This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I had hoped
but not expected to see an ArbCom user guide from you. It's late, but if you have any thoughts, they would carry weight with me.--SPhilbrickT20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to do a bit of patching up of the lead, so check the change I just made about the island. Basically, reviewers are human, and if they come across a good lead they're likely to look a little more favourably at the rest of the article. But you know that anyway. MalleusFatuorum20:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No need for a seat belt; I'm in it for the ride. Anyway, I am tough and tenacious so no worries. I am also well aware the whole article needs more work. I pushed my library card to its limit today to that end. It is all boring stuff too such as Miller's ... Bishopric ... :( Nothing interesting seems to have happened here although I am still digging. I wish I had a canal, coven or a sword fight to write about. Oh wait. Where did I put that Hereward book? He he. Thanks again for your ce's. Very much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Having written a few myself, I'm firmly of the opinion that articles on settlements are among the most difficult to write, so don't think that the rest of us find it any easier than you do. We don't. MalleusFatuorum23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You're not trying to read Miller's Bishopric cover to cover, are you? Granted, it'd be a great cure for insomnia but... yikes, no. (shudders). Ealdgyth - Talk01:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
…and lazy log dwellers. The Russian cannon shown in the article is mounted on a wrought-iron carriage from a barbette. Item number 230670752174 from a US vendor (on a very well known internet auction site) shows the complete installation; the wheels run on inclined rails and the hooked bit at the back appears to be connected to a recoil-damping setup. Full details are in "Cannon: the conservation, reconstruction and presentation of historic artillery" by Austin Carpenter (which I haven't got access to at the moment- I hope the public library it's in doesn't de-accession it and flog it off for a quid). Don't think there's anything on W. about these; the cannon were given to towns across the country with much fanfare, some of them were cut up for scrap during WW2, but there's still a few remaining apart from the Ely example (e.g. one in Retford, two in Leicester). Ning-ning (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the lack of Geoffrey de Mandeville in Ely (as opposed to King Stephen, who noticed rather too much of Geoffrey in Ely), so added it - came across an excellent historical source, to which I've dropped a link on the article's talk page. There's a heap of stuff in there about Ely. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: (Hastily closing the book) er no. In my defence, it is giving me a deeper insight into my chosen article such as p. 3 "In the high Middle Ages the bishops of Ely were lords, not only of a great estate, but also of a great barony and a great liberty". On page 12 (summarising pp. 9–) we learn that the origins of the 'Isle of Ely' are a little more complex than the present day boundary of Ely proper suggests. In Saxon times, in some contexts, the 'Isle of Ely' may have been the 7 miles (11 km) long by 4 miles (6.4 km) broad geographic island from Littleport in the north through Ely to Stretham in the south. This is magic stuff (to me anyway) --Senra (Talk) 12:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
@Ning-ning: (shudders) ... and Malleus called me dedicated! Tracking down those $25 plans of an (expired auction of an) 1861 Russian Gun Carriage are, well, just mind-blowing. Superb detail (sourced from Carpenter, not that well-known auction place of course) for the cannon-head readers of this article. I am serious. Let's get it in --Senra (Talk) 12:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
@All: For the record, this stuff is way beyond my academic and occupational background. I still find learning about it from a variety of sources and from other editors a fascinating and rewarding pastime --Senra (Talk) 12:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oops, yes, hadn't noticed the dab needed on Simon! I shall fix that one up. I've been through that timeline and dredged up some more stuff, including some witch-burnings(!). There's quite a lot in that site about the Cambridgeshire Militia, which was created, disbanded, re-created, re-disbanded (and so on) several times at Ely. Does someone else want to add the militiamen in? I think the site's likely to be a RS, but I'm sure that (if necessary) back-up sourcing shouldn't be too hard to locate. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Witches in Ely? OMG! How the world turns. I grew up paddling in the brooks of the River Ribble overlooked by Pendle Hill and was later subjugated under the shadow of the Ashton Memorial folly, so witches were de rigueur in my family. Bring them on --Senra (Talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that the usual punishment for witches in England was hanging, rather than burning, I've been trying to find more sources for the "burning" claim. Hard to find stuff! Does anyone have Oxford Journals (Past and Present) access? http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/198/1/33.extract ... full text of that one may have something, but I can't access it myself. Apparently some 3,000 - 4,000 people were executed for witchcraft during Cromwell's time. I shall keep hunting, but have to devote some time to installing a new hay feeder for the ponies this afternoon! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
... and I have found John Stearne himself, writing in 1648, referring to witches being executed at Ely, but no mention of burning. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
All superb additions which suggest this section title is a bit of a misnomer. Further, to over-use an idiom, "Gift horse and mouth", there will be a modern day Cambridgeshire revolt if we don't accurately pin some of this down. For instance, you say "... de Mandeville was killed at Fordham" which may be true, but our article on the village of Burwell, 4 miles (6.4 km) south-west, claims he was mortally wounded there --Senra (Talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hehe! You can argue that one out amongst yourselves. Maybe he was wounded at Burwell but actually died at Fordham? By the ay, if you're interested, there is apparently an active coven of "Wiccans" at Ely even now ... :P Anyway, today's important task is done - happy ponies now have new toy to play with. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Gosh, doesn't time fly. As I delisted the article it's probably better if someone else does the GA review, but I'll take a look and let you know what I think about it now if you like. MalleusFatuorum22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. My name is Jivesh. I have been on Wikipedia since 2009 and i edit Beyonce-related articles 99% of the time I spend here. I asked Sandy for a very good copy-editor and she directed me to you.This article on which i have worked very hard is currently at its third FAC. I really want it to pass this time. But a user is opposing because the prose, according, to him is not good. Some reviewers have strong opinions on how an article should be written, and they cannot see an alternative to their style of writing. But that does not mean it is the only way to write an article. My writing style is quite direct and they do not seem to like that. I do not see why we need to use a higher level of language when most probably 9 out of 10 persons will not be able to read and understand a single paragraph without consulting the dictionary at least once.
Nevertheless, i came here to request you to copy-edit the article soonest you can. I mean try to upgrade the level of language used and try to convert any possible quote into original prose as he asked for. Please reply soon. Regards. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you've put a lot of work into that. I've got to go out shortly, so I won't be able to do much today, but I'll look at the reveiwers' comments and see what I can do over the next couple of days or so. MalleusFatuorum16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look at the review and a quick look at the article, and I think that some of the criticism of the prose is a little harsh; by and large it looks reasonable to me, but I'm sure we can still do something to give it a bit more polish. MalleusFatuorum17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of copy-edits, thank you very much for polishing St Edern's Church, Bodedern. I have a hot date with some cool dudes at the end of the week, followed by knuckling down at work for a pre-Christmas desk-clearing, so I may end up waiting until January to nominate it, but I'll give it a go then and see what happens. Cheers, BencherliteTalk22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and finish off this evening, tomorrow latest. I wouldn't worry about the review being closed prematurely, it seems to be going OK so far as I can tell. MalleusFatuorum18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Malleus, who's in charge of GA? I just ran into Mean (song), and a million edits later I'm thinking that this review was not so well done. The article is overly detailed and it wasn't particularly well-written, and if a reviewer hands the nominator a lead (a not a great one at that), well, that's not right, is it? Drmies (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's in charge, it's more of a self-healing process. The protocol is that if you don't agree with a listing and you can't come to a satisfactory agreement on article talk then you initiate a community WP:GAR. MalleusFatuorum05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know--I guess I was just venting. Sour grapes, really, because I don't have the energy to put one together. I hope you are well, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm OKish. I know what you mean about energy though. I came across a couple of shockingly bad GAN reviews earlier, which someone really ought to open individual GARs on if not outright delist, but I just can't be bothered. MalleusFatuorum01:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha, speaking of sour grapes--Marcus at his best. OK, who do I have to fuck to get this overturned? Jaguar, I looked at your CfD also. As far as I'm concerned, most or all user categories are jokes/OR/whatever. Someone in the Sex workers CfD made reference to On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (ironic since I just created Peter Steiner (cartoonist)), and that is very applicable. Anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. How are you Malleus?:) I would like you to ask you for one copy-edit help. I nominated "Rehab" for Featured Article and the main issue is the prose. It has been c/e a numerous of times, but with a no result for the reviewers. Would you be able to do a c/e of it according to the comments left on the FAC page and of course according to your points. I wouldn't like to hurry you up, but It would be better If you can be faster, because I am scared that the FAC3 could be close for non activity. I would be very grateful If you can do it :) ! Greetings — Tomica1111 • Question Existing?18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I need some time to look at things that I'm interested in myself, which is after all the reason I came here in the first place. I don't get paid for this; I can only do what I can, when I can. I've said I'll try and look over it at the weekend and I will. I can say no more. MalleusFatuorum19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Malleus. I was wondering if you wanted to be on the list of people who could quickly trigger my recall? Also, that is only a working draft. If there is anything about it that you think should be changed, I am open to ideas. --Guerillero | My Talk04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm flattered that you ask, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to say no. I've been very critical of the administrator role and the way its allocated for life, so to agree to prop it up by taking part in recall mechanisms doesn't seem right. Years ago I agreed to do that for User:Pedro, but in truth there's zero chance I'd ever initiate a recall against anyone, or as close to zero as makes no difference, so I wouldn't be much use anyway. MalleusFatuorum15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to have a broad range of views included in that list. Since you had concerns about my ability to stay civil, I thought it may be wise to include you. I will remove you. --Guerillero | My Talk16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had no concerns about that at all, and I consider the civility policy to be infantile in any case. My concern was with the inconsistency of those of your supporters who demand civility of some but excuse incivility in others. In particular, you in this case. MalleusFatuorum17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
My two cents, Guerrillero-- I completely lost confidence in the Recall notion after I saw Elonka evade it, and saw it applied to a good admin who respected it. Really, it doesn't work unless the target lets it work and respects it, and that took down one good admin, while letting stand one who only got adminship on the strength of the person who nominated her (and I'd put my top dollar on the line that he came to regret that, since his noms slowed down after that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No, because I'm totally opposed to TCO's conviction that an article's importance is measured by its page views. In what sane universe is Beyoncé with 572,461 views last month[1] 12 times more important than Pericles with only 45,976?[2] I'm also totally unconvinced about the legitimacy or relevance of the vital articles list. MalleusFatuorum15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Beyonce has so many views because she is actually pregnant and she is going to lay the golden egg this month itself. And she just released a DVD. I mean a live one. Her live material sells like little bread (They are critically acclaimed and she is known as the best live performer alive). Her DVDs have been charting ion the top 20 of the US since 157 consecutive weeks. Well, all this just to let you know that these are the reasons her page views are incredibly high since November 2011. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am shocked. Anyway, try her newest album. It is called 4 and it's really an album for adults. It was critically acclaimed but was not well received commercially. The rapper is actually her husband. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol. You are piercing our heart. We better stop asking about your likes and dislikes. But i cannot help myself... What type of music do you like? I cannot stand rock and metal. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
See now I just find Beyonce and that lot offensive. They're so tightly managed, the average punter sees nothing they don't want you to see. Whereas the above track belongs to an album recorded mostly in a freezing cold corridor in an abandoned hotel. And it was recorded by extremely talented musicians who smoked, got pissed all the time, and shagged everything that moved. And they didn't care how they looked, or what the newspapers printed, or having a fancy video, they just played great music. They still do.
I did not understand the first part of your message. Anyway, i can assure you that Beyonce is clean and she keeps her private life very private. Lol. Everyone though she was 5 months pregnant. Guess what... She is giving birth this month itself. And does not do those things you mentioned above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, I don't want my musicians clean :) I want them to be brilliant but inherently flawed. That's why I don't like many modern music acts, you don't see the person behind the mask. Parrotof Doom18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Much more like it PoD, or this. If I was a rock star that's pretty much how I'd look, sans the cowboy hats. And as for music videos, this is my all-time favourite. MalleusFatuorum18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a pretty dubious claim given the technology available then. The video is pretty old, his shadow is cast over the girls in several places, and it's shot on film. It would have been cheaper and easier (and better looking) just to shoot in all in one go. Parrotof Doom19:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Damn your eyes Parrot of Doom! I suppose you're going to try and tell me now that the girls in the "Addicted to Love" video weren't actually playing their instruments either? Hah! Do you think I was born yesterday? MalleusFatuorum21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely I think that Beyonce was better in Destiny's Child? I dislike her identical rapper friends as well but I guess that her music appeals for people aged 30 and younger. I am young but I'm one of the only people not to be brainwashed by today's horrible 'music' - I don't understand how Will.i.am can hum out a staggering tune and make millions of dollars and people going crazy for it. Jaguar (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Your ears were probably clogged up with mud. I'm not that fond of Metallica, but that's not bad. It reminds me a little of seeing Barclay James Harvest playing "Mocking Bird" with the London Symphony Orchestra (I think) at a festival in the '70s. Just magical. I hadn't realised until just now that the band are local boys, from Saddleworth. Anyway, if anyone's unfamiliar with it here they are playing it in Berlin in 1980. MalleusFatuorum21:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Pearl Jam's above my pay grade, I fear. I am impressed though, for all the brain cell abusing that does go on, what perfectionists they are about everything having to do with their art.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Right then, back on topic, as a judge no-one has to follow TCO's specific ideas - but you do agree that some big, broad articles gather wikidust though, and although some of the blander ones are.....errr...bland, there'd be some others that this might have merit for, like countries, continents etc.? Right? Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking from personal experience I can tell you the problem with most of those vital articles is that nobody is prepared to get a collection of good source material (ie books) and read through them to summarise their contents. It isn't difficult to write a vital article so long as adequate source material exists. It is difficult, however, when nobody bothers getting that source material. If the WMF wants better vital articles then maybe it should do something to make the job easier. Access to online research sources like JSTOR would be a start. Parrotof Doom20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am pushing that, but when it comes right down to it, I am just another member of the crowdsourcer or whatever it is. They are content to gather in the fruits of our labour, I strongly believe that if we had more resources like JSTOR, we'd feel more able to take on such tasks. The first thing I think of when considering an articles are "can I get enough sources?" Online access for free to ... well, let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I toyed with doing Computer once - but when I actually came to trying to assemble material for it... the task was just too big to be bothered with --Errant(chat!)20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Computer would be one of the easier ones I think, much easier than a continent or a country anyway, which are extraordinarily hard work. For no pay. But as PoD says, access to JSTOR would certainly be an incentive. Like Wehwalt, when I think about working on any article my first thought is "what sources can I get hold of?" The only university library I have access to is 200 miles away, bugger all use to me. MalleusFatuorum21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I bestirred myself enough to check the universities I attended in a long and checkered academic career, and I find all of them rather clearly state that alumni status, when it comes to those useful online resources, gets you ... well, bugger all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Oooh, yes, JSTOR please! Wiley could be handy, too. Even getting the local library to order books in is hard - it takes forever, and I often can't get there!Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Resources
Dear Malleus I have a collection of sources related to psychology and other social and behaioral sciences at my disposal. and I have access to JSTOR and other databases. If you ever need resources related to Social sciences please don't hesitate to drop me a line.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That's very kind of you. There are a few psychology topics I might one day feel motivated to crush beneath my jackboot, and a few others that are clearly in need of some TLC. So to speak. MalleusFatuorum23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've always had mixed feelings about such offers. The value is not only in the article, but in browsing them, searching, finding, checking against the actual text and either diving deeper or searching again ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
In my earlier days, no doubt unlike you Wehwalt, I sometimes bought articles on obscure topics I was working on, but those days have gone. MalleusFatuorum23:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Not from JSTOR. Article packs to look at the LA Times and Washington Post archives, yes. I strongly dislike paying for access.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Only for students I think. There's a copy of a Henry Garnet biography there that I wouldn't mind getting, but if I'm honest, I'm not all that interested in the subject so I probably won't bother. Parrotof Doom00:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there are a few computer stations you can wander in and have limited access to as a member of the public, but to do anything more costs £30 a year, plus £88 if you want to borrow a book. MalleusFatuorum00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I meant, students have access through Shibboleththoththhhhhh or whatever, whereas us poor researchers who of course pay for a lot of this stuff anyway through our taxes, can't have that. Parrotof Doom00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, with the property taxes (which pay in part for schools) on my house due Monday, it is a bad time to remind me that every freshman at the local high school receives JSTOR free and probably never uses it except to search for naughty material.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, JSTOR has naughty material? I must have JSTOR lite. By-the-by, browsing JSTOR is useful but not fun. Browsing the bound periodical section in the library, that's both. Also by-the-by, I've put up W.R. van Hoëvell for GA. If any of you feel like having a look I'd appreciate it: the article probably suffers from repetition, boring passages, too-long sentences, and closeness to Dutch sources. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If no one gets to it first, I'll look at it tomorrow. And I said "search for", not that there was some. But then, I wouldn't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
HA! Hehe, I had a fun moment this morning--when I started the article I saw Deventer and thought to myself, ha, Dutch reformed. And then I found I was right. Now there is a clear sign of verzuiling--though these days you can't draw that conclusion anymore, which is probably a good thing. Hey, thanks for the edits: you pointed your finger on the sore spot, a half a dozen times already. I was editing choppily today. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
SL 2
Please help me with this one 'Single Ladies' appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song. Well, it looks good to me but you told me that it is not right. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
They certainly are, but I'm a perfectionist, and I'm not quite happy with the article yet, the extract above being one sticking point. MalleusFatuorum18:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot understand how to fix it as it seems totally right to me (I have followed the I Am... Sasha Fierce era closely). Hmm, please suggest something. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
One thing doesn't cause the other. What about something straightforward like "Knowles portrays her alter ego Sasha Fierce in the song, which appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce"? MalleusFatuorum18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I am a bit surprised by the way you reply. You look fearless to me. You know, i am bit hesitant and not very talkative in real life.. Maybe that's why. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded on my talk-page. I don't know if you have ever come across the user but it is very difficult to say calm when he comments on any FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus. You were kind enough to comment at the peer review of Ely, Cambridgeshire. I am finalising the review prior to a GAN submission and would welcome your resolution to my confusion raised after your query commencing "Major rivers including the Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse ..." please --Senra (Talk) 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A question of Style for MF and his other stylisticly savy friends.
Hey Malleus,
Could I get your input in a discussion on the Pope. Basically, there is a question about capitalization. There are a few main questions:
Most of the sources that we can find, indicate that when talking about the pope it should be lower case unless used as a title immediately preceeding the individual identified. One source, however, indicates that if we have a specific Pope referenced, then it would be ok to capitalize Pope in that instance.
What about the office of the Pope. E.g. we are not talking about the pope as an individual, but rather the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church and a specific role. Would capitalization be appropriate there?
Based upon what I've seen, I am inclined to argue that in scenario 1 the use of pope should be lower case even when discussing specific popes. But in scenario 2, where talking about the Office of the Pope, that Pope should be capitalized even when it is not in front of a name because it is not being used as a title but rather a specific role.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not exactly black-and white. I've seen some editors argue that when you're referring to a specific king then "King" should be capitalised, but I've never bought that. As for the office, I think there's a slightly stronger case for capitalisation, consistent with the fawning American "President", but I'm still unconvinced. It basically comes down to whether you consider "pope" to be a proper noun or not in the context in which the word appears, but as proper nouns refer to specific instances of something rather than that thing in general, I really don't see a case for ever capitalising "pope" unless it appears before a specific pope's name. I'd prefer not to get involved in yet another argument good faith discussion though; anything I say that doesn't agree with what an administrator said earlier is by definition incivil, apparently. MalleusFatuorum23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It sometimes appears to me that the tone of voice is all that's important, as far as some people are concerned. Type in a sentence, add "Malleus" at the end, and it could be an uncivil thought creating a hostile atmosphere. Change "Malleus" for (oh I don't know) "Stephen Fry" and it's instantly a quirky witticism with a knowing bite to it. I was accused of harassment a couple of weeks ago just for referring a MfD nominator to WP:SOFIXIT perhaps I'm turning rude in my old age. Turning to the issue at hand, I really don't know and ran into a similar problem when writing about Oxbridge Fellows. I was adding capital Fs like (insert joke here) as the lower-case fs just looked wrong. Whether it conformed to our saintly MOS I have no idea, but I will of course be excommunicated for even holding (let alone expressing) that thought... BencherliteTalk23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources I own capitalise pope, but not king (unless followed by the king's name). Presumably that's because there's only one pope. Parrotof Doom23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh and while this discussion is ongoing, how about this. A rag merchant can buy rags. Or he can buy rag. He certainly deals in both. So what does a rag-and-bone man find and sell - rag, or rags? And is the hyphenated version of rag-and-bone man a better title than "rag and bone man", because all the sources I've read hyphenate the name. Parrotof Doom23:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: I have no doubt you're right. Sadly though I'm not the saintly and revered Stephen Fry, whose robust attitude to swearing ought to be required reading for every American administrator. As to the question of "fellow" vs. "Fellow", for instance, I think context is everything; if it doesn't look right then it isn't right.
