I am afraid to tell Raul or anyone else, no matter how respected you may consider them to be, what I think I sincerely hope will be a long time coming. Because it would mean that I'm dead.
Húsönd. Fair enough. I don't get on with everyone either.
CrazyChemGuy. I appreciate your concerns. Perhaps you've seen my scorn for wikipedia's "incivility" threshold elsewhere?
Qaddosh. Absolutely agree with you Qaddosh.
seresin. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
Useight. No problem, you made some perfectly reasonable points.
Kodster. You may well be right, who knows.
Realist. The day that you see me make fun of anyone's spelling who isn't a native English speaker, then you should take me right to RfC. I think of all the opposes your's was the most hurtful. I have worked very hard on articles written by non-native English speakers to help them get through GA. Ask any of those editors whether I have ever made fun of their spelling/grammar, or ever been anything other than helpful.
SorryGuy. You were quite right to draw draw attention to my disdain for the RfA process. It's perfectly true that I think it's a kiddie's charter to take over wikipedia.
Orderinchaos. I still don't give a monkeys what you think. ;-)
Riana. No problem. I realise that I made a mistake in opposing whoever's RfA it was that I was called a dick for opposing.
Mike H. Fierce. A complete makeover is completely out of the question, so I'll just have to happy pissing into the admin tent from the outside, as Polly suggested.
GlassCobra. I thank you for your rational, well-considered opposition.
Dark. No worries. I'd have opposed myself if I'd believed it.
Cwb61. Yep, definitely short of experience, I agree.
Lankiveil. Perhaps one day I'll write an essay on the absurd abuse of the word "uncivil", unless someone produces a dictionary of wikispeak in the meantime.
RyanGerbil10. No need to challenge any of your firmly held beliefs Ryan, there will be no "later request".
Five Years. I'd have said "Abrasive at worst", but I understand where you're coming from.
MastCell. Your oppose was the one that gave me most pause for thought. You made a very good point, and one that I found quite convincing.
Tool2Die4. I certainly agree about the "serious attitude problems". I just don't agree that they're mine.
Asenine. Strong disagreement.
InDeBiz1. I get the feeling that I'm in a no win situaton with you. Here I go again, having the last word. :lol:
Rami R. Incivility is my middle name apparently, so you were quite right to be concerned.
Rlevse. Ryan made a good point, and so therefore did you.
Celarnor. Yep, definite "incivility problems", and unlikely to be resolved any time soon. As you can see from the entry just above this one.
Kralizec!. I agree.
Hiberniantears. I thank you for taking the trouble to write such a considered oppose statement. Your view that as I see no reason to "grow or change" then you see no reason to reconsider me in the future seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Master of Puppets. Your neutrality is quite understandable.
jbmurray. I will consider the point you made carefully.
Cameron. I agree that there are big issues, but I doubt that we would agree on what they actually are.
Balloonman. Thanks for switching from Oppose to Neutral. I found your reservations perfectly reasonable.
Dank55. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. I appreciate that you have the best of intentions, but I am determined that on this peceived issue of "incivility" there will be no compromise on my part.
Raymond Arritt. You made a very good point. I have absolutely no intention of attempting to develop what I believe to be the rather enfeebling skills apparently required to get through an RfA.
Spencer. As I said earlier, if I'd believed most of the claims made in the Oppose section I'd have been leery as well.
TinuCherian. As above.
Gywnand. Last but not least, my "silent neutral". All I can do is to apologise for causing you so much confusion. ;-)
And that's it. Once again, thanks to everyone who took the time to vote.