@Wehwalt: there's a difference between "speaker" and a formal title such as "Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly". I doubt you would ever say that Hobart was a speaker would you? MalleusFatuorum00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
He was by most accounts a fairly bad speaker, but a good Speaker. Still, he made it quite near the top of the heap.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a good example of where you need to use capitalisation to avoid ambiguity then. Not the case with popes or kings though. Same with Bencherlite's example of "fellow". MalleusFatuorum00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Before asking MF about this, I actually uncovered two cases which are explicitly exceptions to the title rule. One of the exceptions is Speaker, for the very reason mentioned above. Without capitalizing Speaker, it becomes impossible to tell if you are talking about the Speaker [of the House] or the person who was currently the speaker. The other exception is for First Lady. First Lady is apparently always capitalized, apparently going back to the old days of chivalry. But that is relative to the titles.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with Malleus; various authors in the wider world use capitalisation in various ways, but here on Wikipedia our house style is only to use capitalisation for proper nouns and the start of sentences. Speaker is a good and valid exception to that, as noted, to reduce ambiguity. --John (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My view on capitalisation is much the same as my view on hyphenation; its purpose is to reduce ambiguity, not to deify an office such as President. MalleusFatuorum00:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In part, it allows me to designate the person as the incumbent officer easily and without ambiguity. It also eliminates oddities like having the president fire the Secretary of the Treasury. I don't think it is a very principled stand on my part, but at least some of it is rooted in how it looks and feels to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, if it doesn't look or feel right then it probably isn't, but it's rather more straightforward for kings and popes than it is for presidents and secretaries. MalleusFatuorum01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, mostly. With the holidays, I'm going to be a bit more sparse than usual, but I think I addressed all your issues ... Ealdgyth - Talk15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
A Request for Help
Hello Malleus! First, I would like to thank you for your help with promoting the Spotted Eagle Ray and Quoll to GA's. My classmates and I are ecstatic for their well-deserved accomplishment. I also wish to ask if you would help me with my article, the Sand tiger shark. I have had a couple of reviews, and have added a great deal of content. I would greatly appreciate your help and look forward to your response. Thanks again! --UND77 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some people appear to be adopting the Newspeak goodthink philosophy ahead of schedule. And what exactly does the word "attack" mean in this madhouse? Anything I don't like? MalleusFatuorum21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
if I could but have a moment of your time, I was wondering if you could perform a copyedit on Otis Redding, which is imho not that far from getting the bronze star. I don't want to nominate it once again on GAN, because I can not find anyone who will review it ;P. I think it just needs copyediting, no large overhauls. I want to bring it to FA status to see it on the Main Page at least somewhen in December; you know, it is his 44th anniversary, that poor guy died only at the age of 26. But I can also wait one year till September; that's not a problem, but, like I said, it would be nice to at least try it out.--♫GoP♫TCN21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There was a very moving radio documentary on BBC Radio 2 a few months back, on Redding, presented by Suzi Quattro. If I were you I'd track it down, it offers a very human story with lots of interviews and anecdotes from the people who worked with him. Parrotof Doom00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that approaching the subject via night soil is probably the way to go. But of course it's not a subject that anyone but us would consider to be "vital" or "core", or worth shit. So to speak. . MalleusFatuorum00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm busy writing a new version of rag and bone man, so I'll be with you right after I've sorted that out. Shouldn't take long. Parrotof Doom00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You know how reviewers are sometimes, right? They always have their this and that, just to... I prefer not to write it. See if you can reply him. I hope you are able to convince him. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I know how they are and they will slam a big oppose there. I don't want that to happen. I asked seven copy-editors (so far) to paraphrase the quotes but i got no positive answer. Evidently, the quotes are difficult to paraphrase. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If the quotation is factual, better paraphrase and get the most essential. Regarding the video for "Single Ladies", Knowles said, "Out of all my videos, it was the least expensive and took the least amount of time. And it ended up being the most iconic. I just wanted to keep this one really minimal. But once we got on the set, it was like, wait a minute. This is something special."
And: Second paragraph under "Response and accolades" is read like the staccato notes towards the end of her song "I Care". Its not written well, doesn't flow well. Needs trimming perhaps and transitions?
I am, despite all reports to the contrary. Good luck with your FAC; I think it's pretty much nip-and-tuck right now, so we may see a restart, to clarify positions. Whatever, the article is way better now than it was when you embarked on your quest. MalleusFatuorum07:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying we should always use "owing to" in BritEng, or is "due to" okay in some circumstances? Chicago 5.220 prefers that "due to" be used only when "attributable to" would also work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with Br. English: "due to" modifies nouns, as in "my stomach ache was due to eating too quickly"; "owing to" modifies verbs as in "my stomach ache occurred owing to eating too quickly". MalleusFatuorum15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wow. I never knew that. It must be one of those things that I've picked up subconsciously. I should make time to actually read my copies of Fowler, Partridge et al. It can be bloody fascinating, this talk page, y'know. ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Fowler is going to come in handy this winter now that we got the fireplace cleaned. Then again, sending so much pedantry through the smokestack, even if burned, is bound to seriously clog the damn chimney up. I mean, to clog up seriously the damn chimney. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you revert your edit, it was agreed upon to leave it the way it was before you came along, Anglo-Irish is not a nationality or an ethnicity and does not belong in the lede. Sheodred (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
apologies for dropping in what amazing news. I do have concerns though, the media has mudded the water a bit I think and hope. The cat from what I saw was a skeleton not mummified as those from Suffolk and now Tazmania! The only proven live animal buried in a wall that I know of was the chicken in a house in london. The eggs proved that! But what an historical resource - stunning. Edmund Patrick – confer20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
another thought, if it was a witches house why would they put a cat into the wall - what evil spirits were they seeking protection from, now there's a thought. `the bbc programme slot was good though over dramatised the witch house bit.Edmund Patrick – confer21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
..regardless of anything else (s)he might do in the interim.. Of course not Mall, I was simply trying to suggest some things that needed to be done. (Note: I was tempted to type "irregardless" in this reply somewhere just to make you cringe - but I figure you already get enough grief on WP). How you doing? Hope life is treating you well. Glad to see that you're still about on the old 'pedia. — Ched : ? 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Pendle Witches link
I didn't remove the link, it was broken and i was unsure of the correct spelling to fix it so i removed the link-tags, haha. Bobfordsgun (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
mica
Re Herbert Blendinger: the "music information centre austria" spell their name like that. The major problem is not the spelling, but that they changed their website, and many links went dead. I fixed the ones I met, perhaps you want to keep an eye on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I finished the teacher review and a peer review for the Greater Scaup. Two days ago, Mr. Butler told me that I should put it up for GA, so I did. I have been doing some work on it after I nominated it for GA, but I wanted to ask if you would please take a look at it now that I have started the GA push. Thank you --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Who knows why I find this shit, but I was hunting for a good documentary and got a mediocre one about the band Cream. The verdict is out on those goddamn 20-minute drum solos, but there is more appeal in listening to Ginger Baker, who I decided sounds so much like your comments around here that I think you and he are the same.
I always thought that Cream were a bit pretentious, but individually they were undoubtedly good musicians. So far as drummers are concerned you'd have to go a long way to beat the manic Keith Moon. MalleusFatuorum02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you planning to take horse tranquilizers just as you go onstage at the Cow Palace? That would really give a fan in the audience a chance to...copy edit articles...in your place. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has raised a question on my talk page about the likelihood of getting good article status for an article where the preponderance of sources are not English (Russian, in this case). Would you take a look at User talk:LadyofShalott#Question and chime in with your thoughts? Thanks, LadyofShalott04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly it's not much of a dream, more a bed of red-hot coals, but I'd like to reach 125,000 edits before I leave this place to the kiddies. I reckon it's looking like 50:50 right now. Would it be against some Wikipedia policy to set up a book on how likely I am to last that long? MalleusFatuorum00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that people will be wary of you (or some of your friends) colluding in a set up, as in making 124,990 edits then taking a dive (I'm assuming you're perfectly capable of getting yourself blocked in 9 edits or less). So you basically need an outside, independent, and trustworthy, uh promoter, to run this for you. Which I'd be very happy to do. For a small commission of course. Volunteer Marek 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can get themselves blocked with a single edit. The hard part is to make it look like you're NOT trying get yourself blocked - and that might take more than two as you feign a faux and feeble fight in phony faith to fend off the fiendish functionary fools. Volunteer Marek 01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)#
I've had the idea on my mind for some time now of nominating Reculver for GA, any chance of you racking up some edits in reviewing it to that end? I'd be very grateful, as the article's been a bit of a pet project for me for personal reasons, and, frankly, if you're going to "leave this place to the kiddies" some time soon, I'd like to involve myself with you directly, through this, before you do, all crawling aside. I think you're right about the "kiddies", but the place will be missing something if you go. Cheers whether or no, and I'd happily bet you'll make it to 125,000 edits. Nortonius (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's in England, so of course I'm prepared to spend some of my remaining edits on helping you get it to GA. Just don't tell the Vital Articles Police. You ain't seen me, right? MalleusFatuorum01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha thanks, that's great - Vital Articles Police? Malleus Who?! Never having bothered with a GAN before, shall I go ahead and set the ball rolling, or would you like to have a look first? In your own time obviously, I last did a proper edit to Reculver almost exactly a year ago! I just noticed that, as it happens, it was on the anniversary of John Lennon's death - maybe I was using it as distraction therapy, make of that what you will! And, there's a bit of inconsistency in the Notes and Refs, leftovers from a tentative experiment: I'm inclined not to adopt the relevant changes shown in this diff, but we can talk about that, see what you think? Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The references section does look a bit intimidating. For notes, I use {{#tag:ref|Noteworthy stuff here.<ref>Citation here</ref>|group="nb"}} - that, in combination with a separate references section, created with {{reflist|group="nb"}}, keeps things nice and tidy. For instance. Parrotof Doom01:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does look intimidating, as a section - but the refs are self-contained, allow the reader to skip back and forth between them and the text, and... Well, thanks for the tip, but I can't yet get my head around the need for separate "Footnotes" and "Notes", I find the idea confusing - is that just me, or am I missing something? Feel free to educate me on the idea! Nortonius (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You wouldn't have to use group=nb - you could use group=note, or group=more info, etc. It's just tidier (in my opinion). I'd never force that view on another though, as its just a preference. Parrotof Doom02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I can see that "group=more info" could work, and I appreciate that it's "just a preference", thanks - the format was first mooted for Reculver by Chzz, with whom I first collaborated years ago: he's been a real pal and all-round solid geezer, and IIRC he suggested that it might become expected of GAs, so I could see that there had to be something in it, but I just couldn't see what that something was, and let it slide at the time. Thing is, I learned my footnote-writing many moons ago, following the style of academic writing on early medieval English history, and the ability to expand on some details in footnotes is something that I found vital at the time - I suppose old habits die hard, but my tired old brain still can't see how offering two, parallel sets of notes tidies anything! That's an invitation to push me btw, if you can be arsed - no promises that it'll work, mind! Nortonius (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm all ears, having started it! And, if I've learned anything from the nitwits one encounters on WP, it's to appreciate those who talk sense... Off to bed now, night all! Nortonius (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I prefer that layout mostly for aesthetic reasons, but I think it may be helpful to some readers to keep explanatory notes (NB, more info, etc) separate from citations. It has the benefit of keeping a little blue number for a citation, while also adding [nb] or [more info] to the prose for each explanatory note - that way, the reader knows that if he clicks that [nb], he may get the answer you thought he might like. But again, it's just a preference really. I've had arguments with some editors who think that it's "my way or the highway" so I'd never, ever, do anything other than suggest it. Parrotof Doom11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked at Hanged, drawn and quartered (ugh!), and Chzz similarly pointed me to Marco Polo, and I think I'm getting it now - bear with me, my head's been this shape for a long time now! That is, I can see that one could feel a bit overwhelmed by some of the refs in Reculver, as there's so much in them. That's something that I'm used to and comfortable with, but I suppose the point is that it could be well outside many readers' comfort zones? So, I think I'm convinced. Which means that now, it's me that's intimidated - by the coding I'll have to learn, and the scale of the task! I think this is partly why I let it slide, when Chzz first suggested it. To be honest, I think I feel a little like MF these days - though I have put a lot of effort into some articles in the past, I've wanted to back away from the friction that often arises in WP; but sometimes I'll still get involved - popping up here asking for help with Reculver was spurred by an accidental urge to buff up Walkington Wold burials, which came over me only in the last couple of days - and so I'd like to use that to get obscure, remote, yet historically fascinating Reculver up to GA, in case I never feel the urge again.
In view of which, I think I'll tinker with the "tentative experiment" in the Reculver article in the next day or two, to straighten it out, and to explore what needs to be done. While I'm here, though, is there a citation template that renders a bibliography entry in a format like "Bloggs, J., Going for GA, Oxbridge, 2011."? Or "Bloggs, J., "How to do it", in Joseph, B. (ed.), It's Like This, Oxbridge, 2011, pp. 1-100."? I haven't seen one. Or would there be no need to use a citation template at all, even? Such is the level of my inexperience with these things... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to learn anything other than {{#tag:ref|blah blah<ref>citation</ref>|group="nb"}}. If you're interested in this format, for now, just shove all notes (ie - lots of text) inside those tag:ref brackets, along with any accompanying citations. The citations already in the article don't need to be changed. To make them display, all you need to do is create another section (like in the HD&Q article) and add {{reflist|group="nb"}} - it's that simple. Shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to do it.
For your second request, I've always used {{Citation | last = Bloggs | first = Joe | title = Book title | url = www.book.com | publisher = Penguin Books | year = 1989 | isbn = 123456789}} - that'll do something very similar to what you propose. You can also add links to authors, with "authorlink = article name". There are loads of other options, see Template:citation. Parrotof Doom14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've copied and pasted the existing Reculver article into one of my subpage sandboxes and am working on it there - I'm afraid I was finding it waaay too taxing to risk doing it in the article itself, for fear of messing up a live page. No chance of me taking less than 30 minutes to do it... Anyway, probably any reviewing or copyediting should be done there for now? You're welcome to continue the Reculver part of this thread, or comment on what I've been up to, on the sandbox's virgin talk page. Bear in mind that changes so far are patchy, as I've been working through some of the "tentative experiment" I mentioned earlier, while constantly getting myself side-tracked. And, obviously ignore the Table of Contents there, as it's not where it would be in the main article, and includes everything in the sandbox, Reculver or not... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok - if or when you have the time, I've worked my way to the end of Reculver as it appears in my sandbox, and as I said above you're welcome to copyedit that or comment on the virgin talk page. I'm aware that the style of web citations is a bit erratic, I'll try to sort them out but I'd appreciate input if I'm doing it all wrong! One issue is that I don't always want to use "cite web" templates - but see what you think. I'm also concerned that there might be a few minor instances of OR, but I'm tempted to say no more - if you don't spot them, I shouldn't think anyone will, QED! But obviously I can give you pointers if you'd rather. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
<nudging MF>Hello, just letting you know I've moved my re-vamp of Reculver into article space, as I think it's pretty much there, though I'm under no illusions that it's perfect - lots of fiddling left to do, I suspect, but I think it looks fairly respectable. Anyway forget my sandbox, unless for some reason you want to take it back there. Cheers.</nudging MF> Nortonius (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I hope that you are in good health. Will you have time to copy-edit Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) for me? It has already been copy-edited numerous times but every time it is taken to FAC, reviewers said that that c/e was not up to the level. Can you please take a look? I mean, look at the amazing job you did on "Single Ladies". Just because of you, I got three more support votes. Please bless "Halo" with your flawless copy-editing skills. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(Page lurker) I have responded with erm, a "sublime love" whilst striking a A–Bm–F♯m–D chord. Not! This is really not my topic area, so I have restricted my comments to format and overall writing style. I hope it helps --Senra (Talk) 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The job's not done 'til it's done Jivesh. I think it would be better to wait until the FAC for "Single Ladies" has concluded, and take the lessons from that on to "Halo". MalleusFatuorum16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I expressed a concern at UK_School_reference_articles. It seems only correct that there should be a statistically correlation between the number of articles on state schools v articles on schools for toffs- and the proportion of students that go to each. More of Cheadle Hulme High School than Cheadle Hulme School- 14 secondaries in Stockport- 9 articles- 4 rated as start class. Two ex-Grant maintained -2 articles -1 at start 1 at B. It seems such a pity we have so few editors, biased guidelines that eulogise the trivia while there is a enormous pool of vandals who could be put to use with little training. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
More fun to be had here. Just as examples: Drmies' Brazilian soccer player name is "Doctildo", K.W is "Wolfowinho", Sandy is "Georgialdo", and so on. (Claro, sou "Fiftyeino".) But "Fatuorinho" (in very shaky Portuguese, "the little foolish one"). Hmmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've always been wise, which is perhaps why I've found it so difficult to come to terms with Wikipedia. And to be honest I hope I never will, as I find it rather creepy. MalleusFatuorum01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't in 5 1/2 years and > 120,000 edits, you're probably not in much danger of that. So ... why do you stay? Gerardw (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for strolling through Ely. As always, your amblings reduce my ramblings. I especially liked your es: "scare quotes". Previously, however, I think Richerman (talk·contribs) forgot to add "St" to Audrey following a discussion between us where I felt his "St Audrey" explained well "t'awdry" and therefore "tawdry" (scary enough?). Thus his "Tawdry, a shortened form of Audrey" which led to your "Tawdry, a corruption of Audrey"—edit-summary: hardly shorter, slightly longer in fact! I did say I rambled. Anyway, with your permission, I will be inserting "St" or is it "Saint" to make "Tawdry, a shortened form of St Audrey" or is it still "Tawdry, a corruption of St Audrey"? I get so confused :( --Senra (Talk) 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't forget - I just didn't put it in as it wasn't in the online version you were using as a reference - or at least not in the bit you put on the talk page. Malleus, I'm confused, could you explain why - is known as "Ship of the Fens" - is wrong? The inverted commas are just there to denote what you're referrring to in "known as". Why are they scare quotes? Richerman(talk)13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's go Ralph then. I'm still undecided on Reginald going to FAC. And I might as well be hung totally for "star-collecting" and go with the smaller article! Ealdgyth - Talk00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I might have taken it with better grace from someone like Wehwalt or Brian... you know, folks who've walked the walk at FAC ... but from someone with what .. one FA under their belt?? And on a turtle??? Ealdgyth - Talk00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You're preaching to the converted. Added to which the analysis was only done on FAs promoted this year, thus it ignored topics like the Donner Party, and even GAs like Margaret Thatcher, which gets more views than many FAs. But maybe I'm just a useless green-blob chaser. MalleusFatuorum01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought it would have been worse coming from somebody who knew what they were talking about. As I said to TK, who gives a rat's arse what TCO thinks? Yomanganitalk01:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Baldwin of Forde, s'il vous plaît. A man considered "a greater enemy to Christianity than Saladin" is extreamly interesting in my eyes. --Guerillero | My Talk02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping to chase down one last work before I go with Baldwin - I don't think it's going to have anything of use, but maybe ILL can come through... And gods, working on the Cathars article would be a monumental undertaking. I've dabbled with reading about medieval heresies, but I'm still quite full up with the great English Medieval bishops project (still not even a third done!) Ealdgyth - Talk15:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
You made a very good point at my talk in the High Schools section. Thank you for making me reflect on what it is that we are here for. Ultimately the "why" questions are always the most difficult to answer; why do a particular job, why have kids, why go to the pub, etc. These are nevertheless very important questions, and once again I find myself in debt to your intellectual honesty. I will continue to think about the question you asked, and I think that while I am unable to fully answer and will probably always be, I appreciate sharing space with people like you. It keeps me on my toes. I suspect many others would say the same. --John (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone wanna send me a plane ticket so *I* can go to the pub (and a few cathedrals and monasteries along the way...)... I'm with Malleus - who needs an excuse to go to the pub? Ealdgyth - Talk00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'" --John (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To answer the second part of your question, why don't you just look at Talk:Albert Einstein, click "show" next to article milestones and then you'll see the links to the 2005/2009 FACs, the 2006 FAR and the 2007 GAN for yourself? BencherliteTalk16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks.
I don't think there's ever going to to be a general solution to this problem, but I do like the suggestion made by Ruhrfisch on Shackleton's talk page. MalleusFatuorum00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am so tired of all these charges of incivility against all and sundry, as if that trumps everything. So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. MalleusFatuorum23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded to the banner ad to take part in a survey organised by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and just made $21.60, far more rewarding than another fucking barn star! MalleusFatuorum00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Same here, first time I've been paid for doing anything via WP. Though, I made $21.00, and gave half to the Red Cross - does that make me a wikisaint? Or is it all a wikicon? Nortonius (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
$15 - it randomly chose my lowest earning section, unless it was assessing the relative contributions Malleus and I make to the 'pedia (then tripling mine so I felt better). Hardly seemed worth keeping... I would have ignored that ad, Malleus, but for seeing this on my watchlist, so thanks for highlighting it. BencherliteTalk00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so I'm going to block you until you pay me your winnings. Stick 'em up, this is a robbery! Hah! Now we're talking admin abuse! BencherliteTalk00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So true, I'd actually closed that banner without a second thought until I saw money mentioned...I agree you have earned a reward. Have a hug. It's more valuable anyway. *cough* OohBunnies!Leave a message :)01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh. $15, and I was not nice and didn't donate any, mainly because I don't like the International Red Cross (I do donate to local chapters, just not big multinational organizations that aren't very accountable) and I donate quite enough to Wikipedia, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
edito conflicto I am, yes. Why are hugs from blokes scary? You get to do that man thing where you gruffly hit each other in the back in an affectionate way. At least I assume that's affection. Hmm. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
$29.60, nice. I was very generous/altruistic on one test & got $1 when B got $29, but made it up by being super-mean on another. Yes, more of these please. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I suppressed my banner-suppression preference too late, too late! The quota for the sample had already been met. But thanks for the heads up! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My $28.00 (country unspecified in the original promise) arrived in my PayPal account today as 20 Euros 44, which then became $US 25.44. So, did they follow through on their commitment, or have I been short-changed? Enquiring minds are enquiring. Bielle (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Question
Returning to the top of the thread leads me to wonder: so how much is a barnstar worth? Suppose you have received a really nice barnstar, with kind words about your contributions and your general positive effect on Wikipedia. How much cash would you accept for it to be deleted, oversighted, gone without trace, so that it remains only a lingering memory?
My take on it: I would readily pay a small monthly amount for the privilege of editing an otherwise identical version of Wikipedia with no 'barnstars' and no 'talkback' templates. HansAdler02:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My house is like a building site ... actually it is pretty much a building site right now. But to echo Hans, I'd be prepared to pay for a site that wasn't run by children with an inflated sense of their own importance and a surreal idea of incivility. MalleusFatuorum03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My opinion on the value of barn stars is coloured by having one given and taken away within a few weeks, after having upset a (now) administrator. I generally ignore them, so the answer to your question is that I'd be quite content for them to be deleted without any payment whatsoever. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Me too, as you can see by the way I do not collect or maintain any record of my "achievements" or "awards" (I don't even have a user page). Nevertheless, I've received barnstars containing appreciative words from editors I admire (the above admin would not fall into such a category, obviously). How much is that worth in cash? I'm not sure, which is one reason I am asking the question. Geometry guy00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting question, with potentially revealing answers. For myself, I'm much happier with a few words of thanks rather than a barn star; those words can't be taken away no matter what happens next. Basically I have no time at all for any rewards that can subsequently be withdrawn (I'm reminded of the shameful rule that VCs could be taken back if the recipient later did something unsavoury), which is why I have a minimal set of user rights here, not even rollback. MalleusFatuorum00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I also value the words much more than any barnstar containing them (if there is one). It is interesting that you bring up user rights. I don't regards them as rewards, but as tools that help me to contribute when I need them. If someone were to take them away without good reason, then it would reflect badly on them, not on me, as they would be impairing my ability to help. Geometry guy00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can't see why you don't have rollback, Malleus. That is, unless you don't want it for some reason. Any admin can just give it to you, and there's no need to go through the "requests for permission" gauntlet. It's very useful when, say, a little puke makes a bunch of bad edits quickly in a row on an article you've worked on (when others happen to be asleep at the switch). One click instead of a shitload of "undos". No rewards except for less time wasted. Doctalk00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
And any admin can just take it away again, out of malevolence or spite. I find that with Twinkle I just don't need rollback anyway; in fact I used to have it until I asked for it to be removed as a matter of principle. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Taken to its extreme that principle implies dropping all tools that anyone can take away, including all tools available to autoconfirmed users, the ability to edit as a user and have a user talk page, and even the ability to edit at all. Geometry guy00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It does, but bear in mind I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I don't fit in here, and it's only a matter of time before I'm expelled for good, most recently here. I believe in the idea of knowledge being freely available, which is the only reason I'm still here, but I'm vehemently opposed to Wikipedia's social engineering experiment, and always will be. Particularly as it's largely policed by children. My survival strategy, such as it is, is that nobody can threaten to take away what I don't have. MalleusFatuorum01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting diff - you can sometimes take things a bit too personally, Malleus, or take the views of one random editor (or misguided admin) as The View of Wikipedia. There are pretty much as many opinions as to what amounts to "civility" as there are editors, which means that none of us truly fit in. Given this, you may be as concerned as I am that the WMF is currently planning to include the concept of "civility" in a legal document on terms of use. If policing this asylum by children is a problem, then the way it is overseen is erm...I'm lost for words. Geometry guy02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding ... civility in the TOS? They should rename it to POS. Btw Malleus, thanks much for your help with Uxbridge ... Milhist has one other old and graying British-themed FAC, Warkworth Castle. I've just finished my second run through, and I wound up with just two questions. It should be in pretty good shape if you want to give it a once-over. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel a bit bad about Uxbridge in a way, coming in late with a bunch of stuff, but I don't look at FAC all that often these days. Or GAN come to that. MalleusFatuorum03:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Once I built an encyclopaedia, made 2% of articles on which you could rely, once I compiled a cyclopaedia, brother can you spare a social science participant payment? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect that our comparator organisation is British Rail: inheritor of run down pseudo-monopolies, underfunded and under-resourced despite expansion plans... Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
When people ask why experts get driven off Wikipedia...
Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey could be a perfect example. I'm STILL fighting this outdated and disproven theory ... and periodically I STILL have to deal with people pushing it. No modern historian OR competent genealogist subscribes to the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror - but some folks WANT it to be true so they insist that there IS a controversy (there isn't) so that it MUST be given due weight in the freaking article. Once more I had to AGAIN dig though books and try to demolish some idiotic reprinting of a theory long since disproven in historical thought. If I tried to say that Gundred was William OR Matilda's daughter in any historical scholarly work based on the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne - I'd be laughed out of the profession - but some folks think Wikipedia requires our articles to respect that society as much as serious historians. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a victim of the "verifiable untruth" brigade, to me ;P Clarifying: that's those who interpret "Verifiabilty, not truth" to mean "Who cares if it's not true - I can show you where it was published!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
No, in this case I think it's a case of amateur genealogists - they really WANT Gundred to be the daughter of someone more important than her father - who is an untraceable Fleming. If she's the daughter of William or Matilda - this elevates their ancestry more .. much more fun to have yet another line to William or Matilda than to have a boring no-name in your tree. This is a common problem in medieval history - and it started in the middle ages, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
One of my ancestors (great great great grandmother I think) was convinced she was directly related to the royal family. They locked her in the mad house, but could be she was right.... right? :) --Errant(chat!)13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Any lurkers willing to help me with a couple of minor 16th century related queries raised by a GA1 reviewer please? Specifically, my answers to "William Wolsey & Robert Pygot" (my new counter-reformation prose) and "John Alcock" (d. 1500 disagrees with bishopric ended 1501 according to Pevsner). Thank you in advance --Senra (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The only person you can rely on is yourself. There's been some discussion elsewhere on the meaning of truth vs. reliability where Wikipedia policy is concerned, with the implication that reliability of the source always trumps truth. But of course ultimately it can't, as in this example. It's not uncommon, at least in my experience, to find reliable sources disagreeing about some detail or other, and it's our job to find a way through that conundrum by considering exactly how reliable each of the sources is likely to be for what they're claiming. But of course that's just my view, I speak with no authority here. MalleusFatuorum23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I tend to take a rather Zen view of writing, believing that every word needs to earn its keep. For instance, imagine you had to pay a cent for every word; would you really be prepared to spend three cents on "in order to" as opposed to just one cent on "to"? MalleusFatuorum19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having a look at Reculver. It's good to have a (trustworthy!) pair of fresh eyes look over stuff, and I thought all of your changes were spot on. I've done quite a bit since you last looked, adding sections on e.g. Politics and Education, plus numerous tweaks of formatting, layout and so-on. I think I've pretty much scraped the barrel dry for now (or my brain's telling me I have, anyway), so, hostages to fortune aside, I think the article's probably going to be fairly stable from here on (eek!) - should you feel inclined to comb through the article again...! Cheeky? Moi?! No problem if not. Any tips for a GA newbie? And, if there's anything I can do in return...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a pretty good job with what seems effectively to be an abandoned village, but I do have a few questions for you:
Lead
"Reculver is a village and coastal resort about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay in southeast England. It is a ward of the City of Canterbury district in the county of Kent." It's obviously also a parish, as all the demographic data relate to the parish of Reculver. Are the village and the parish coterminus? Presumably not. Is it the village or the parish that's a ward of the City of Canterbury? Presumably the parish, as the village's population doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a ward. In fact even the parish's population seems very low for a ward.
The village is in a ward called just "Reculver" - but, now that I look: the ward includes Hillborough, Beltinge and a big chunk of eastern Herne Bay; the civil parish was absorbed into Herne Bay CP in 1934; and the (current) ecclesiastical parish includes Hillborough and Beltinge. Some re-writing to be done there then, and under "Governance"… About the population, the earliest censuses detailed parishes, but the Reculver "census area" for 2001, in which only 135 people were found, looks to include only Reculver, plus scattered farms etc. between it, the A299 and Hillborough (which is the next settlement to the west - there isn't one to the east, within the census area). Obviously I wasn't paying attention - I can tweak that under "Demography", but I'm not sure how to do that in the lead, without it being too wordy - maybe there's no need, if I fix "Demography"? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
"The census of 2001 recorded 135 people in the Reculver area, nearly a quarter of whom were in caravans." That looked rather strange to me when I first read it, and it still does. Were these 30 or so people living in static caravans or did they just happen to be on holiday in one of the caravan parks on census day?
I haven’t found a decent way to answer that one yet! I think the inference is that they were (at least mostly) on holiday in a caravan park, given that Reculver’s been mainly a sea of caravans for the last 60 years or so, but the census data don’t go deep enough to be sure - unless you know better…? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Country park
"The new Reculver Centre for Renewable Energy and Interpretation opened in July 2009, marking 200 years of the moving of Reculver village." I don't quite follow this, as the village hasn't moved has it?
I hadn’t noticed that bit - "village" should probably be "church", as the date fits, but a (probable) source does actually say "marking 200 years of the relocation of Reculver village", in a photo caption about ⅔ of the way down the page! No, the village hasn’t moved, except mostly down and into the sea, I’m not sure what to make of that… Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks J3Mrs - nothing in there about the village moving, but I'll add it to my list of "things to stuff the bibliography with"! And, it did remind me of an estate map dated 1685, reproduced (rather poorly) in a recent book, so thanks for that, too - lucky for me I have a copy, unlucky for WP the map's not showing up in Google. Anyway said map shows late 17th century Reculver looking a bit like a hot cross bun, centred on a crossroads just west of the Roman fort's west gate. The sea's swallowed up pretty much the whole lot. And, there's nothing like a "New Reculver" to replace it, looking at a modern map. Nortonius (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Education
"It was rated as "satisfactory" (Grade 3) in most aspects by an Ofsted report in July 2010, when it had 489 pupils." This is a bit of a surprise given that Reculver's population is only 135. Where do these kids come from?
Yes that surprised me too when I saw it, but don’t worry, some ale and mulled wine helped me get over it! I’m ignorant of legislation on school catchment areas, but the school’s brochure says that "proximity to the school" only becomes an admission criterion if it’s over-subscribed, though it then says something darkly about "pupils admitted to the school within the VI Designation". I’ve no idea what that is, and searching on the web hasn’t helped. From what I have seen, I imagine busloads of little ‘uns descending on Reculver from all over Kent, to enjoy the "wonderful peaceful location"! Simple answer is, I don’t know: maybe I should add in something about proximity in the over-subscription bit of the brochure? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(later:) I've had a go at all of the above points now, if anyone fancies wandering over to Reculver and having a look. GAN looks set to occur this evening. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
And here's my GA tip: nominate this at GAN now. There's absolutely no danger it will be quick-failed, it can take several weeks for a reviewer to turn up, and you'll get at least seven days to fix any problems anyway. I'd be dubious about the article meeting the FA comprehensiveness criterion, but much less so about it meeting GA's "covers the major topics". My other tip would be to try and meet the reviewer half-way with any criticisms that may come up during the review. You don't have to knuckle under and give in to every demand, state your case where you don't agree and stand by it, but there does have to be at least a bit of give-and-take. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, those are great tips! I had been tempted to think of FA, maybe I'll have a look at the criteria, but I gather it can be a bit of an ordeal. And, it seems that I have a reviewer kindly waiting! I'm off for tonight though, so I'll probably get on it tomorrow. Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree: good advice. A good review should involve some give and take, and a good reviewer may often raise queries as well as complaints. Any give and take should be based on agreeing what is needed to meet the GA criteria. It's fine to make improvements beyond that, but if a reviewer seems to be demanding more than the criteria require, WP:WGN can be helpful - try not to be argumentative though: we all want to make articles better, after all. Geometry guy00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
PS. With an experienced reviewer like Aircorn watching over things, a review is likely to bring out the best in the article.
A new GA nomination, new reviewer and (hopefully) GA all in one package. This is what GA is about, IMO: spreading the word about quality articles, and it happens a lot here. Geometry guy00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
FAC can be an ordeal. Unless you've been through the mill yourself you can have no idea of the level of scrutiny the article will be be exposed to, from the slightest MoS deviations up to major omissions of sourcing and comprehensiveness. For a first shot I'd recommend GAN followed by a peer review before tackling Mount FAC. Even I, full of hubris that I am, don't often take an article directly to FAC without passing through at least one of its base camps. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I hardly ever take articles right to FAC ... I generally pass through GAN first and usually try for at least one Peer Review as well as having someone trusted look it over (that usually means Malleus who is such a sweetie and really a marshmallow inside!) before going to FAC. With that said, I've done the direct to FAC route twice - once with my very first FAC and once much later. Generally, the more steps on the way to FAC and the more eyes on the article, the less trouble I find at FAC, but you never know what might trip you up.. Ealdgyth - Talk03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think on the few occasions I've taken an article directly to FAC it's been one I've worked on with an editor like PoD, Nev1, or Jza84, and it became obvious that GAN could offer nothing other than a green blob. MalleusFatuorum03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm being circumspect here because I guess barnstars are not your thing. If they are, have this one *, otherwise please accept my sincere thanks for your assistance in raising Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA standard --Senra (Talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a barn, so I'm not into barnstars, no, but I am really pleased to see that you've got yourself a GA with Ely. I've said it before, geography articles are among the hardest to write IMO, because you're dealing with everything from geology to the modern provision of services. So give yourself a big pat on the back. :-) MalleusFatuorum01:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it could, but it depends on what view the delegates take of the outstanding oppose and the comments. SandyG and the other delegates are clearly indisposed at the moment though, so you need to be patient. All I can say is that if I were a delegate I'd be inclined to promote. MalleusFatuorum06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank Malleus. I did my level best to fix THR comments. Some of his points are irrational. Sorry for my honesty. He wants the article to be in a way that only people who study literature could read. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm overwhelmed. In one evening I'm a marshmallow and an angel whereas only a month or so ago the WMF in the form of User:Kaldari were trying to get rid of me. How fickle is fate. MalleusFatuorum06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realize that. Some of my fiends here indirectly try to find flaws in my work and I do not say anything to them. Then I am GOOD but when I do the same thing in their work, I become BAD. Let's face it, most human beings are like this. Like if they are never satisfied. Lol. Anyway, I swear on all the love I have for Beyonce Knowles that I was totally sincere. You are an angel for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Love it! Another one to put into my stable! I shall adopt it immediately. Though, to my mind, nothing has quite the fits-of-hysterical-giggles-inductivity yet of The ArbCom Secret Ballet. Just visualise it ... :P Added! As the "Fiendish Cabal". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus, seeing that you appear to be in a benevolent frame of mind (per above), maybe I can trespass on your goodwill? A year or so ago you and I combined to rescue a couple of languishing FACs which had got to near the bottom of the list with hardly a review comment between them (I think we actually got one of them promoted). Well, there are two on the current list, The Constant (nominated 29 November) and Live Show (nominated 25 November) which are in danger of sinking without trace (my private name for these lost souls is "ed millibands"). Would you be prepared to help out? I have not looked at either of these articles, but it must be galling for their nominators to see their work ignored, given the level of attention all around them. If you are willing, please choose which you would rather do first, and I'll take the other. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Something to amuse you - The Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk
In Prehistoric Britain, this strange animal was persecuted by early hunters, before being humanely laid to rest.
"The remains of a Mesolithic elk found caught in a bog at Poulton-le-Fylde in Lancashire had been wounded by hunters and escaped on three occasions...."