Out of all the RfA thanks I've received, I think this one has to be my most favorite of them all: most are just "thanks for voting", and that's it, but this thank you has more feeling to it than any other: the way you've addressed everyone above in your list, and responding to each vote individually with a personal message. You are welcome, Malleus Fatuarum, for my support: I am pleased that I had the chance to support you, and even though you've said you don't want to run again, in the event that you did, you would have my support again. Best wishes to you. Acalamari20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On a note which isn't quite as irrelevant, I note that you falt-out refused to go for a #3 above on any type of RfA process, and I completely agree. Now that I think of it, you'd be better off without the tools - I know I probably would, but closing AfDs really is addicting. One of the opposers mentioned that, I think. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I was rushing to get the first lot done before the European Cup Final. Many, many thanks for your support. Better? :-) On a more serious note, I really do agree with some of the opposers, and with what you just said. I've got no interest in closing AfDs, for instance, or engaging in hand-to-hand combat with vandals. A small subset of the tools to do some of the content-related things would be quite enough for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guy, If you decide to ever place your name in contention again, let me know! I would like to at least co-nominate. By the way, excellent way to say thank you to your supporters. ShoesssSTalk23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your very generous offer. But I really am deadly serious about there being no RfA#3. I'm content in the knowledge that the world of wikipedia administrators is too small to contain me. (PS. please don't burst my bubble by disagreeing with me. :lol:) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Malleus. I recused myself from participating in your RfA, but let me just drop by to say I think you have handled it all with great class and dignity. Well, done, cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it was made a lot easier by going into it with the full knowledge that it stood a snowball's chance in hell. I would have continued with it, but it was becoming apparent that it was diverting attention away from more worthy candidates, and it would have selfish of me not to recognise that. My only regret is that I didn't have the courage of my own convictions and vote Oppose in my own RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've got a blisteringly brutal Oppose statement prepared in the event that anyone should be so fool-hardy as to nominate me. Though perhaps even that is being overly-optimistic. :-) Take care, and remember the really important thing here-- creating good articles, at which, obviously, you excel. Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed that substantial changes have been made to Chester Cathedral by Amandajm in the last few days. Initially I had high hopes, but now am a bit unhappy. It looked as though we had an experienced editor with good reference material and good ideas. Some of what has been done is good, but if this is the "end product", it has raised some problems if we are to take this towards FA (some of them are expressed on the talk page). I should value your comments at this (which may be an early) stage. In particular I am unhappy with "blanket" references (by which I mean to a book without the relevant page numbers - how on earth does one check the references if you have to plough through an entire book? This strikes me as laziness.). And some of the links are weak - I will have a go at improving them (but on holiday from Friday). Cheers, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We just crossed paths :-) I have echoed your concerns on the talk page. The article would get a hammering at FAC in its present condition IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on this. We've received a half-helpful response and I do not think all is lost! I am going to re-borrow Richards' book and cite where necessary. Incidentally I note your involvement in two other articles in which I have an interest. Bath Abbey merits much more on its current architecture and I think it was wrong to combine Architecture with History (see my comment on the talk page). I also see you are having trouble with Vox Humana 8' - nothing new there; likes to interfere inappropriately. Also keep up the good work on Manchester Ship Canal; this needs the improvement you are bringing to it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Amanda has finished what she intends to do? Oh dear! I would not accept it as a GA now. Off for a break; I'll have a look when I return. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so. I'm really not happy with the structure of the article at all now. Tour of features reads like a guidebook for instance. I think in some places there's just a little too much detail as well. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not the most comprehensive account of Chester Cathedral ever written. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the Tour although I do not mind the detail. But there is too much unsupported peacock stuff. Is music Ministry? There are short paras; too many sub-sections leading to an overlong ToC; repetition (things I have been slammed for as a FAC). Stained glass has a subtitle, then most of it is described elsewhere. No time to do anything at present. Have a go if you feel up to it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh
I'll leave you alone about #3 for a while. ;), and I expect you to fight against me again when I start attempting to take a shot at vindication for you. The community got it wrong once again, and I'm not afraid to type that here. If I didn't think it would pass, I wouldn't have nagged. Thanks for taking it so well, I'm nothing but impressed. Let me know when you want to work with me on a proposal to unbuckle the toolbelt and divvy up the tools to trusted users sans RfA. (rollback works, why not "editor of protected pages?", and so on)... I'm convinced the only way to fix RfA is to get rid of it, start over. It's too entrenched, it's too political, it's rather contrived, and good editors (the ones that actually are trying to improve this place) can't get past it because they fight for their articles. Meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can give an absolutely copper-bottomed, full money back guarantee that there will never be an RfA#3, no matter how much nagging anyone does, ever. I had believed that I had two chances at passing an RfA, slim and none, but now it's clear that I've only got one. None. If there's some unbundling of the tools in the future, fine. But if that involves some kind of RfA-like process then I won't be wasting my time with that either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're thoughts below are the reason I pushed you as hard as I did. Spot bloody on. Have a beer on me. I'm no longer upset, as I'm convinced now that you are much better off sans tools. Not for Wikipedia's benefit (the admin team will be lacking without your insightfulness and contributions), but for your benefit, which is more important. I'm no longer upset about #2, and I will oppose #3 while wearing ice skates in a frozen magma filled cave in the nether world. Drinks on me tonight brother - Let me know if you ever need admin assistance on anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty close to opposing #2 myself, so I'd definitely be the first in the Oppose column for a #3. Well, right after Epbr123 anyway. :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not trying to be a bother, but if you're done with the CE, let me know? I think he's about ready for FAC, and just want to make sure you're done. Ealdgyth - Talk03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed one, the other one I think you misread the names in the sentences. The sentence says that Warren thinks that Walter or Geoffrey FitzPeter wrote the work, not Glanvill. So it's pretty clear to me that Chrimes does agree with Warren that Glanvill didn't write it. (grins) I did propose a better wording to rid the world of more probablys Ealdgyth - Talk19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
For the wonderful job of fixing my spelling, dealing with my purple prose, and all around helpfulness with Hubert Walter. Never fear, I shall pester you again.... Ealdgyth - Talk20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Gee, if I'd known that a simple barnstar would get such good service, I'd have given you ones long ago... wow! Thanks!
I'm like a dog with a bone once I get my teeth into something Ealdgyth. But feel free to revert anything you think changes the sense of what you were saying, I shan't be upset. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Civility
A bit delayed, but calling people "wikilawyers" is a highly uncivil thing to do. Please take note of our policies requiring civility and no personal attacks. Given that you've recently been less than civil with ST47, resulting in him leaving the project, and then chose to attack me for warning you, I'll be giving you this last warning regarding your incivility. If you continue to be uncivil, make personal attacks, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender08:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that is an outrageous caricature of the truth.[3] You can stick your block where the sun don't shine, I'm no longer willing to contribute to a project run by petty-minded individuals such as yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, you blocked him 4 and a half hours after the alleged personal attack? In what way was that preventative? I thought admins were not meant to issue blocks as a "punishment" - was Malleus disrupting the project at the time at which you blocked him? EJF (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If the block against Malleus was justified, how come the prior incivility against him (and others) by ST47 went by without similar action on Swatjester's part? Without further explanation, one might be tempted to think that double standards are operating here. This ignores the point that EJF suggests: that the reason used for blocking was in itself not really justified given the elapsed time involved. So, I think this action does need further urgent explanation. DDStretch (talk)23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know Malleus Fatuorum, and I've barely reviewed the block, but principle #9 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango comes to mind: "An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves". Just a thought. - auburnpilottalk23:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the block (I'm not an admin). It looks like a long time (at least 12 hours) after some possibly uncivil behavior by Mall, Swat came here to warn him not to continue (although it had stopped). Mall responds a few hours later in an upset manner, but makes no other edits. A few hours later, Swat blocks him for this. I'm just not seeing how this was anything but punitive. If Mall continued his incivility elsewhere after warning, then that would have been viewed as disruption and a block may have made sense. I'd like to see an explanation from Swat on this, if possible. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This block was inappropriate; it has all of the marks of being punitive -not preventative. Also, per the Tango ArbCom Auburn mentioned above, admins shouldn't be handing out blocks for insults against themselves (a thicker skin is necessary). The warning was late and the block was also too late to do any good. I would lift it myself, but my time here is limited -and I may not be around to follow through in the event the unblock was for some reason challenged. Unblock, R. Baley (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and unblocked MF. While there have been plenty of times where it might have been appropriate to block him---he can be a real... um... he knows what he can be ;-) THERE ARE TIMES that he fully deserves to be blocked for civility reasons, but I do not feel that at this time it was appropriate. As the blocking admin was notified of this discussion and hasn't commented, I'm unblocking now.Balloonman (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for lifting the block Balloonman, but I appear to have been autoblocked as well, so I still can't edit. Is that another part of my punishment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his user talk page, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on this page, on ST47's talk page, etc. My warning and message to Malleus Fatuarum stands. MF, you are obviously well aware of your civility deficiencies, enough that you make light of them publicly. Perhaps instead of making light of them, you ought to fix them. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Civility is a problem for MF, but this type of block is not the proper response. Blocks for civility are to be used to stop ongoing civility problems, not as a punishment for past transgressions. If you think something needs to be done, you could take him to Arbcom... I think a strong case could be made against MF. While I have grown to like MF, he does have civility issues.Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This was a preventative action against his ongoing, admitted, well documented civility problems. Taking it to arbcom is not how this works. I warn him, he chooses whether to comply or not, and if he continues the incivility like he did, he gets blocked. Filing an RFC and the rest of that process would do nothing to prevent the problem of his incivility. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You may are misrepresenting what I have said repeatedly in the past. It may be your opinion, Balloonman's, and perhaps of many others, that I have been "uncivil". That is not, however, an opinion that I share, and I have certainly never "admitted" to having a civility problem. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. I also note that you applied no sanction whatsoever as a result of ST47's egegrious rudeness to me and others. As I said, it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm misrepresenting nothing. From your own words above: --Rami R. Incivility is my middle name apparently, so you were quite right to be concerned. Celarnor. Yep, definite "incivility problems", and unlikely to be resolved any time soon. As you can see from the entry just above this one.-- You're not excused from being civil just because you view the problem to be with Wikipedia.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one thing's for sure. I see that I need to be more careful when employing rhetorical devices such as irony and satire, out of respect for those editors who do not have a sense of humour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
<od>Malleus, sorry I missed your latest "adventure". The fact that balloonman, of all editors (you know, the editor that co-certified your RfC a month ago...) was the one to unblock is proof enough to me that your block was ridiculous. Sorry I wasn't around to unblock you myself. Hope you've had a good laugh over it, or at least a few beers over it. Battle scars, tis all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
See, you're away for only a few hours and I get myself into trouble again. :-( I do appreciate Balloonman's part in this episode, even though he does still think that I ought to be taken to Arbcom. Ah well. I was initially angry at what I perceived to be the hypocrisy and double standards behind the threat to block, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest now. Wikipedia has what, 1,500 or so administrators? It would be stretching credulity to believe that they were all fully conversant with blocking policy, or that none of them ever used their tools in furtherance of a personal agenda. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Although, I will say, that of the 1500 admins (only 1000 active), we are all allowed and completely capable of errors of judgement. We are also all allowed to not view our actions as errors of any kind. Swat did what he thought was necessary. Several admins and editors said WTF after he did it, and then quickly undid it. It's why there isn't one singular entity that makes all these decisions. I've made bad blocks, so has balloonman. Adminning, in that sense, really sucks. I'm glad you're "moving on". I assume (or at least, hope to assume), that you'll hold no ill-will against Swat, as he did what he thought appropriate at the time, was found to be wrong, and would likely wish to move past this as quickly as everyone else. No need/reason to harp on it, agree? Bad block != bad blood. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. Who's Swat? What block? :lol: Of course I agree. I always have, and I always will, take people as I find them. No hard feelings from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's the Malleus that I'm madly in love with (which should make you uncomfortable, and should make me seek counselling...) Ok, I can go back on holiday now (or, in my world, I can go back on vacation now...). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
MF, I don't think you ought to be taken to Arbcom---otherwise, I would. I do, however, believe that you have opened yourself up to the chance that somebody could do so and would not have a difficult time making a case against you. There is a difference between ought and could... what I did say above is that the block was not the appropriate response (it was not preventative, but punative.) IMHO, the appropriate step for swat would have been an RfC, Arbcom, AN/I something other than a block hours after the fact.Balloonman (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry to have misrepresented what you said in that case. God knows, I complain often enough about people misrepresenting what I've said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair cop 'guv. There are lots of things about wikipedia and its culture that I don't agree with, but this incident has somewhat reinforced in my mind a comment made by jbmurray in my recent RfA, that I need to be more subtle in my criticism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
SHAME on you, Malleus. I hope this little incident has taught you your lesson: Wikipedia is most assuredly not a place for unceasing, hard, excellent building of articles and occasionally making the project a little easier through the expression of humour [sic :-)] and sarcasm. NO! Like all respectable organizations, it is a place for the unchecked and random abuse of power by a few in authority. :-) Now, if we've got that straight, I am having my first experience with FA review with the Anna May Wong article. A reviewer has suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong that it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it. If you feel up to venturing out of your general subject area, I'd be very happy if you could take a look and maybe provide a comment or two. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Before I reply let me share with you one of the things that I find grates with me about wikipedia. Rubbish phrases like "my bad". Bad is an adjective for Christ's sake, not a noun.