Three years ago, as I recall, there was some disagreement about whether there was a separate "wikiproject GA-class", but I believe that's old news; GA is its own thing these days. However, wikiprojects are encouraged to tackle B-class, etc., on their own, and a few wikiprojects have an A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GOCE again
I have a dream to mentor copyeditors on WP (and people who don't want to be copyeditors, but want to do things that will makes copyeditors' lives easier). GOCE is the obvious place to start. Slon is one of their more active participants. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Both if you like ... I'm trying to scout the lay of the land (I'll also be asking GOCE how they feel about GAN and FAC these days), without setting the agenda (in case you needed another horribly mixed metaphor). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that it seems likely Slon will soon become an administrator at the fourth time of asking is an indictment of the way that Wikipedia is mismanaged. So far as the GoCE is concerned, I think it suffers from another fundamental Wikipedia problem, the risible notion that we're all equally able, whereas in truth there ought to be some kind of test (administrators have one, it's called RfA) before an editor is allowed to join the guild. Of course that will never happen, and therefore the GoCE is a well-meaning but ultimately doomed idea. MalleusFatuorum19:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I never did buy the "darwikinist" idea that it's not a problem if edits are bad because they'll eventually be sorted out through some kind of natural selection ... or at least, I don't see that working before the heat death of the universe. I do think that the review processes are largely successful in extracting useful work from less than perfect editors such as myself, and I'd like to suggest to any GOCE people that are willing that we tackle the problem in the context of review processes where I'm paying attention to how it's working out. Most won't be interested, but I'm hoping some will be. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The legendary infinite number of monkeys will produce a predictably infinite amount of crap. But I think your focus on the review processes has some merit, as that's where the pedal really hits the metal. I wish you luck. MalleusFatuorum20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
What is needed here is not a guild, but a licensing/accreditation agency, as in "The name's Fatuorum... Malleus Fatuorum... licensed to spell". Editors love passing tests and gaining wiki-qualifications, so why not try something like this? The test could follow the examples in Tony1's guide, only with a randomized element, and a pass/fail result—maybe also a 200 word (and randomly selected) badly written text to copyedit. Then list or link to the accredited copyeditors in suitable fora, and other editors have a resource (other than this talkpage!) when they seek competent help. Geometry guy23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Were that it was only spelling. The trouble is so few seem to understand simple standard English or how to write in the past tense. What's worse is some take huge offence at having their efforts copyedited, corrected or the trivia removed. When I attempt copyediting, (which I find oddly theraputic), I inevitably offend, and those who write poorly never learn from their mistakes and, if they've been here for any length of time, what they write is rarely challenged and becomes the norm.J3Mrs (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I know full well that copyediting goes far beyond spelling, and my reference to the latter was light-hearted. Concerning tenses, the most common problem I have seen is a failure to use them in a consistent way. Some accreditation might help you deal with the offense you find. Geometry guy00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
G-Guy, how about we start it off with just a series of quizzes that you get barnstars for if you pass? Barnstars are less threatening, and then everyone could come up with their own quiz and hand out their own barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Even though I am not a barnstar person, the idea of graduating the accreditation might work well, borrowing terms from elsewhere, as in "Copyeditor sophomore" or whatever. Geometry guy00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying accreditation wouldn't help, I'm saying that I think we've got a long road to go down before we can get consensus on a wide variety of questions. Experimenting with quizzes first (and if you don't get a barnstar for passing the quiz, I'm not sure what you would get) might help. I started working on a fairly lengthy quiz a week ago (good timing, it looks like), I'll try to make it go live before the new year. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And actually I find Geometry guy's insinuation that I'm focused on spelling to be rather insulting. What I'm actually focused on is telling the story. MalleusFatuorum23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is getting off-topic, but is also fascinating. I made absolutely no insinuation, but Malleus read one in my post. My edit summary included "guy, Geometry guy, licensed to spell", so in his scenario, I must have simultaneously been insulting myself. Well, I've done that before, but doesn't it seem more likely here that I could have been playing on the similarity of the words "spell" and "kill"? I've seen this kind of confusion (and upset) happen time and time again across WP: how can we deal with it? Geometry guy00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorted it. Somehow, someone had managed to write that phrase in code that was invisible in the edit window. I highlighted the section and deleted what looked like a bunch of spaces. Parrotof Doom20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it was due to lag in the database server. An IP had vandalized the page, which ClueBot NG then reverted. However, due to database server lag, the updated (reverted) version failed to propagate to the displayed version and only appeared in the edit window. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting behaviors, how different we would be if the dominant sibling consumed the others. Would our mothers view us differently at birth. The GA's have been thorough, very exciting for those actively editing. I should make some medals and present them on awards day... speech speech! We are on Christmas break as of today - curious to see if those sand bagging use this time or accept the fail. There are a couple that have been on the sidelines, yet show promise - both the mushroom and the seahorse. The hog island sheep - not a clue about that strange choice! The sand tiger is an effort by my youngest, a sweet heart who has probably benefited the most from the c/e process. Time will tell - of which there is very little. As always thanks for your magic touch. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
if you don't mind a harmless talkpage stalker interjecting... as someone who is interested in helping students with projects like these in the future (not the immediately approaching winter semester, but the fall semester of 2012), how would I apply (if that is the correct word) to do so? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Melicans, this is the general page for the "formal" education program; this is the Canada-specific version. Shoot me an email if you're interested in that. I think Jimmy's particular class was part of the less-formal version - WP:SUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Part II
hello,
I wrote you a message last time. I asked if you could copyedit one article. Since then I have not received any single response from you. You can say if you don't want to, but not answering is not very nice. Regards.♫GoP♫TCN15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I get asked to edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I forget, or other things intrude on my time. Which article are you talking about? BTW, I've never claimed to be "nice", which to my mind is about as insipid a description as to be almost insulting. Oh, and try to remember that I'm not employed here, much less by you. MalleusFatuorum15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Just wanted to drop by to ask about how you have been lately? How are you these days? Busy because of the coming festivities? I hope you are doing well my friend. And again, thanks for everything you have done for me. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I tend to do everything Christmassy as late as possible because I hate the crowds: buying presents in the last half-an-hour before the shops close would be typical for me, perhaps it is for many other blokes as well. How's your review going? MalleusFatuorum16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel very uncomfortable in crowded locations. Lol. I am timid in RL. The nomination... I am fed up of In my opinion ... in my taste... in my whatsoever, according me as if I have to write the article 1 billion times to conform to everyone's individual preferences. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all timid in real life, I just can't stand being jostled and shoved in crowds of people and have a tendency to lose my rag with the worst offenders, especially in crowded bars. But enough of me. What SandyG's telling you is that you have to try and manage the nomination, chase up the early opposers, state your case clearly where you don't agree with something suggested by a reviewer and so on. It's really a bit of a balancing act. MalleusFatuorum16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I cannot even dream of myself setting an offender right in real life. Lol. Maybe with growing age, I will fight off my timidity. About the FAC, I am trying my best but it is not very encouraging when some reviewers want their personal preferences to go in the article. Pardon me for telling this Malleus but some of their comments are sometimes borderline ridiculous and irrelevant. I have contacted the opposers several times. There are two. They are not replying. And they are quite active. Did you see on what note Indopug opposed? Lol. User:THR is not relying although I have addressed all his concerns. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the exact height of the average American male and a helluva lot lighter. ;) (We're a fat people. ;/) I am only slightly taller at 180 cm and slightly lighter at 61 kg. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds, for Christmas party, deferred the Christmas party, then cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds some more, now have to do my Christmas shopping and clean, cook, wash for the Christmas party that was deferred to this weekend. Sooooo ... could MF and his friendly TPS please give me the 101 for Dummies version of everything I missed in two weeks? Arb elections went better than expected, G guy is calling it straight on the remainders of the TCO manic manifesto (which never should have been given any play by The Signpost, which is the only reason that wasn't a flash in the pan), folks seem to be understanding the effects student editors are having on medical articles, folks still seem to not be getting it on "gender" issues, Yomangani's edit summaries are the best way to find out what's going on of any significance, and no idea how FAC is faring, haven't looked yet, anything I need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A good point made there. All the foundation has to do is to continue encouraging administrators to piss everyone off, and the gender ratio will become 0:0. Job done. MalleusFatuorum18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed it, it was a bit of a labour of love to be honest. My mother used to have a holiday home near Pendle, and I have fond memories of the place. MalleusFatuorum16:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season
★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012*★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers.
It's an old English proverb: "faint heart never won fair lady". It means that you have to be bold and fearless in striving for what you want, the attitude that made the British empire great. :-) MalleusFatuorum16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Me I think, an ironic comment on my immodest assertion that Wikipedia is lucky to have me. One thing I think non-native speakers of English find difficult to understand is that we often say completely the opposite of what it is that we mean, as a form of irony. MalleusFatuorum16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Tone of voice and general attitude while speaking are the clues to what's really being said, but of course we don't see any of that on the Internet. For instance, I had to take a couple of animals to the vet earlier today. The bill came to just over £200. When presented with it I said to the receptionist "Oh, is that all?", but she knew damn well I didn't mean it was cheap. MalleusFatuorum17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Fear not Jivesh: you are not alone in failing to spot irony in other editor's posts; over a text based medium, even Brits can miss it. Malleus himself has done so at least twice recently, once in a prior thread on this page, still current. Geometry guy23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know you Malleus, but I believe you are a very nice person! You are responding very intelligent and humorous, and yet you were blocked for incivility. I wish you the same! =D --♫GoP♫TCN17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It tends to happen every second or third ANI report, which have been monthly recently I think. Just part and parcel of the stupidity here, nothing to get too excited about. MalleusFatuorum17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahh okay but you can still edit your talk-page. Lol. I see am a bit lost right now. Are you currently blocked? I guess NO, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are the real tea Malleus. We should all learn for you. You are simply great. Your sense of humor is beyond my imagination. You are the most friendly person I have met online. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I've always quite liked Malleus; perhaps it is my own English heritage, but I've always found his occassionally carping comments to be inundated with the dry wit only Brits are capable of far more often than any genuine malice. He doesn't try to hide the truth behind layer upon layer of euphamism; he speaks what he means, plain and true. Perhaps some people simply cannot face being told the truth, simple and bluntly. I may just be a talk page stalker, but I've always found his unwillingness to twist unpleasant truths into pleasant lies quite admirable. He speaks honestly, openly, and plainly; and that's something that cannot be said of quite a few others in the community. Hats off to you, Malleus. Wikipedia would be a far sadder place without you. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; I've actually been rather disappointed with the quality of your comments this year. Last year's selection was far more impressive. Perhaps going from "occasionally carping" to "often carping" should be one of your New Year's Resolutions! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Holiday wishes...
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are one hell of a good writer, and I appreciate all your hard work here .. but Geesh Mal. That was some pretty crude language. Not that I have any delusions that you'd give a shit what I think or anything. Just wishful thinking that there was a bit of a gentleman behind the name I guess. And yes .. I know there was no NPA violation, and civility is all so subjective here ... just wasn't expecting something like that from you. Either way .. you have a nice holiday. — Ched : ? 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it just has to be told like it is. And actually "cunt" isn't at all sexist where I live when it's used as a term of abuse. And neither is it as uncommon as it appears to be in the Puritan colonies.[7] Hasn't it ever struck you as odd that editors are allowed to call each other dicks here (there's even an essay on it) but not cunts? Any chance of waking up any time soon? MalleusFatuorum18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So, hypothetically speaking, if the word "cunt" was to be redacted from the conversation there, would you let it stand or revert it? While acknowledging cultural mores vary within subcultural, it is really offensive in a non-trivial subset of the Wikipedia culture. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking non-hypothetically, I don't give a flying fuck. I see no reason why it's permissible to call regular editors "dicks" but not administrators "cunts". Go chew on that, and when you've worked out a logically coherent position come back and we can discuss it. MalleusFatuorum19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Because in the imperfect sexist world -- at the least the one on this side of the Atlantic -- "cunt" is considered more offensive than "dick" 2. Because too many admins think they're "all that" and there's a double standard here, like in many other places. My good faith interpretation of "don't give a flying fuck" is consent, so I'm going to go ahead. I do get what you're saying, but this won't fix it. It'll either blow over (achieving nothing) or blow up (causing lots of churn and angst and in the end achieve nothing). Nobody Ent (Gerardw)19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not something I have any desire to get into any protracted debate over, just an observation that I was surprised. (and that doesn't happen to me here very often anymore). I know it's just a "word". I even understand the "shock value" of putting things bluntly in order to get a point across. It's not even that in a discussion with another guy that I'd even take notice of the use of the word. Simply that in mixed company I've been taught that it is impolite. As far as "waking up" .. meh, after 5 and 1/2 decades - I'm not likely to change my spots any time soon I suppose. Different strokes for different cultures I guess. — Ched : ? 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing I've always demanded, and I do mean demanded, is consistency, and there's none here. Gentlemen's parts have been appropriated by the Wiki elite as representing some kind of sanctionable behaviour, but ladies' parts are out of bounds. Does that really make any kind of sense to you? MalleusFatuorum19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both Mal. Yes, you're right that it's an unfair throwback to allow the use of one word and not the other. I also agree there's a huge lack of consistency here. On the other hand .. I don't recall ever calling another editor a "dick" either, so I at least try to be consistent in my own actions. Either way, as I said at the onset, I do admire your candor, sense of humor, abilities, and your dedication here. — Ched : ? 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have fond memories of an administrator (female) telling me that I was a dick of porn-star proportions; it makes me laugh even when I think of it today, but I still wonder how she knew ... the bottom line though is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so lap it up. MalleusFatuorum19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
<laffin> .. I remember that one. I see her about on Facebook from time to time - she's actually doing quite well. She's continuing her education, and just finished a semester with a straight "A" report. Anyway - I'll let you get back to the content end of things here - thanks for taking the time to talk about it all. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You can at least use a lady's name when you talk about her. And, yes, I'm using the word "lady" loosely here. Just to clarify, it's not "a semester" with straight A's; it's my seventh semester in a row with straight A's. One more and I'm graduating with high honors. Of course, it's just community college, so don't be too impressed. We'll see how I do at the university level next year. Anyway, it's good to see you haven't changed, Malleus. I'd be disappointed if you did. There aren't many things I miss about Wikipedia, but your talk page surely makes the short list. Hopefully I haven't missed too many block parties in the past few years. And, of course, I hope you're well outside of the wiki. As for the topic of the discussion, there are a whole lot of assholes, douchebags, bitches, dicks, and cunts on this project. Most of them need to be informed. An ass beating with a clue bat would be illegal, but a little honesty never really hurt anyone. Lara18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand how a block hours after someone said "cunt" a few times, directed at nobody in particular, can be anything but punitive. Parrotof Doom22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it amazing sometimes one thinks Wikipedia is progressing, then along comes some precious admin and we realise that we are right back where we started
Of course, Malleus knew exactly what he was doing, and that some admin would eventually take the bait. I'm surprised it took so long. Geometry guy22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ya know - I knew it was gonna happen too. Just for the hell of it I came here and actually carried on a discussion (ya know, where you both talk and listen to someone) with Mal about it. The thing is, when you actually approach the guy without some "all important pompous lecturing type of condescension" - he's actually quite approachable. He didn't even object to the offending words being "redacted" - and was content to have made his point(S) .. (which he often does quite well). People wonder why comments like "kiddie admins living in mommy's basement" are made? It's cause "dey haz block button"; but heaven forbid anybody tell it like it is around this joint. — Ched : ? 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the comma key has just sprung off my laptop's keyboard and I can't see how to put it back. So as all I do here is move commas around this latest block is probably for the best. MalleusFatuorum23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've unblocked per the consensus at AN/I. Please be more careful using the word "cunt" in future as some people are offended by it. --John (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If they're blocking the religious, then as an atheist materialist I want to be blocked in this season of forced annual leave and public holidays as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to modify my comment above. Malleus's initial comments were made late at night, or in the early hours, perhaps in the heat of the moment: see this diff. However, he returned to the same theme, presumably after sleeping, here, where he did not make amends but supported his late night thoughts. Here, he clearly knew what he was doing: this is his way of making his point. I don't necessarily disagree with the point, but Malleus is courting trouble. I hope such actions will not be in vain and will lead to improvements in policy, as it a sad reflection on the state of Wikipedia when a good editor entices admins to block himdisrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Geometry guy00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You're not still autoblocked are you? Only I am about to go to bed. I am rubbish at clearing autoblocks anyway. --John (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the phrase here is "gobsmacked" ... I should have known that me getting sick would mean drama on Wikipedia. Always amazes me when folks think their cultural norms should be everyone's cultural norms. Ealdgyth - Talk01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I have lost the plot
Recently, like many of you I expect, I conscientiously voted either support or oppose for each one of the 17 Arbcom candidates, carefully recording each vote for later analysis. Is it just me? Only two of those I voted support for have been elected :( Six of the candidates I opposed have been elected! --Senra (talk)23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As you may know, I had a funeral this month and have been having a hard time catching up. I should be promoting FAC instead of telling you stories. A friend sent me a message saying, "Tell him I said hey and it was very difficult not to send him the message from www.damnyouautocorrect.com where some chick is asking for time off from her boss to go to her grandmother's funeral and her boss replies via iPhone "My deepest cunt openness" instead of "deepest condolences". Autocorrect... the future of hilarity is here.
I missed the party because between them, TCO and Ettrig have decided that 1) Tourette syndrome (TS) is important so even though Ettrig knows nothing about it, he's going to take it on, thereby keeping me so busy I can't promote/archive FAC, which does a heck of a lot of good for FA production, and 2) they've also decided that only the articles they deem important should be eligible to be FAs. [8][9] Oh, did I mention I should be promoting instead of answering Ettrig's uninformed questions on TS, so poor Ucucha doesn't give up in despair?
How nice of Eagles247 to remove the autoblock. Isn't he just the sweetest thing that ever graced Wikipedia? Now maybe could he go and unblock The Fat Man, which is the biggest boner that was ever pulled on Wikipedia.
My better half wants to know if he can now liberally use the "C" word in my presence, although he previously considered it highly offensive and off limits (unlike, for example, "shut up, you fucker", or "what a little prick", or "learn how to drive, you damn bitch"). You're messing things up over here; knock if off. But first remind me which admin called you a dick of porn star proportions-- it's my understanding that's something to be proud of.
I know, which is why that section is still unarchived on my talk page, but every time I think about explaining it to you, I get so mad I can't type, and if I do type it up, it will be my good-bye screed. This place is bonkers-- kinda like what I'm going through today thanks to (see point 2 above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, you and Malleus are editors I admire (rough around the edges, but your respective work is excellent), and I hope that one day you'll cease holding this grudge against me. I'll admit that I handled TFM's situation improperly at the time, but, despite the pleas from people who cared about him, TFM kept digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole to prevent an unblock of any sort. Of course, if TFM agrees to take Wikipedia somewhat seriously, I'd be open to unblocking in the future. Eagles24/7(C)01:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
And since he's unlikely to even come back and read here ever again, just how would an unblock happen? Does it never occur to some admins that once you turn someone off for good, it's well ... for good? And does the work he did on a Featured article, that got multiple mentions in the press, qualify as "tak[ing] Wikipedia somewhat seriously"? Or the fact that he passed out so much good cheer and insight, that other well regarded productive editors and FA writers left after seeing how he was treated? Kinda like Malleus, the respect and reception one got from TFM was directly correlated to what one gave. I got nothing but excellent work from a truly fine and brilliant writer and gentleman. But he was just too damn smart for some people. I'm rough around the edges? Holy guacamole...that's a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From what I could see, TFM's FA writing was long behind him when I "got" to him. I've seen cases in which a user is indefinitely blocked and comes back later to edit (User:Christianrocker90, for example, was banned for two years, but had the urge to be productive and was unbanned), and TFM's e-mail is still enabled if he ever gets the itch again. I know I will never receive clemency from you because of that block, but I hope you know that I have learned from it and moved on. Eagles24/7(C)01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the fact that we don't have a FA article editor pushing out FAs on Cricket and Vietnamese history anymore. Thanks administrators, thatrators. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hounded off by RFU over administrative actions taken; the hounding appeared to have its genesis in some editors taking umbrage with YellowMonkey over content issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There were issues that needed to be discussed with YellowMonkey in a civil, polite and restrained manner. It was turned into a hatchet job to please editors who wished to destroy YellowMonkey rather than resolve the encyclopaedic problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an unlikely explanation. I expect what really happened was that he didn't work on articles from the Vital list and so had to be culled "For The Good Of The Project". His head's in a fridge somewhere waiting for the day Thich Quang Duc displaces Dalmation (no, seriously, that's how you spell it). Yomanganitalk02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: 'Only vital articles to become featured?' SG alerts us, via point 2.2 here, to this TCO backed poorly argued essay by Ettrig, which has me fuming and ready to seriously consider quitting this outrecuidant infested fiasco of a 'pedia. I knew this nonsense would gain traction when I first heard about it. It is fair and reasonable to attempt a drive to improve (someone's definition of what may be) a "vital article" such as this. It is unfair and unreasonable to punish an editor, who freely gives considerable time, by not promoting a non "vital article" that would otherwise meet the community's featured article criteria. To use the same grade-school statistical methodology as Ettrig: there are millions of editors just waiting to step up to replace the very few editors demotivated by this new incredibly easy to use selection method and the encyclopedia [sic US spelling] will benefit with thousand of high quality articles --Senra (talk)03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What? Has someone seriously proposed that only vital articles may become featured? If so, please point me to the proposal. Or is that just extrapolation from TCO's document? LadyofShalott23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure ...
... given the circumstances, but if you did pop a key off your keyboard, there's a page that explains how to repair it here — Ched : ? 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you continue to get so worked up over this place (or how this place continues to get so worked up over you).
It's not very nice to call people dishonest cunts, but I think you already knew that. It's also not very nice for people to redact others' comments, but I think they already knew that too.
I've nominated Template:Redact for deletion. I can't think of a time when it would ever really improve matters to use it.
Well, there's pretty much the equivalent of double jeopardy tied to every blocking admin, isn't there? Mr. Cunningham can't really block you again at this point, he has a history of prior interaction! So that's only... 600 or so active admins left? Perhaps it'd be easiest if they just each blocked you in quick succession. Knock out the whole pool in a matter of hours.
WTF? Wiki suicide? Please don't. You may well have nullified the efforts people are investing in you. Log off and go to bed, please. Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be. If you can't sleep, try to find an article to edit. Please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►05:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm still very pissed off about the comments you said in my RFA, but you are one of our most valuable editors in this project. The indef block was overreacting. You edit in good faith and obviously care about this project. That's more valuable than blocks for "incivility". Think about staying around and just avoid drama for a bit and go back to article writing please. I agree with 28bytes don't do Wikicide over something that isn't so serious. Secretaccount06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
First post on this page. An involved block that cites LTA which is a noticeboard not a policy. I'd unblock myself but I think I'm one unblock away from a desysop. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
No comment on driving editors away: except that people have been saying that about the project since the beginning, and will say it as long as the project continues. You can't please everyone, of course. Malleus' situation, however, is obviously an extraordinary case: call it "the 1%" ;) He's one of the most valued content contributors and simultaneously one of the most verbally loutish ones (when he wants to be); and is well aware of his influence and the civility boundaries to be tested. This latest block will be trickier all around, possibly throwing a wrinkle into the cycle that's been establishing itself. I hope it works out well. Doctalk07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Any severe bites you chuck in my direction at this time I will view in the same light as I view attempts by my eight-foot boa constrictor to defend herself from perceived predators (no great shakes, in other words). Seriously, if there's anything at all I can do to help you - even if you just want to rant - do email me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, this sucks. I was hoping to ask for your help during a FAC for South American dreadnought race in the coming days, because even though you'd probably drag up a plethora of items to fix, the article would be improved from your attention. Remember why you continue to have fun editing here, Malleus. If you can't, maybe you've made the right choice here – but if you can, take a deep breath, go for a walk, then come back and get to work. We need you. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was that the previous indefinite block was too severe and should be lifted. A new one of one week has been substituted.
The the use of certain sexist language constitutes uncivil and unacceptable behaviour.
You have a long term pattern of abuse.
There was no consensus that the admin who lifted your block was in a conflict of interest.
There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. If so, I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself. (There's plenty of them out there.) Have a merry Christmas and see you in the New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus do reconsider and when unblocked, hopefully in a short while, stay away from RfAs. It's widely known that the page is full of socially ambitious dicks and tits making complete arses of themselves. However, for reasons I do not fully understand many of our European friends find the "C" word beyond the pail and it sends many of our North American friends into orbit - even those who use similar words which apparently are not so offensive in their eyes. Now to some passing admin, please unblock Malleus and let's put this whole silly thing to bed. GiacomoReturned08:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't be amazed that while someone can be so easily blocked for a few choice insults, an administrator can get away with a slap on the wrist for long term tendentious editing—even following an RFCU. But I am. Parrotof Doom09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Fuck this shit; I'm downing tools until this cunt's resolved. Indefinitely if required. See you in a week or until Malleus is editing of their own volition again. Solidarity. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I just went to ANI to have my say, but it seems one of our North American friends has closed and archived the section. Yet again America is allowed to decide these matters while all law abiding and God fearing European folk are asleep in their beds. There was a time when I would just have unarchived and carried on, but it is obvious that Americans and their delicate sensibilities rule here. Putting the prim American bias to one side; It really is about thime that Wikipedia bought these little Admins to rule, and stopped just anyone wandering in off the street having a quick RFA, supported by chums made elsewhere, and them turning them loose and untrained with a block button. It encourages the worst behaviour from the power crazed who are too young or stupid to have power in real life. Malleus got cross - people do; get over it and get a life. If people are so shocked by hearing a few expletives that they want to impose the death penalty on a highly valued editor, then Wikipedia has greater problems than even I thought it did. Now, will some sensible person unblock him, ask him not to use the 'C word' and lets have some dialogue and get on. GiacomoReturned10:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What consensus for a one week block? I see two votes for that and multiple unblock votes. Hawkeye, are you daft? Malleus you have my support all the way. And Giacomo, I'm one of those bloody Yanks, except I don't have a cunt.PumpkinSkytalk11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Damm. I must have doe my sums wrong. I thought you were all in bed for another hour or so. Some of my best friends are American - I think it depends which part you come from and I'm sure that you are delightful. However, cultural differences and tolerances have to be accepted here not imposed on everyone. GiacomoReturned11:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this is a problem with Americans. I see no sign that the editor who was originally very offended by Malleus's use of the word cunt is American. However, I'll admit I don't see the consensus to reblock mentioned above. Maybe I don't understand what consensus means. Could someone perhaps enlighten me? OohBunnies!Leave a message :)11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also European, and female. A nudge off into laughter instead seemed to have already put the snark back into its box. A hefty block being applied hours after the end of the situation is probably really not the best way forward - though obviously I can see much room for improvement. Just not sure of the best way to get the improvement - equally sure that a punitive block was not it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Only "certain" sexist language is unacceptable? How do we decide which is the good kind?
I also want Malleus to be unblocked. I really appreciate his way of stating things directly. I don't like hypocrisy - a bad quality which Malleus does not have. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: how about we all take a week off from this Malleo-drama?
So Malleus is blocked for a week. Just accept it. Good or bad, block, doesn't matter: the project will survive a week without him.
Some passing admin, please remove Malleus' talk page write access for the duration of the block: good or bad, doesn't matter: again, the project will survive a week without him dropping F-bombs or otherwise.
Enjoy Christmas without Wikipedia, Malleus. The project will survive a week without you. It's for your own good. And many [who?] would say what is for your own good is also for the good of the project
The alternative: it would appear to be Suicide by admin. Would the project be better without Malleus? See the above.
OohB, I agree that it wouldn't be fair to shut this brilliant, generous and occasionally potty-mouthed plain-speaking editor up for a week. But we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get into arguments, like those between the pro-Malleus and anti-Malleus factions. And it's obvious what faction I would be part of. But despite that, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. So that's why I suggested it. Please do disagree. These are things we both think that do matter.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think he deserves it for his smug attitude - this annoyed me: "So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" Hohenloh + 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So now editors are to be blocked for their opinions. What a state this Wikipedia has got into when ignorant cunts can become admins and block those who disagree with them. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I know I have a "kinda-reputation" for being "civility police". So be it, if it has to be. But it's not the opinions that are blockable, per se, it's the way we express those opinions. There's no clear borderline between civil and uncivil - it's all shades of grey. And I know darned well (because I know Malleus is not lacking in smarts) that Malleus knows when he's gone down the dark-grey end of that area. Again, I find myself wishing for the magic wand of niceness to wave about! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is though, that everyone has a different idea of what is and what is not uncivil. Everyone interprets the civility policy in a different way, and then everyone stands around acting baffled and belligerent when everything goes up in smoke like it did here. Everyone is different, so expecting every single person to conform to every other person's differing view on civility is, at best, a bit absurd. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is absolutely true. Mulling over this, today, I've added a bit to my essay. We are not gods; we are not omniscient; we are not infallible. None of us. And, short of an editor saying "I'm this kind of animal, deal with me this-a-way for improvement in what you perceive to be my problem areas", it's always going to be a trial-and-error thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, I am not American, nor did I ask for or expect this user to be blocked; I asked for him to reword his comment and for other people not to imitate him - which I see some are unable to restrain themselves from doing. The word is as objectionable in the UK as it is in the USA, and the fact that a small minority find it acceptable does not make it so. Deb (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, the word is considered a far graver insult in the US, and there it is reserved almost exclusively for women. Not that it's terribly important. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Put it this way, if you used it in the street, you could be prosecuted. In the UK it is also reserved for women, and that is the reason for my objection to it. Swearing I can tolerate (though within wikipedia, only in cases of extreme provocation), but sexist abuse needs to be discouraged, in the same way as racial slurs. Deb (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In the UK "cunt" is definitely not reserved for women, in fact I don't believe I've ever heard anyone aim it at a woman. Linking it to sexism is pathetic. Parrotof Doom19:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You are both mistaken. I can see how you are thinking here - it's okay as long as you are not using the term to abuse a woman (and yes, I have been on the receiving end). That's like saying that the term "nigger" is okay as long as you are not using it to abuse a black person. Sure, you can get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. Deb (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
They are certainly not both mistaken. You are. In the UK, "cunt" is categorically not a sexist insult. It isn't used about women and I've never heard it used towards a woman. BigDom19:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You know what actually is sexual harassment, and would get you fired at every corporate out there? this edit summary. Don't worry though - sexual harassment is a problem for thee, not for mee! Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It's probably my least favourite of all cusswords - but, as with all else, it really boils down to the way in which they are used, not to the words themselves. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
We all have different experiences and backgrounds, and we ought to welcome that, not to try and impose a Bible-belt idea of what constitutes civility on each other. I vividly recall being rather shocked as a child hearing my grandfather use the word "bugger", and to this day I find that to be the most offensive of the forbidden words. MalleusFatuorum22:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Deb, I'm dropping a [citation needed] on your entire argument. I've called plenty of people cunts, usually to their face, and at least once on an American street. So what, exactly, could I be prosecuted for? And while I've never lived in the UK myself, I've spoken to many who have/do and they've all agreed that cunt isn't as offensive there as it is here in the US. Of course, this is all anecdotal and completely worthless information, thus the fact tag. And to call it "sexist abuse" is beyond absurd. I've called Mal "a dick of porn star proportions" before. He could call me a cunt of porn star proportions if he liked. It's only more offensive in the visualization. "Proportion" isn't necessarily a good word to pair with "cunt" in this context, if you get what I'm saying. Anyway, fallacies aside, what does it matter? Is it somehow oppressing women for the c-bomb to be dropped? I just don't buy most feminist arguments. Lara21:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I may have called you a "witch" in the past as well ... not sure ... might have been someone else. The truth though is that, as others have said, "cunt" is a word I've never heard applied to females here, so sexist it is not. MalleusFatuorum21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe that someone actually tells UK editors that they are wrong about UK matters!
I am over 45 years old and have lived in the UK all my life, 20 years in Manchester and 20 in the East of England.
In the UK, "you daft cunt" is often used as a term of endearment, admonishing someone for their stupidity whilst still keeping it friendly. "you daft twat" is less friendly; "you fking cunt" would be unfriendly. "What a cunt" can mean a person, an object, or an event (similar to "that was bad luck")
"cunt" is DEFINITELY NOT a sexist term in the UK - I have only ever used it once in my whole life to refer to a woman. In the US it is most probably sexist.
I am appalled by the attitude of many admins that over-react to blocking people, and now those blocks are used to count towards "he has been blocked X times in the past year(s)"? Sort it out guys. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"If you're turning part of a woman's body into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a woman's body part negatively—and it is thusly misogynistic, because it inexorably insults women in the process. Specifically using a misogynistic slur against a man can't be anything but intentionally misogynistic. If you don't intend to demean women, then don't use misogynistic slurs." Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
As said before - it's definitely not my favourite word. But if we're giving anything more than lip-service to sexual equality, where's the big difference between calling someone a cunt, or a dick, or a prick, or a tool ... where? I don't like the word - but there's sound logic in the argument that if it's OK to call someone a dick without being seen as anti-male sexist, then it should be equally OK to call someone a cunt without being labelled misogynist. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am genuinely unsure if Kaldari genuinely believes all that guff, but it does worry me that people continue with this modern form of sexism. The sexism thing is a growing issue largely because of the more radical elements of feminism. As one of my (female) friends likes to say; "they're all cunts, and the sooner they go away the sooner my boss will see me as a person instead of working out whether he can ask me to do the photocopying without it being harrassment". --Errant(chat!)22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's rich. I disagree with you in an AfD (2 months ago), and that means I have a vendetta against you? I've heard some paranoid stuff on Wikipedia before, but that's really out there. Especially as the AfD was decided in my favor. Apparently you're the only person who hasn't let go of that particular argument. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kaldari, I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to express just how much of a shit I don't give about some feminist's blog. When I drop a fact tag, even in user talk space, it's a request for legitimate support for the tagged argument. And, not surprisingly, your source supports my whole "be fair" plea regarding calling people dicks. So, not all was lost I suppose. I should clarify, though, that I disagree with the feminist too. I don't believe calling people dicks or cunts "inexorably insults" anyone. I happen to think both are quite lovely in their own way. Best when together, if we're being honest, but I digress. Sort of like calling someone a douchebag. It's not insulting douchebags. Many men would quite like to be an actual douchebag, as it would be their only opportunities to get near a vagina, much less up in one! Regardless, words only hurt if you let them. There was some childhood rhyme about this. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." How many childhood residents of Denial chanted that shit on the playground? o/ FURTHER DIGRESSED, I apologize. I'm still waiting on a source for the above claims. All of them, but particularly the UK sensitivity claims. I call bullshit big time on that one. Lara22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember that our Prince Charles once sent a text message to his current wife to the effect that he wished he could be one of her tampons. (Is "tampon" what they're called in the US?) MalleusFatuorum22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This evening at 7:00, I hereby renounce my claim to the throne of England so that I may be free to live as a tampon in the trousers of the woman I love.
Here is your citation: Quote: “the word deemed the most offensive word in the English language”. Evidently I am not as odd as you would like to think.
Kaldari has explained clearly why and how “c...” is a sexist insult. One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness, which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it.
To suggest that a phrase like “you daft c...” could be used endearingly is astonishing to me. I don’t know anyone who would use a phrase like that without expecting to give offence (and I work in manufacturing industry where swearing is commonplace and a lot of people can’t say a single sentence without using the “F...” word several times). Possibly this is a case of regional parochialism: maybe in Manchester it is considered acceptable to use abusive terms in an “endearing” way. Those who are accusing me of cultural bias need to take a long hard look at their own.
The UK law has not changed, though the application of it may have done. There are individual cases where the use of bad language has not been considered to fall within the spirit of the Public Order Act – that doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted for it.
The only thing about this that really concerns me is the number of contributors who appear to be piling into this discussion as an excuse to use terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment. It’s a case of double standards in operation, from precisely the people who are accusing others of hypocrisy, and that’s sad. Deb (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
What worries me is your complete lack of understanding that other people's view on the word in question differs from your own. We do not get a thrill out of saying it, we are not using this as just an excuse to say it. I personally have no problem with it and have used it in the workplace and heard it in the workplace, countless times. You have a complete inability to recognise that your opinion of the C-word as highly offensive and sexist is exactly that, your opinion. It is an opinion I do not really share, although I do live in Scotland where young men regularly replace "guy" with "c***", as in "See that c*** over there?" and it's not meant to be offensive, just vulgar slang. Cultural differences, y'know. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment; really? Well I was called a cunt by one of my students a few weeks ago - which led to a pretty interesting class discussion about the term, including me using it. It gets used in the office too, i.e. my work environment. So... :) One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness; what about dick? Really there are only two differences between use of the two terms - one is the insidious sexism that because it's a male term it doesn't matter as much (some of the more alert feminists are actually now realising this). Secondly because historically womenwere disparaged, so it is easy to see the term as sexist. Really it's just a word - and a large part of the problem related to it is because of individuals leaping on those who use it without malice (toward women), accusing them of insidious sexism and failing to understand that they simply persist the problem. which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it. oh get of your fucking high horse. One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts. And they give even less crap about most of the radical feminist ideas. --Errant(chat!)15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We are probably gradually going the way of the French, whose primary school teachers often tell their charges to stop playing the cunt (faire le con - or is it la) etc. I not sure Malleus is not slightly ahead of his time though, in this as in other things. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Errant, nice wording. "One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts." This hits the point home too! As a woman and feminist, the word does not offend me in any way. If someone calls me a cunt as a genuine insult I'd be no more offended than if they used "bitch" or "asshole". There's even a feminist movement to reclaim the word, much like gay people reclaiming "queer" and using it as something to be proud of. (That's on the Wikipedia page about cunt). OohBunnies!Leave a message :)15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Arbcom Case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Also, as stated on the case statement I'm willing to unblock you for purposes of editing the RFAR pages only unless clear consensus arises to make a general unblock. Alexandria(chew out)14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I second Alexandria's offer to unblock in order to participate at AC. I will also keep an eye open for any statements you'd wish to make here on your talk page, and am willing to copy anything you wish to that case/case request area. — Ched : ? 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) now moot. — Ched : ? 15:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Malleus, I won't be making a statemnent on your behalf in any Arb Case because I feel such cases are always a circus and I am not a performing circus animal. If one looks at almost all cases, it's always the same mouthy, banal people with an opinion on everything and everybody making statements and opining about on matters of which they have little or no knowledge. There are probably only about a dozen people in the whole project whoever take part in these trials-by-volume. I expect our new Arbs, who by and large appear to be pretty unprepossessing crew, will be keen to be seen dong what they claimed in their campaigns - so it looks like you could well be hung out to dry. I'm just very disparaged because I thought things were changing for the better - it appears I was wrong. I have a feeling we are heading back to the Fred Bauderesque type arbcom and Wikipedia of the past. It can only be a mater of time before we are all once again tried by IRC as hapened so often in that dispicable era. Too sad. GiacomoReturned16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
while I don't necessarily agree with Giano, I won't be opining on the ArbCom case either. I think the whole idea of blocking for civility is just insane - we do something uncivil to stop incivility?? Wow, how... bright. Ealdgyth - Talk16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I quite understand. But I think Giano is right in any case, that it doesn't much matter what anyone says (at least in public), as the outcome of this episode is very predictable. MalleusFatuorum18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope the arbitrators take your case, so they'll clear up this whole WP:CIVIL stuff, for future situations. IMHO, the indef-block was OTT, as those should be applied for 'only' threatening editors, vandals & sock masters. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The very clear purpose of indefinite blocks is to humiliate editors by forcing them to recant whatever it is that the blocking administrator has taken exception to. To understand the way that Wikipedia works you have to think of it as a poorly run primary school, where the teachers are even younger than the pupils. MalleusFatuorum18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been away and haven't been following this but I understand an editor has been blocked because he voices his opinions in a way that offends some other editors? I'm incredulous. I can hear the grinding of axes and rattling of sabres from the usual suspects out to settle old scores. Funny you never do that. BTW I have heard far worse language in a primary school, from the head and a five year old. It truly is the pantomine season, or is it high farce? Not wikipedia's finest moment.... by a long way.J3Mrs (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Is to write an encyclopedia. All the extra bits (such as "anyone can edit", etc.) are side-projects. I think at this point a large chunk of the administrators seem to have forgotten the whole point of the project - they are more interested in game playing than actually writing articles or actually helping those who write articles.