Now I've got that off my chest, I do know what a tough gig FAC can be, and it should be a tough gig. I'll happily do what I can to help, but tomorrow/today depending on your time zone, is a holiday here, so I'll be doing holiday things. I promise though that I'll see what I can do once the holiday is over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... an anti-"My bad" stance is fairly controversial, and may get you into more hot water... (Though I, too, am anti-"my bad", and, in fact, hate the phrase so much I'll use it to be about as intentionally annoying as I can be without getting into trouble with the authorities.) Tomorrow is a holiday here in the Colonies too. No rush, and thanks for the consideration! (I'll take all the "my bads" out of the article before you get to it. :) Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, you're in the clear. I had a good look through the Anna May Wong article earlier, and I didn't find a single "my bad". I'm not quite ready to support it yet, so I've left a few comments. Nothing major though, just a little bit of clarification. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the useful comments, Malleus. Also, thank you for making all the changes you did, rather than just "Opposing" based on quote-mark placement. I've tried to address all the concerns you brought up. One tricky point remains which I will try to take care of later in the day. Oh, and thanks for overlooking my habit of ending every sentence in the article with, "know what I'm sayin'?" :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah-- I see you've "supported" Thanks again! I'll still try to work on that troubling sentence though. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the article is too good to oppose over a minor point or two. Nothing in this life is perfect, and nor do we have a right to expect it to be. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement on my talk page. I love the William Safire quote on your user page - too funny! NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank you spam
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll leave it to you for the now so that the tone and style aren't wobbly, and if there's anything you missed by the time it's grown to adult size, I'll add then. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tone? Style? Heck, I best get my butt outta there...Malleus - fix/delete anything you see fit to. Including that last sentence that ended in a preposition. And also including that last sentence, which was a fragment...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiSpeak
I could probably add a couple myself. I was thinking of an English-to-Wiki Lexicon myself. For example:
Encyclopedic
English: Comprehensive, complete, thorough, exhaustive. Example "Dekkappai's knowledge of Japanese erotic cinema is truly encyclopedic. You can't name an actress, film, or director in the area he doesn't know. Malleus Fatuarum, on the other hand, knows nothing about the subject. His knowledge of the subject is most assuredly not encyclopedic."
WikiSpeak: Limited, censored, excluded. Particularly with reference to subjects of which the writer disapproves. Example "'Japanese erotic cinema?' Huh? Porn, you mean! NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC! Delete!!!" Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Trolling
English: To search (for), to draw out, to entice; by extension, to disrupt the operation of an online community.
By the way-- I hope it was obvious my examples above were purely in jest. My knowledge of the subject is no more encyclopedic than an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject would be anything to brag about. :-) Also, I am quite confident that Malleus' skin is thick enough to withstand my joking presumption that I know more about this particular subject than he does. He's possibly tough enough to accept this statement even if I'd made it in earnest! Anyway, WikiSpeak is a great idea, Malleus. I know I've come across several, and I'll contribute them when they come to mind. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You do realize Dekkappai, that these are being added to the page, without your permission, and without your signature? (OK, to clarify, Iridescent added them with your sig, then I removed the sig) Add'm yourself, then you'll be in the page history! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
After recent grief on this site I have to admit this is excellent relief. No doubt the MFD for it is just round the corner .... ;) Pedro : Chat 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh. No MfD is my prediction. Perfectly harmless bit o' fun. No swearing (yet), and no editors named (yet). May it live long and prosper...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just replied on your talk page. I've got no objection to adding a humor tag; I guess I thought it would just be obvious, but there ya go. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the article I am working through FAC. I have tried to address all of your concerns and have taken a few pointers from WP:COPYEDIT. How does it look to you know? Are there any other areas which I can massage to make it flow better for you? JRP (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