Here's a hint to those administrators coming here to opine about civility and stuff - take a look at your contributions. Have you helped resolve a content dispute lately - without using the block button first? Or have you written/worked on articles? Just repeatedly removing juvenile vandalism is not "content work". Get down in the trenches. Deal with POV pushers. Mediate a dispute. THEN maybe those of us down in the trenches might not treat the whole of the admin corps with disrespect - because some of you would have earned some respect. Ealdgyth - Talk15:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Good and valid points to be sure Ealdgyth; however, I'd also suggest that while there are certainly unsuited and incompetent individuals in all walks of life - there also good honest and deserving people in those positions as well. There are actually some competent admins about - they just don't make the radar like squeaky wheels do. just IMHO. — Ched : ? 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I know there are... but it seems like more and more of them are disappearing. Look at John leaving - and Deacon left a while ago. Admin's willing to wade into content disputes and help out are getting fewer and fewer - instead we have admin's who prefer to block because someone used a bad word rather than take the time to actually figure out why someone might have used a bad word. As a note, I'm not likely to be blocked in that manner - I'm not generally the type to fly off the handle too badly - but if we're going to be a project that seems to want to reach out to many differing cultures - we need to recognize that those culture's have differing ideas of what's acceptable in public discourse. And Malleus' point about how using "cunt" isn't acceptable but "dick" is acceptable - THAT is a valid and noteworthy point. Why is using slang for male genitals perfectly fine to fling around at others, but using slang for female genitals (which in parts of the world isn't that uncommon) wrong? Why do some admins insist on blocking (and thus treating the blockee like a toddler) as their first choice? Why is it so hard for them to recognize how insulting that is? Ealdgyth - Talk16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been resisting the urge to comment on what's been going on with MF, because doing so might take me over my tolerance of stress (which for personal reasons that I won't explain is very limited), and I'm busy working on content; but, I have a voice, and I want to use it here. I agree with Ealdgyth, and the numerous other supporting voices. Frankly, I think this whole business is childish bollocks. MF normally calls a spade a spade, obviously a good thing. On this occasion he "called a cunt a cunt": I agree with the assessments already expressed that, for some, it may have been going too far, but on the whole it was reasonable (accommodation of usage, non-personal, etc.). The whole business seems like a village witch-hunt to me, with the exception that MF doesn't end by saying "it's a fair cop". And why should he? What can we expect if people relentlessy take what I believe to be shallow, self-important umbrage at the way he expresses himself, which is always to the point? I for one wouldn't blame him if he never came near the place again; but I'd rather he did. And I could go on etc. etc.... Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons above (among others) I really don't see the problem with the language used. Frankly I don't see a problem with the context either.
It is an undeniable fact that many admins, to varying degrees and with varying frequencies, seek latitude to do things with the tools that are in line with what they want to do. One example being the series of events that led to BLPPROD. Another being admins that threaten or actually block users with whom they are unquestionably WP:INVOLVED. Malleus has been blocked for having the temerity to point out in no uncertain terms that there are a large number of admins like this. He also inferred in the same discussion that there are a lot of admins that mean well but lack competence, and so end up coming across as being in the same boat, and indeed that there are a lot of very good admins.
I don't have a lot of time for Malleus as a person, and couldn't care less if the feeling were mutual. But he writes more than the vast majority, and he says things as he sees them. If that's blockable we may as well shut down our featured processes, because you'll find relatively few editors there that aren't in that mould. —WFC— 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So, we block editors for foul language now? This has really gone too far. Malleus is a productive and capable editor and he's being blocked because someone was offended at something she read on the internet? Horseshit. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah Malleus, he fucking knows this stuff is going to happen and there's no question he fucking likes it, in some way. As an editor who sometimes is uncivil, trust me, you know when you are crossing the line and you know the possibilities it raises. Malleus is much more highly skilled at it all than me, and is highly willing to be blocked when he lets off steam about all the fuckwittery that goes on. This is the demented social network site that we call Wikipedia. Time for Malleus to fucking roast for a bit, because that's what he ordered off the menu. Malleus is a highly valued contributor to the part of Wikipedia we call the "encyclopedia" or the "project", but Wikipedia is no different than the real world in its social interactions. All the best.--Milowent • hasspoken18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant to see that nothing has changed in the past two years and change. There's still incompetent dumbasses running around making shitty blocks of editors who actually work on the project. Fabricating "consensus" because their lives are so pathetic, the only bit of excitement they can get is from fluffing up their delicate sensibilities over something someone said about no one in particular on an online encyclopedia. And this from an American girl (born with a cunt, and it's in fine condition to this day). Also, cunt is no more "sexist" than dick, so for anyone deciding to cry that argument, be fair about it. And try to form a logical argument for the position, too. Just because a word's scientific term represents male or female genitalia does not make it's use in other contexts sexual or sexist. That's silly. Anyway, as I was saying, so glad to see the "community" still cares more about drama than knowledge. Looks like it's continuing to work out well. Lara20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
new section
I think I've always been fairly straight with you: I really do think Wikipedia would be better off if dishonest cunt, dick of pornstar proportions, you're a moron (but not "that's a moronic thing to say") were clearly unacceptable, and I don't think the expectations should be different for a 10 edit or 100,000 edit editor. But clearly that day is not today; you got a raw deal.
It's a IAR kind of day -- commenting on contributor: I had been planning to revisit today to answer your question "who gives a shit." I think you do. You call Jimbo a California dreamer but I think you're the worst kind of idealist, a Manchester dreamer who hides behind a facade of cynicism -- you actually think this Lord of the Flies encyclopedia might work, and have been working your tail off to make it happen. I was surprised when I returned to Wikiland and saw the mess. I'm sorry this blew up -- I really appreciated your buy in, if grudgingly, to the redaction, and thought it would be sufficient: sorry I wasted both our time for all the good it did.
Ironic that you were one of the few to actually partake in WT:Civility discussions, well, civilly; don't recall many of the folks who have stuff to say about you now contributing there.
Wish I could be surprised at the turn of events, but I'm old enough real life that I'm just way beyond that -- I really am a cynic, I guess. I've pretty much never seen a culture without the type of double standards that you appear to have a major problem with here.
You've both contributed a heck of a lot and stirred things up quite a bit. Regardless of the outcome, you have my respect and I wish you well real life. My only advice is: edit if you it makes you happy, and if doesn't, don't. You don't own Wikipedia anything, its only worth doing if its fun. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would wish you a Merry Christmas, Malleus. Take this time off to enjoy the season, the outdoors(if possible, its snowing here) and spend some time with the family. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ds and Cs
MF, do you really equate the way dick is used on Wikipedia, to how you used the word cunt in the way you labelled an unspecific number of admins as dishonest? Seriously? I'm having a hard time believing you of all people do, and am wondering if all this wasn't just one giant rick-roll to get you some enforced wikibreak time for the festive period. I'm a working class Brit now in his forties, and I struggle to think of more offensive word you could have used in that context, given you don't have anything more specific to go on (e.g. you don't know for certain that they are all of a particular sexuality/skin colour/religion). Who knows though, maybe there really is a black gay muslim clique of prissy American 17 year olds out to get you. That's a scary thought indeed. Hope you enjoy your crimbo week off anyway, whatever happens down the line. The Automatic Editor (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Look at you lot wetting your pants with excitement. Of course it's not my first ever edit. I've had many accounts. If you checkuser this account, you'll see some of them were used in the past to try to engage with Malleus about incidents just like this, in order to better understand and hopefully change his behaviour, for the benefit of all. The goal was to avoid an arbitration case just like this, where he gets banned for a year or more, which he surely will. My efforts were cut short though by your collective obsessive ideas about what is and is not a dishonest use of a sock, and Malleus it seems carried on as before. All in the name of "protecting" him. So you've done well on that score I see. Muppets. You surely don't expect me to respect your interpretations of things like WP:SOCK, when you make such a spectacular balls up of other basic admin tasks, like calming the wiki-waters and talking editors like Malleus down from their bell towers. The Automatic Editor (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to find it but a month or so back an editor just like this tried to be "helpful", but refused to reveal his identity. That user was blocked. I imagine it's the same person. Parrotof Doom22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I tend to agree that "cunt" is much stronger than "dick", it should be noted that one of the best-paid working class Brits is up before the beak (and most likely the FA) not for use of the word "cunt" or for that of "fucking" but for an entirely different word altogether. This sort of "industrial" language may not be very nice, but it's common enough not to need the ten million posts so far generated.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, dear heart, you don't need to be blocked in order not to edit :P Go and enjoy Christmas, get drunk as a skunk if that's what floats your boat, decide not to turn your computer on, or whatever. But have a good Christmas, whatever. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
But there's the ever-present danger that I might forget I'm technically blocked and, you know, actually mistakenly try to fix something. Best not to take the risk. MalleusFatuorum23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus should not have been blocked. It is improper for him to have to ask to be unblocked. (See above, where he regards it as part of a "humiliation" ritual in which he does not condescend to participate.)
I believe that his statement was sarcastic, and you would do the administrator corps and Wikipedia a favor by unblocking, without asking for MF to request it.
Malleus and Giacomo seem to think wiki powers that be and members of cabals are totally corrupted and untrustworthy; and I agree. PumpkinSkytalk00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
All editors are people, including Malleus and Giano, and so come with all the potential human failings that this fact implies.
I am normally sympathetic to Malleus' position, working hard to improve content in a context that values conformity more than excellence. However, in this case, I am not. Malleus knew what he was doing, and deliberately caused drama, admitting here that he was making a point. It is not a very original one: Derek and Clive were there over 30 years ago, and this has been like revisiting an old sketch. The (anti-)feminism arguments associated with so-called "rude" words, and the sticks and stones argument that taking offence is the responsibility of the listener may make for interesting discussion, but they all miss the main point: everyone is responsible for their comments, the effects they intend those comments to have, and the words they choose, "rude" or otherwise, to achieve that effect.
Malleus chose his words to achieve the effect he wanted, eventually making a particularly hostile comment about an individual editor (You are so much a fucking cunt Spitfire), perhaps with the intention of burning all bridges (see the edit summary). It doesn't require familiarity with UK culture, or indeed the work of Derek and Clive, to appreciate that this phrase is not a term of affection. He has subsequently stated he did not call anyone a cunt. Someone so critical of dishonesty on Wikipedia could well be reminded of a phrase he often uses: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Season of goodwill this may be, but not a good time to be a goose or a gander. Geometry guy01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that "fucking cunt" meant "fucking simpleton". Further, I believe that Malleus intended "I did not call anybody a vagina" when he stated that "I did not call anybody a cunt". Kiefer.Wolfowitz03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you MF's lawyer now, Kiefer? "What my client meant to say was not 'oh I forgot about that', but 'I meant something completely different from what I said'". You can easily bypass the whole c-word nonsense and imagine substituting "wanker" or "arsehole" in Malleus' insult to see the effect aimed at the "witless" Spitfire. I may sometimes suppose, but I do not presume. Geometry guy09:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think t'wiki is a not-far-off-accurate slightly-distorting mirror of Real Life. There will always be, in any large community, some who are corrupt, some who are untrustworthy, some who push boundaries (and some who push them too far), some who knuckle under, some who stand and fight (whether right or wrong). There will always be the enlightened, the banal, the idiotic, the stubborn, the power-hungry ... and one can either think "Power corrupts!" or "Power attracts the corruptible!" or both. BUT - and this in an important "but" - there will also always be good souls, peacemakers, people who quietly keep a low profile, and the whole shebang of "types" that there are IRL. One of the things which causes the biggest problems, in any community, is undefined and nebulous rules. Consider, for example, the idiocy of having a law which states that "partial nudity" is a no-no somewhere. What do they mean by that, precisely? Do they mean everyone has to be covered from topmost hair to toe-tips, masked, gloved, hatted and cloaked? Is it OK not to wear gloves? Or do they mean topless, bottomless ... what the heck do they mean? This is exactly the problem that we have with WP:CIVIL. Nobody really knows, and everyone interprets it differently. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My final request
I've been carrying a grudge against User:Gwen Gale since she blocked me, two or three years ago probably, because I deployed the word "sycophantic" in a discussion of administrator wannabees. But it's really time up on that now, as I think User:Balloonman said elsewhere. Obviously I can't reply to that now, so if anyone cares to maybe they'd like to spread a little bit of Christmas cheer. For the rest, I'm signing off now, and joining in solidarity with User:Fifelfoo. MalleusFatuorum02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"Darn"? ... please let's watch that language there PumpkinSky .. you are getting dangerously close to a wp:civ block. — Ched : ? 03:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been very disappointed in Gwen Gale for years now. I defended her against ArbCom trolling. It seems her reaction to serious abuse at the hands of Wikipedia's elite has been to embrace its values and to ape its practices, in the hope of becoming one of them. (Hi Lara!)67.168.135.107 (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Makes me wonder how many great Wikipedians have been driven off by Malleus. Food for thought. (For those who aren't paying attention. I am not implying that Malleus is one of the mindless hoards (hoarders? hoard members?)) — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think anyone - at least no one productive. I clashed with Malleus some time ago, but he was still happy to copyedit some of my work when I coerced him to do so. Having now watched him a bit (oo err) he is consistently helpful to newbies and experienced editors alike when they ask for assistance - even to the extent of helping out editors who have struggled unfairly against the arcane and rather superior processes we have :) He just doesn't mince his words with people, in his view, acting like idiots. *shrug* However if you have evidence to the contrary? --Errant(chat!)16:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus!
How long it has been. :) I want to thank you. I left Wikipedia and I got married to the most wonderful and beautiful woman on earth. And then I sold a novel that became a bestseller. All thanks to you. Thank you, Malleus, and I'm so chuffed to see you still around on Wikipedia so much. Making quality edits still, as ever. Merry Christmas, good buddy. ScarianCall me Pat!09:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks.
I don't think there's ever going to to be a general solution to this problem, but I do like the suggestion made by Ruhrfisch on Shackleton's talk page. MalleusFatuorum00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am so tired of all these charges of incivility against all and sundry, as if that trumps everything. So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. MalleusFatuorum23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded to the banner ad to take part in a survey organised by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and just made $21.60, far more rewarding than another fucking barn star! MalleusFatuorum00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Same here, first time I've been paid for doing anything via WP. Though, I made $21.00, and gave half to the Red Cross - does that make me a wikisaint? Or is it all a wikicon? Nortonius (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
$15 - it randomly chose my lowest earning section, unless it was assessing the relative contributions Malleus and I make to the 'pedia (then tripling mine so I felt better). Hardly seemed worth keeping... I would have ignored that ad, Malleus, but for seeing this on my watchlist, so thanks for highlighting it. BencherliteTalk00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so I'm going to block you until you pay me your winnings. Stick 'em up, this is a robbery! Hah! Now we're talking admin abuse! BencherliteTalk00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So true, I'd actually closed that banner without a second thought until I saw money mentioned...I agree you have earned a reward. Have a hug. It's more valuable anyway. *cough* OohBunnies!Leave a message :)01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh. $15, and I was not nice and didn't donate any, mainly because I don't like the International Red Cross (I do donate to local chapters, just not big multinational organizations that aren't very accountable) and I donate quite enough to Wikipedia, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
edito conflicto I am, yes. Why are hugs from blokes scary? You get to do that man thing where you gruffly hit each other in the back in an affectionate way. At least I assume that's affection. Hmm. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
$29.60, nice. I was very generous/altruistic on one test & got $1 when B got $29, but made it up by being super-mean on another. Yes, more of these please. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I suppressed my banner-suppression preference too late, too late! The quota for the sample had already been met. But thanks for the heads up! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My $28.00 (country unspecified in the original promise) arrived in my PayPal account today as 20 Euros 44, which then became $US 25.44. So, did they follow through on their commitment, or have I been short-changed? Enquiring minds are enquiring. Bielle (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Question
Returning to the top of the thread leads me to wonder: so how much is a barnstar worth? Suppose you have received a really nice barnstar, with kind words about your contributions and your general positive effect on Wikipedia. How much cash would you accept for it to be deleted, oversighted, gone without trace, so that it remains only a lingering memory?
My take on it: I would readily pay a small monthly amount for the privilege of editing an otherwise identical version of Wikipedia with no 'barnstars' and no 'talkback' templates. HansAdler02:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My house is like a building site ... actually it is pretty much a building site right now. But to echo Hans, I'd be prepared to pay for a site that wasn't run by children with an inflated sense of their own importance and a surreal idea of incivility. MalleusFatuorum03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My opinion on the value of barn stars is coloured by having one given and taken away within a few weeks, after having upset a (now) administrator. I generally ignore them, so the answer to your question is that I'd be quite content for them to be deleted without any payment whatsoever. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Me too, as you can see by the way I do not collect or maintain any record of my "achievements" or "awards" (I don't even have a user page). Nevertheless, I've received barnstars containing appreciative words from editors I admire (the above admin would not fall into such a category, obviously). How much is that worth in cash? I'm not sure, which is one reason I am asking the question. Geometry guy00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting question, with potentially revealing answers. For myself, I'm much happier with a few words of thanks rather than a barn star; those words can't be taken away no matter what happens next. Basically I have no time at all for any rewards that can subsequently be withdrawn (I'm reminded of the shameful rule that VCs could be taken back if the recipient later did something unsavoury), which is why I have a minimal set of user rights here, not even rollback. MalleusFatuorum00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I also value the words much more than any barnstar containing them (if there is one). It is interesting that you bring up user rights. I don't regards them as rewards, but as tools that help me to contribute when I need them. If someone were to take them away without good reason, then it would reflect badly on them, not on me, as they would be impairing my ability to help. Geometry guy00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can't see why you don't have rollback, Malleus. That is, unless you don't want it for some reason. Any admin can just give it to you, and there's no need to go through the "requests for permission" gauntlet. It's very useful when, say, a little puke makes a bunch of bad edits quickly in a row on an article you've worked on (when others happen to be asleep at the switch). One click instead of a shitload of "undos". No rewards except for less time wasted. Doctalk00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
And any admin can just take it away again, out of malevolence or spite. I find that with Twinkle I just don't need rollback anyway; in fact I used to have it until I asked for it to be removed as a matter of principle. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Taken to its extreme that principle implies dropping all tools that anyone can take away, including all tools available to autoconfirmed users, the ability to edit as a user and have a user talk page, and even the ability to edit at all. Geometry guy00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It does, but bear in mind I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I don't fit in here, and it's only a matter of time before I'm expelled for good, most recently here. I believe in the idea of knowledge being freely available, which is the only reason I'm still here, but I'm vehemently opposed to Wikipedia's social engineering experiment, and always will be. Particularly as it's largely policed by children. My survival strategy, such as it is, is that nobody can threaten to take away what I don't have. MalleusFatuorum01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting diff - you can sometimes take things a bit too personally, Malleus, or take the views of one random editor (or misguided admin) as The View of Wikipedia. There are pretty much as many opinions as to what amounts to "civility" as there are editors, which means that none of us truly fit in. Given this, you may be as concerned as I am that the WMF is currently planning to include the concept of "civility" in a legal document on terms of use. If policing this asylum by children is a problem, then the way it is overseen is erm...I'm lost for words. Geometry guy02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding ... civility in the TOS? They should rename it to POS. Btw Malleus, thanks much for your help with Uxbridge ... Milhist has one other old and graying British-themed FAC, Warkworth Castle. I've just finished my second run through, and I wound up with just two questions. It should be in pretty good shape if you want to give it a once-over. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel a bit bad about Uxbridge in a way, coming in late with a bunch of stuff, but I don't look at FAC all that often these days. Or GAN come to that. MalleusFatuorum03:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Once I built an encyclopaedia, made 2% of articles on which you could rely, once I compiled a cyclopaedia, brother can you spare a social science participant payment? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect that our comparator organisation is British Rail: inheritor of run down pseudo-monopolies, underfunded and under-resourced despite expansion plans... Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
When people ask why experts get driven off Wikipedia...
Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey could be a perfect example. I'm STILL fighting this outdated and disproven theory ... and periodically I STILL have to deal with people pushing it. No modern historian OR competent genealogist subscribes to the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror - but some folks WANT it to be true so they insist that there IS a controversy (there isn't) so that it MUST be given due weight in the freaking article. Once more I had to AGAIN dig though books and try to demolish some idiotic reprinting of a theory long since disproven in historical thought. If I tried to say that Gundred was William OR Matilda's daughter in any historical scholarly work based on the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne - I'd be laughed out of the profession - but some folks think Wikipedia requires our articles to respect that society as much as serious historians. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a victim of the "verifiable untruth" brigade, to me ;P Clarifying: that's those who interpret "Verifiabilty, not truth" to mean "Who cares if it's not true - I can show you where it was published!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
No, in this case I think it's a case of amateur genealogists - they really WANT Gundred to be the daughter of someone more important than her father - who is an untraceable Fleming. If she's the daughter of William or Matilda - this elevates their ancestry more .. much more fun to have yet another line to William or Matilda than to have a boring no-name in your tree. This is a common problem in medieval history - and it started in the middle ages, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
One of my ancestors (great great great grandmother I think) was convinced she was directly related to the royal family. They locked her in the mad house, but could be she was right.... right? :) --Errant(chat!)13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Any lurkers willing to help me with a couple of minor 16th century related queries raised by a GA1 reviewer please? Specifically, my answers to "William Wolsey & Robert Pygot" (my new counter-reformation prose) and "John Alcock" (d. 1500 disagrees with bishopric ended 1501 according to Pevsner). Thank you in advance --Senra (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The only person you can rely on is yourself. There's been some discussion elsewhere on the meaning of truth vs. reliability where Wikipedia policy is concerned, with the implication that reliability of the source always trumps truth. But of course ultimately it can't, as in this example. It's not uncommon, at least in my experience, to find reliable sources disagreeing about some detail or other, and it's our job to find a way through that conundrum by considering exactly how reliable each of the sources is likely to be for what they're claiming. But of course that's just my view, I speak with no authority here. MalleusFatuorum23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I tend to take a rather Zen view of writing, believing that every word needs to earn its keep. For instance, imagine you had to pay a cent for every word; would you really be prepared to spend three cents on "in order to" as opposed to just one cent on "to"? MalleusFatuorum19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having a look at Reculver. It's good to have a (trustworthy!) pair of fresh eyes look over stuff, and I thought all of your changes were spot on. I've done quite a bit since you last looked, adding sections on e.g. Politics and Education, plus numerous tweaks of formatting, layout and so-on. I think I've pretty much scraped the barrel dry for now (or my brain's telling me I have, anyway), so, hostages to fortune aside, I think the article's probably going to be fairly stable from here on (eek!) - should you feel inclined to comb through the article again...! Cheeky? Moi?! No problem if not. Any tips for a GA newbie? And, if there's anything I can do in return...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you've done a pretty good job with what seems effectively to be an abandoned village, but I do have a few questions for you:
Lead
"Reculver is a village and coastal resort about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay in southeast England. It is a ward of the City of Canterbury district in the county of Kent." It's obviously also a parish, as all the demographic data relate to the parish of Reculver. Are the village and the parish coterminus? Presumably not. Is it the village or the parish that's a ward of the City of Canterbury? Presumably the parish, as the village's population doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a ward. In fact even the parish's population seems very low for a ward.
The village is in a ward called just "Reculver" - but, now that I look: the ward includes Hillborough, Beltinge and a big chunk of eastern Herne Bay; the civil parish was absorbed into Herne Bay CP in 1934; and the (current) ecclesiastical parish includes Hillborough and Beltinge. Some re-writing to be done there then, and under "Governance"… About the population, the earliest censuses detailed parishes, but the Reculver "census area" for 2001, in which only 135 people were found, looks to include only Reculver, plus scattered farms etc. between it, the A299 and Hillborough (which is the next settlement to the west - there isn't one to the east, within the census area). Obviously I wasn't paying attention - I can tweak that under "Demography", but I'm not sure how to do that in the lead, without it being too wordy - maybe there's no need, if I fix "Demography"? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
"The census of 2001 recorded 135 people in the Reculver area, nearly a quarter of whom were in caravans." That looked rather strange to me when I first read it, and it still does. Were these 30 or so people living in static caravans or did they just happen to be on holiday in one of the caravan parks on census day?
I haven’t found a decent way to answer that one yet! I think the inference is that they were (at least mostly) on holiday in a caravan park, given that Reculver’s been mainly a sea of caravans for the last 60 years or so, but the census data don’t go deep enough to be sure - unless you know better…? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Country park
"The new Reculver Centre for Renewable Energy and Interpretation opened in July 2009, marking 200 years of the moving of Reculver village." I don't quite follow this, as the village hasn't moved has it?
I hadn’t noticed that bit - "village" should probably be "church", as the date fits, but a (probable) source does actually say "marking 200 years of the relocation of Reculver village", in a photo caption about ⅔ of the way down the page! No, the village hasn’t moved, except mostly down and into the sea, I’m not sure what to make of that… Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks J3Mrs - nothing in there about the village moving, but I'll add it to my list of "things to stuff the bibliography with"! And, it did remind me of an estate map dated 1685, reproduced (rather poorly) in a recent book, so thanks for that, too - lucky for me I have a copy, unlucky for WP the map's not showing up in Google. Anyway said map shows late 17th century Reculver looking a bit like a hot cross bun, centred on a crossroads just west of the Roman fort's west gate. The sea's swallowed up pretty much the whole lot. And, there's nothing like a "New Reculver" to replace it, looking at a modern map. Nortonius (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Education
"It was rated as "satisfactory" (Grade 3) in most aspects by an Ofsted report in July 2010, when it had 489 pupils." This is a bit of a surprise given that Reculver's population is only 135. Where do these kids come from?
Yes that surprised me too when I saw it, but don’t worry, some ale and mulled wine helped me get over it! I’m ignorant of legislation on school catchment areas, but the school’s brochure says that "proximity to the school" only becomes an admission criterion if it’s over-subscribed, though it then says something darkly about "pupils admitted to the school within the VI Designation". I’ve no idea what that is, and searching on the web hasn’t helped. From what I have seen, I imagine busloads of little ‘uns descending on Reculver from all over Kent, to enjoy the "wonderful peaceful location"! Simple answer is, I don’t know: maybe I should add in something about proximity in the over-subscription bit of the brochure? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(later:) I've had a go at all of the above points now, if anyone fancies wandering over to Reculver and having a look. GAN looks set to occur this evening. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
And here's my GA tip: nominate this at GAN now. There's absolutely no danger it will be quick-failed, it can take several weeks for a reviewer to turn up, and you'll get at least seven days to fix any problems anyway. I'd be dubious about the article meeting the FA comprehensiveness criterion, but much less so about it meeting GA's "covers the major topics". My other tip would be to try and meet the reviewer half-way with any criticisms that may come up during the review. You don't have to knuckle under and give in to every demand, state your case where you don't agree and stand by it, but there does have to be at least a bit of give-and-take. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, those are great tips! I had been tempted to think of FA, maybe I'll have a look at the criteria, but I gather it can be a bit of an ordeal. And, it seems that I have a reviewer kindly waiting! I'm off for tonight though, so I'll probably get on it tomorrow. Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree: good advice. A good review should involve some give and take, and a good reviewer may often raise queries as well as complaints. Any give and take should be based on agreeing what is needed to meet the GA criteria. It's fine to make improvements beyond that, but if a reviewer seems to be demanding more than the criteria require, WP:WGN can be helpful - try not to be argumentative though: we all want to make articles better, after all. Geometry guy00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
PS. With an experienced reviewer like Aircorn watching over things, a review is likely to bring out the best in the article.
A new GA nomination, new reviewer and (hopefully) GA all in one package. This is what GA is about, IMO: spreading the word about quality articles, and it happens a lot here. Geometry guy00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
FAC can be an ordeal. Unless you've been through the mill yourself you can have no idea of the level of scrutiny the article will be be exposed to, from the slightest MoS deviations up to major omissions of sourcing and comprehensiveness. For a first shot I'd recommend GAN followed by a peer review before tackling Mount FAC. Even I, full of hubris that I am, don't often take an article directly to FAC without passing through at least one of its base camps. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I hardly ever take articles right to FAC ... I generally pass through GAN first and usually try for at least one Peer Review as well as having someone trusted look it over (that usually means Malleus who is such a sweetie and really a marshmallow inside!) before going to FAC. With that said, I've done the direct to FAC route twice - once with my very first FAC and once much later. Generally, the more steps on the way to FAC and the more eyes on the article, the less trouble I find at FAC, but you never know what might trip you up.. Ealdgyth - Talk03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think on the few occasions I've taken an article directly to FAC it's been one I've worked on with an editor like PoD, Nev1, or Jza84, and it became obvious that GAN could offer nothing other than a green blob. MalleusFatuorum03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm being circumspect here because I guess barnstars are not your thing. If they are, have this one *, otherwise please accept my sincere thanks for your assistance in raising Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA standard --Senra (Talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a barn, so I'm not into barnstars, no, but I am really pleased to see that you've got yourself a GA with Ely. I've said it before, geography articles are among the hardest to write IMO, because you're dealing with everything from geology to the modern provision of services. So give yourself a big pat on the back. :-) MalleusFatuorum01:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it could, but it depends on what view the delegates take of the outstanding oppose and the comments. SandyG and the other delegates are clearly indisposed at the moment though, so you need to be patient. All I can say is that if I were a delegate I'd be inclined to promote. MalleusFatuorum06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank Malleus. I did my level best to fix THR comments. Some of his points are irrational. Sorry for my honesty. He wants the article to be in a way that only people who study literature could read. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm overwhelmed. In one evening I'm a marshmallow and an angel whereas only a month or so ago the WMF in the form of User:Kaldari were trying to get rid of me. How fickle is fate. MalleusFatuorum06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realize that. Some of my fiends here indirectly try to find flaws in my work and I do not say anything to them. Then I am GOOD but when I do the same thing in their work, I become BAD. Let's face it, most human beings are like this. Like if they are never satisfied. Lol. Anyway, I swear on all the love I have for Beyonce Knowles that I was totally sincere. You are an angel for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Love it! Another one to put into my stable! I shall adopt it immediately. Though, to my mind, nothing has quite the fits-of-hysterical-giggles-inductivity yet of The ArbCom Secret Ballet. Just visualise it ... :P Added! As the "Fiendish Cabal". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus, seeing that you appear to be in a benevolent frame of mind (per above), maybe I can trespass on your goodwill? A year or so ago you and I combined to rescue a couple of languishing FACs which had got to near the bottom of the list with hardly a review comment between them (I think we actually got one of them promoted). Well, there are two on the current list, The Constant (nominated 29 November) and Live Show (nominated 25 November) which are in danger of sinking without trace (my private name for these lost souls is "ed millibands"). Would you be prepared to help out? I have not looked at either of these articles, but it must be galling for their nominators to see their work ignored, given the level of attention all around them. If you are willing, please choose which you would rather do first, and I'll take the other. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Something to amuse you - The Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk
In Prehistoric Britain, this strange animal was persecuted by early hunters, before being humanely laid to rest.
"The remains of a Mesolithic elk found caught in a bog at Poulton-le-Fylde in Lancashire had been wounded by hunters and escaped on three occasions...."
Three years ago, as I recall, there was some disagreement about whether there was a separate "wikiproject GA-class", but I believe that's old news; GA is its own thing these days. However, wikiprojects are encouraged to tackle B-class, etc., on their own, and a few wikiprojects have an A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GOCE again
I have a dream to mentor copyeditors on WP (and people who don't want to be copyeditors, but want to do things that will makes copyeditors' lives easier). GOCE is the obvious place to start. Slon is one of their more active participants. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Both if you like ... I'm trying to scout the lay of the land (I'll also be asking GOCE how they feel about GAN and FAC these days), without setting the agenda (in case you needed another horribly mixed metaphor). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that it seems likely Slon will soon become an administrator at the fourth time of asking is an indictment of the way that Wikipedia is mismanaged. So far as the GoCE is concerned, I think it suffers from another fundamental Wikipedia problem, the risible notion that we're all equally able, whereas in truth there ought to be some kind of test (administrators have one, it's called RfA) before an editor is allowed to join the guild. Of course that will never happen, and therefore the GoCE is a well-meaning but ultimately doomed idea. MalleusFatuorum19:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I never did buy the "darwikinist" idea that it's not a problem if edits are bad because they'll eventually be sorted out through some kind of natural selection ... or at least, I don't see that working before the heat death of the universe. I do think that the review processes are largely successful in extracting useful work from less than perfect editors such as myself, and I'd like to suggest to any GOCE people that are willing that we tackle the problem in the context of review processes where I'm paying attention to how it's working out. Most won't be interested, but I'm hoping some will be. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The legendary infinite number of monkeys will produce a predictably infinite amount of crap. But I think your focus on the review processes has some merit, as that's where the pedal really hits the metal. I wish you luck. MalleusFatuorum20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
What is needed here is not a guild, but a licensing/accreditation agency, as in "The name's Fatuorum... Malleus Fatuorum... licensed to spell". Editors love passing tests and gaining wiki-qualifications, so why not try something like this? The test could follow the examples in Tony1's guide, only with a randomized element, and a pass/fail result—maybe also a 200 word (and randomly selected) badly written text to copyedit. Then list or link to the accredited copyeditors in suitable fora, and other editors have a resource (other than this talkpage!) when they seek competent help. Geometry guy23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Were that it was only spelling. The trouble is so few seem to understand simple standard English or how to write in the past tense. What's worse is some take huge offence at having their efforts copyedited, corrected or the trivia removed. When I attempt copyediting, (which I find oddly theraputic), I inevitably offend, and those who write poorly never learn from their mistakes and, if they've been here for any length of time, what they write is rarely challenged and becomes the norm.J3Mrs (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I know full well that copyediting goes far beyond spelling, and my reference to the latter was light-hearted. Concerning tenses, the most common problem I have seen is a failure to use them in a consistent way. Some accreditation might help you deal with the offense you find. Geometry guy00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
G-Guy, how about we start it off with just a series of quizzes that you get barnstars for if you pass? Barnstars are less threatening, and then everyone could come up with their own quiz and hand out their own barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Even though I am not a barnstar person, the idea of graduating the accreditation might work well, borrowing terms from elsewhere, as in "Copyeditor sophomore" or whatever. Geometry guy00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying accreditation wouldn't help, I'm saying that I think we've got a long road to go down before we can get consensus on a wide variety of questions. Experimenting with quizzes first (and if you don't get a barnstar for passing the quiz, I'm not sure what you would get) might help. I started working on a fairly lengthy quiz a week ago (good timing, it looks like), I'll try to make it go live before the new year. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And actually I find Geometry guy's insinuation that I'm focused on spelling to be rather insulting. What I'm actually focused on is telling the story. MalleusFatuorum23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is getting off-topic, but is also fascinating. I made absolutely no insinuation, but Malleus read one in my post. My edit summary included "guy, Geometry guy, licensed to spell", so in his scenario, I must have simultaneously been insulting myself. Well, I've done that before, but doesn't it seem more likely here that I could have been playing on the similarity of the words "spell" and "kill"? I've seen this kind of confusion (and upset) happen time and time again across WP: how can we deal with it? Geometry guy00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorted it. Somehow, someone had managed to write that phrase in code that was invisible in the edit window. I highlighted the section and deleted what looked like a bunch of spaces. Parrotof Doom20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it was due to lag in the database server. An IP had vandalized the page, which ClueBot NG then reverted. However, due to database server lag, the updated (reverted) version failed to propagate to the displayed version and only appeared in the edit window. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I wrote you a message last time. I asked if you could copyedit one article. Since then I have not received any single response from you. You can say if you don't want to, but not answering is not very nice. Regards.♫GoP♫TCN15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I get asked to edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I forget, or other things intrude on my time. Which article are you talking about? BTW, I've never claimed to be "nice", which to my mind is about as insipid a description as to be almost insulting. Oh, and try to remember that I'm not employed here, much less by you. MalleusFatuorum15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Just wanted to drop by to ask about how you have been lately? How are you these days? Busy because of the coming festivities? I hope you are doing well my friend. And again, thanks for everything you have done for me. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I tend to do everything Christmassy as late as possible because I hate the crowds: buying presents in the last half-an-hour before the shops close would be typical for me, perhaps it is for many other blokes as well. How's your review going? MalleusFatuorum16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel very uncomfortable in crowded locations. Lol. I am timid in RL. The nomination... I am fed up of In my opinion ... in my taste... in my whatsoever, according me as if I have to write the article 1 billion times to conform to everyone's individual preferences. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all timid in real life, I just can't stand being jostled and shoved in crowds of people and have a tendency to lose my rag with the worst offenders, especially in crowded bars. But enough of me. What SandyG's telling you is that you have to try and manage the nomination, chase up the early opposers, state your case clearly where you don't agree with something suggested by a reviewer and so on. It's really a bit of a balancing act. MalleusFatuorum16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I cannot even dream of myself setting an offender right in real life. Lol. Maybe with growing age, I will fight off my timidity. About the FAC, I am trying my best but it is not very encouraging when some reviewers want their personal preferences to go in the article. Pardon me for telling this Malleus but some of their comments are sometimes borderline ridiculous and irrelevant. I have contacted the opposers several times. There are two. They are not replying. And they are quite active. Did you see on what note Indopug opposed? Lol. User:THR is not relying although I have addressed all his concerns. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the exact height of the average American male and a helluva lot lighter. ;) (We're a fat people. ;/) I am only slightly taller at 180 cm and slightly lighter at 61 kg. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed it, it was a bit of a labour of love to be honest. My mother used to have a holiday home near Pendle, and I have fond memories of the place. MalleusFatuorum16:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Shark
Interesting behaviors, how different we would be if the dominant sibling consumed the others. Would our mothers view us differently at birth. The GA's have been thorough, very exciting for those actively editing. I should make some medals and present them on awards day... speech speech! We are on Christmas break as of today - curious to see if those sand bagging use this time or accept the fail. There are a couple that have been on the sidelines, yet show promise - both the mushroom and the seahorse. The hog island sheep - not a clue about that strange choice! The sand tiger is an effort by my youngest, a sweet heart who has probably benefited the most from the c/e process. Time will tell - of which there is very little. As always thanks for your magic touch. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
if you don't mind a harmless talkpage stalker interjecting... as someone who is interested in helping students with projects like these in the future (not the immediately approaching winter semester, but the fall semester of 2012), how would I apply (if that is the correct word) to do so? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Melicans, this is the general page for the "formal" education program; this is the Canada-specific version. Shoot me an email if you're interested in that. I think Jimmy's particular class was part of the less-formal version - WP:SUP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What have I missed ?
Cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds, for Christmas party, deferred the Christmas party, then cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds some more, now have to do my Christmas shopping and clean, cook, wash for the Christmas party that was deferred to this weekend. Sooooo ... could MF and his friendly TPS please give me the 101 for Dummies version of everything I missed in two weeks? Arb elections went better than expected, G guy is calling it straight on the remainders of the TCO manic manifesto (which never should have been given any play by The Signpost, which is the only reason that wasn't a flash in the pan), folks seem to be understanding the effects student editors are having on medical articles, folks still seem to not be getting it on "gender" issues, Yomangani's edit summaries are the best way to find out what's going on of any significance, and no idea how FAC is faring, haven't looked yet, anything I need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A good point made there. All the foundation has to do is to continue encouraging administrators to piss everyone off, and the gender ratio will become 0:0. Job done. MalleusFatuorum18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012*★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers.
It's an old English proverb: "faint heart never won fair lady". It means that you have to be bold and fearless in striving for what you want, the attitude that made the British empire great. :-) MalleusFatuorum16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Me I think, an ironic comment on my immodest assertion that Wikipedia is lucky to have me. One thing I think non-native speakers of English find difficult to understand is that we often say completely the opposite of what it is that we mean, as a form of irony. MalleusFatuorum16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Tone of voice and general attitude while speaking are the clues to what's really being said, but of course we don't see any of that on the Internet. For instance, I had to take a couple of animals to the vet earlier today. The bill came to just over £200. When presented with it I said to the receptionist "Oh, is that all?", but she knew damn well I didn't mean it was cheap. MalleusFatuorum17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Fear not Jivesh: you are not alone in failing to spot irony in other editor's posts; over a text based medium, even Brits can miss it. Malleus himself has done so at least twice recently, once in a prior thread on this page, still current. Geometry guy23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know you Malleus, but I believe you are a very nice person! You are responding very intelligent and humorous, and yet you were blocked for incivility. I wish you the same! =D --♫GoP♫TCN17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It tends to happen every second or third ANI report, which have been monthly recently I think. Just part and parcel of the stupidity here, nothing to get too excited about. MalleusFatuorum17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahh okay but you can still edit your talk-page. Lol. I see am a bit lost right now. Are you currently blocked? I guess NO, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are the real tea Malleus. We should all learn for you. You are simply great. Your sense of humor is beyond my imagination. You are the most friendly person I have met online. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I've always quite liked Malleus; perhaps it is my own English heritage, but I've always found his occassionally carping comments to be inundated with the dry wit only Brits are capable of far more often than any genuine malice. He doesn't try to hide the truth behind layer upon layer of euphamism; he speaks what he means, plain and true. Perhaps some people simply cannot face being told the truth, simple and bluntly. I may just be a talk page stalker, but I've always found his unwillingness to twist unpleasant truths into pleasant lies quite admirable. He speaks honestly, openly, and plainly; and that's something that cannot be said of quite a few others in the community. Hats off to you, Malleus. Wikipedia would be a far sadder place without you. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; I've actually been rather disappointed with the quality of your comments this year. Last year's selection was far more impressive. Perhaps going from "occasionally carping" to "often carping" should be one of your New Year's Resolutions! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Holiday wishes...
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand how a block hours after someone said "cunt" a few times, directed at nobody in particular, can be anything but punitive. Parrotof Doom22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it amazing sometimes one thinks Wikipedia is progressing, then along comes some precious admin and we realise that we are right back where we started
Of course, Malleus knew exactly what he was doing, and that some admin would eventually take the bait. I'm surprised it took so long. Geometry guy22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ya know - I knew it was gonna happen too. Just for the hell of it I came here and actually carried on a discussion (ya know, where you both talk and listen to someone) with Mal about it. The thing is, when you actually approach the guy without some "all important pompous lecturing type of condescension" - he's actually quite approachable. He didn't even object to the offending words being "redacted" - and was content to have made his point(S) .. (which he often does quite well). People wonder why comments like "kiddie admins living in mommy's basement" are made? It's cause "dey haz block button"; but heaven forbid anybody tell it like it is around this joint. — Ched : ? 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the comma key has just sprung off my laptop's keyboard and I can't see how to put it back. So as all I do here is move commas around this latest block is probably for the best. MalleusFatuorum23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've unblocked per the consensus at AN/I. Please be more careful using the word "cunt" in future as some people are offended by it. --John (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If they're blocking the religious, then as an atheist materialist I want to be blocked in this season of forced annual leave and public holidays as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to modify my comment above. Malleus's initial comments were made late at night, or in the early hours, perhaps in the heat of the moment: see this diff. However, he returned to the same theme, presumably after sleeping, here, where he did not make amends but supported his late night thoughts. Here, he clearly knew what he was doing: this is his way of making his point. I don't necessarily disagree with the point, but Malleus is courting trouble. I hope such actions will not be in vain and will lead to improvements in policy, as it a sad reflection on the state of Wikipedia when a good editor entices admins to block himdisrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Geometry guy00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You're not still autoblocked are you? Only I am about to go to bed. I am rubbish at clearing autoblocks anyway. --John (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the phrase here is "gobsmacked" ... I should have known that me getting sick would mean drama on Wikipedia. Always amazes me when folks think their cultural norms should be everyone's cultural norms. Ealdgyth - Talk01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I have lost the plot
Recently, like many of you I expect, I conscientiously voted either support or oppose for each one of the 17 Arbcom candidates, carefully recording each vote for later analysis. Is it just me? Only two of those I voted support for have been elected :( Six of the candidates I opposed have been elected! --Senra (talk)23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
... given the circumstances, but if you did pop a key off your keyboard, there's a page that explains how to repair it here — Ched : ? 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
WTF? Wiki suicide? Please don't. You may well have nullified the efforts people are investing in you. Log off and go to bed, please. Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be. If you can't sleep, try to find an article to edit. Please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►05:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm still very pissed off about the comments you said in my RFA, but you are one of our most valuable editors in this project. The indef block was overreacting. You edit in good faith and obviously care about this project. That's more valuable than blocks for "incivility". Think about staying around and just avoid drama for a bit and go back to article writing please. I agree with 28bytes don't do Wikicide over something that isn't so serious. Secretaccount06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
First post on this page. An involved block that cites LTA which is a noticeboard not a policy. I'd unblock myself but I think I'm one unblock away from a desysop. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
No comment on driving editors away: except that people have been saying that about the project since the beginning, and will say it as long as the project continues. You can't please everyone, of course. Malleus' situation, however, is obviously an extraordinary case: call it "the 1%" ;) He's one of the most valued content contributors and simultaneously one of the most verbally loutish ones (when he wants to be); and is well aware of his influence and the civility boundaries to be tested. This latest block will be trickier all around, possibly throwing a wrinkle into the cycle that's been establishing itself. I hope it works out well. Doctalk07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Any severe bites you chuck in my direction at this time I will view in the same light as I view attempts by my eight-foot boa constrictor to defend herself from perceived predators (no great shakes, in other words). Seriously, if there's anything at all I can do to help you - even if you just want to rant - do email me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, this sucks. I was hoping to ask for your help during a FAC for South American dreadnought race in the coming days, because even though you'd probably drag up a plethora of items to fix, the article would be improved from your attention. Remember why you continue to have fun editing here, Malleus. If you can't, maybe you've made the right choice here – but if you can, take a deep breath, go for a walk, then come back and get to work. We need you. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
re: RfA comments
You are one hell of a good writer, and I appreciate all your hard work here .. but Geesh Mal. That was some pretty crude language. Not that I have any delusions that you'd give a shit what I think or anything. Just wishful thinking that there was a bit of a gentleman behind the name I guess. And yes .. I know there was no NPA violation, and civility is all so subjective here ... just wasn't expecting something like that from you. Either way .. you have a nice holiday. — Ched : ? 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it just has to be told like it is. And actually "cunt" isn't at all sexist where I live when it's used as a term of abuse. And neither is it as uncommon as it appears to be in the Puritan colonies.[12] Hasn't it ever struck you as odd that editors are allowed to call each other dicks here (there's even an essay on it) but not cunts? Any chance of waking up any time soon? MalleusFatuorum18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So, hypothetically speaking, if the word "cunt" was to be redacted from the conversation there, would you let it stand or revert it? While acknowledging cultural mores vary within subcultural, it is really offensive in a non-trivial subset of the Wikipedia culture. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking non-hypothetically, I don't give a flying fuck. I see no reason why it's permissible to call regular editors "dicks" but not administrators "cunts". Go chew on that, and when you've worked out a logically coherent position come back and we can discuss it. MalleusFatuorum19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Because in the imperfect sexist world -- at the least the one on this side of the Atlantic -- "cunt" is considered more offensive than "dick" 2. Because too many admins think they're "all that" and there's a double standard here, like in many other places. My good faith interpretation of "don't give a flying fuck" is consent, so I'm going to go ahead. I do get what you're saying, but this won't fix it. It'll either blow over (achieving nothing) or blow up (causing lots of churn and angst and in the end achieve nothing). Nobody Ent (Gerardw)19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not something I have any desire to get into any protracted debate over, just an observation that I was surprised. (and that doesn't happen to me here very often anymore). I know it's just a "word". I even understand the "shock value" of putting things bluntly in order to get a point across. It's not even that in a discussion with another guy that I'd even take notice of the use of the word. Simply that in mixed company I've been taught that it is impolite. As far as "waking up" .. meh, after 5 and 1/2 decades - I'm not likely to change my spots any time soon I suppose. Different strokes for different cultures I guess. — Ched : ? 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing I've always demanded, and I do mean demanded, is consistency, and there's none here. Gentlemen's parts have been appropriated by the Wiki elite as representing some kind of sanctionable behaviour, but ladies' parts are out of bounds. Does that really make any kind of sense to you? MalleusFatuorum19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both Mal. Yes, you're right that it's an unfair throwback to allow the use of one word and not the other. I also agree there's a huge lack of consistency here. On the other hand .. I don't recall ever calling another editor a "dick" either, so I at least try to be consistent in my own actions. Either way, as I said at the onset, I do admire your candor, sense of humor, abilities, and your dedication here. — Ched : ? 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have fond memories of an administrator (female) telling me that I was a dick of porn-star proportions; it makes me laugh even when I think of it today, but I still wonder how she knew ... the bottom line though is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so lap it up. MalleusFatuorum19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
<laffin> .. I remember that one. I see her about on Facebook from time to time - she's actually doing quite well. She's continuing her education, and just finished a semester with a straight "A" report. Anyway - I'll let you get back to the content end of things here - thanks for taking the time to talk about it all. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You can at least use a lady's name when you talk about her. And, yes, I'm using the word "lady" loosely here. Just to clarify, it's not "a semester" with straight A's; it's my seventh semester in a row with straight A's. One more and I'm graduating with high honors. Of course, it's just community college, so don't be too impressed. We'll see how I do at the university level next year. Anyway, it's good to see you haven't changed, Malleus. I'd be disappointed if you did. There aren't many things I miss about Wikipedia, but your talk page surely makes the short list. Hopefully I haven't missed too many block parties in the past few years. And, of course, I hope you're well outside of the wiki. As for the topic of the discussion, there are a whole lot of assholes, douchebags, bitches, dicks, and cunts on this project. Most of them need to be informed. An ass beating with a clue bat would be illegal, but a little honesty never really hurt anyone. Lara18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Four things
As you may know, I had a funeral this month and have been having a hard time catching up. I should be promoting FAC instead of telling you stories. A friend sent me a message saying, "Tell him I said hey and it was very difficult not to send him the message from www.damnyouautocorrect.com where some chick is asking for time off from her boss to go to her grandmother's funeral and her boss replies via iPhone "My deepest cunt openness" instead of "deepest condolences". Autocorrect... the future of hilarity is here.
I missed the party because between them, TCO and Ettrig have decided that 1) Tourette syndrome (TS) is important so even though Ettrig knows nothing about it, he's going to take it on, thereby keeping me so busy I can't promote/archive FAC, which does a heck of a lot of good for FA production, and 2) they've also decided that only the articles they deem important should be eligible to be FAs. [13][14] Oh, did I mention I should be promoting instead of answering Ettrig's uninformed questions on TS, so poor Ucucha doesn't give up in despair?
How nice of Eagles247 to remove the autoblock. Isn't he just the sweetest thing that ever graced Wikipedia? Now maybe could he go and unblock The Fat Man, which is the biggest boner that was ever pulled on Wikipedia.
My better half wants to know if he can now liberally use the "C" word in my presence, although he previously considered it highly offensive and off limits (unlike, for example, "shut up, you fucker", or "what a little prick", or "learn how to drive, you damn bitch"). You're messing things up over here; knock if off. But first remind me which admin called you a dick of porn star proportions-- it's my understanding that's something to be proud of.
I know, which is why that section is still unarchived on my talk page, but every time I think about explaining it to you, I get so mad I can't type, and if I do type it up, it will be my good-bye screed. This place is bonkers-- kinda like what I'm going through today thanks to (see point 2 above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, you and Malleus are editors I admire (rough around the edges, but your respective work is excellent), and I hope that one day you'll cease holding this grudge against me. I'll admit that I handled TFM's situation improperly at the time, but, despite the pleas from people who cared about him, TFM kept digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole to prevent an unblock of any sort. Of course, if TFM agrees to take Wikipedia somewhat seriously, I'd be open to unblocking in the future. Eagles24/7(C)01:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
And since he's unlikely to even come back and read here ever again, just how would an unblock happen? Does it never occur to some admins that once you turn someone off for good, it's well ... for good? And does the work he did on a Featured article, that got multiple mentions in the press, qualify as "tak[ing] Wikipedia somewhat seriously"? Or the fact that he passed out so much good cheer and insight, that other well regarded productive editors and FA writers left after seeing how he was treated? Kinda like Malleus, the respect and reception one got from TFM was directly correlated to what one gave. I got nothing but excellent work from a truly fine and brilliant writer and gentleman. But he was just too damn smart for some people. I'm rough around the edges? Holy guacamole...that's a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From what I could see, TFM's FA writing was long behind him when I "got" to him. I've seen cases in which a user is indefinitely blocked and comes back later to edit (User:Christianrocker90, for example, was banned for two years, but had the urge to be productive and was unbanned), and TFM's e-mail is still enabled if he ever gets the itch again. I know I will never receive clemency from you because of that block, but I hope you know that I have learned from it and moved on. Eagles24/7(C)01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the fact that we don't have a FA article editor pushing out FAs on Cricket and Vietnamese history anymore. Thanks administrators, thatrators. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hounded off by RFU over administrative actions taken; the hounding appeared to have its genesis in some editors taking umbrage with YellowMonkey over content issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There were issues that needed to be discussed with YellowMonkey in a civil, polite and restrained manner. It was turned into a hatchet job to please editors who wished to destroy YellowMonkey rather than resolve the encyclopaedic problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an unlikely explanation. I expect what really happened was that he didn't work on articles from the Vital list and so had to be culled "For The Good Of The Project". His head's in a fridge somewhere waiting for the day Thich Quang Duc displaces Dalmation (no, seriously, that's how you spell it). Yomanganitalk02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: 'Only vital articles to become featured?' SG alerts us, via point 2.2 here, to this TCO backed poorly argued essay by Ettrig, which has me fuming and ready to seriously consider quitting this outrecuidant infested fiasco of a 'pedia. I knew this nonsense would gain traction when I first heard about it. It is fair and reasonable to attempt a drive to improve (someone's definition of what may be) a "vital article" such as this. It is unfair and unreasonable to punish an editor, who freely gives considerable time, by not promoting a non "vital article" that would otherwise meet the community's featured article criteria. To use the same grade-school statistical methodology as Ettrig: there are millions of editors just waiting to step up to replace the very few editors demotivated by this new incredibly easy to use selection method and the encyclopedia [sic US spelling] will benefit with thousand of high quality articles --Senra (talk)03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What? Has someone seriously proposed that only vital articles may become featured? If so, please point me to the proposal. Or is that just extrapolation from TCO's document? LadyofShalott23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Subject lines are gay
I don't know how you continue to get so worked up over this place (or how this place continues to get so worked up over you).
It's not very nice to call people dishonest cunts, but I think you already knew that. It's also not very nice for people to redact others' comments, but I think they already knew that too.
I've nominated Template:Redact for deletion. I can't think of a time when it would ever really improve matters to use it.
Well, there's pretty much the equivalent of double jeopardy tied to every blocking admin, isn't there? Mr. Cunningham can't really block you again at this point, he has a history of prior interaction! So that's only... 600 or so active admins left? Perhaps it'd be easiest if they just each blocked you in quick succession. Knock out the whole pool in a matter of hours.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Malleus Fatuorum and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Also, as stated on the case statement I'm willing to unblock you for purposes of editing the RFAR pages only unless clear consensus arises to make a general unblock. Alexandria(chew out)14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I second Alexandria's offer to unblock in order to participate at AC. I will also keep an eye open for any statements you'd wish to make here on your talk page, and am willing to copy anything you wish to that case/case request area. — Ched : ? 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) now moot. — Ched : ? 15:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Malleus, I won't be making a statemnent on your behalf in any Arb Case because I feel such cases are always a circus and I am not a performing circus animal. If one looks at almost all cases, it's always the same mouthy, banal people with an opinion on everything and everybody making statements and opining about on matters of which they have little or no knowledge. There are probably only about a dozen people in the whole project whoever take part in these trials-by-volume. I expect our new Arbs, who by and large appear to be pretty unprepossessing crew, will be keen to be seen dong what they claimed in their campaigns - so it looks like you could well be hung out to dry. I'm just very disparaged because I thought things were changing for the better - it appears I was wrong. I have a feeling we are heading back to the Fred Bauderesque type arbcom and Wikipedia of the past. It can only be a mater of time before we are all once again tried by IRC as hapened so often in that dispicable era. Too sad. GiacomoReturned16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
while I don't necessarily agree with Giano, I won't be opining on the ArbCom case either. I think the whole idea of blocking for civility is just insane - we do something uncivil to stop incivility?? Wow, how... bright. Ealdgyth - Talk16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I quite understand. But I think Giano is right in any case, that it doesn't much matter what anyone says (at least in public), as the outcome of this episode is very predictable. MalleusFatuorum18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope the arbitrators take your case, so they'll clear up this whole WP:CIVIL stuff, for future situations. IMHO, the indef-block was OTT, as those should be applied for 'only' threatening editors, vandals & sock masters. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The very clear purpose of indefinite blocks is to humiliate editors by forcing them to recant whatever it is that the blocking administrator has taken exception to. To understand the way that Wikipedia works you have to think of it as a poorly run primary school, where the teachers are even younger than the pupils. MalleusFatuorum18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been away and haven't been following this but I understand an editor has been blocked because he voices his opinions in a way that offends some other editors? I'm incredulous. I can hear the grinding of axes and rattling of sabres from the usual suspects out to settle old scores. Funny you never do that. BTW I have heard far worse language in a primary school, from the head and a five year old. It truly is the pantomine season, or is it high farce? Not wikipedia's finest moment.... by a long way.J3Mrs (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Is to write an encyclopedia. All the extra bits (such as "anyone can edit", etc.) are side-projects. I think at this point a large chunk of the administrators seem to have forgotten the whole point of the project - they are more interested in game playing than actually writing articles or actually helping those who write articles.
Here's a hint to those administrators coming here to opine about civility and stuff - take a look at your contributions. Have you helped resolve a content dispute lately - without using the block button first? Or have you written/worked on articles? Just repeatedly removing juvenile vandalism is not "content work". Get down in the trenches. Deal with POV pushers. Mediate a dispute. THEN maybe those of us down in the trenches might not treat the whole of the admin corps with disrespect - because some of you would have earned some respect. Ealdgyth - Talk15:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Good and valid points to be sure Ealdgyth; however, I'd also suggest that while there are certainly unsuited and incompetent individuals in all walks of life - there also good honest and deserving people in those positions as well. There are actually some competent admins about - they just don't make the radar like squeaky wheels do. just IMHO. — Ched : ? 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I know there are... but it seems like more and more of them are disappearing. Look at John leaving - and Deacon left a while ago. Admin's willing to wade into content disputes and help out are getting fewer and fewer - instead we have admin's who prefer to block because someone used a bad word rather than take the time to actually figure out why someone might have used a bad word. As a note, I'm not likely to be blocked in that manner - I'm not generally the type to fly off the handle too badly - but if we're going to be a project that seems to want to reach out to many differing cultures - we need to recognize that those culture's have differing ideas of what's acceptable in public discourse. And Malleus' point about how using "cunt" isn't acceptable but "dick" is acceptable - THAT is a valid and noteworthy point. Why is using slang for male genitals perfectly fine to fling around at others, but using slang for female genitals (which in parts of the world isn't that uncommon) wrong? Why do some admins insist on blocking (and thus treating the blockee like a toddler) as their first choice? Why is it so hard for them to recognize how insulting that is? Ealdgyth - Talk16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been resisting the urge to comment on what's been going on with MF, because doing so might take me over my tolerance of stress (which for personal reasons that I won't explain is very limited), and I'm busy working on content; but, I have a voice, and I want to use it here. I agree with Ealdgyth, and the numerous other supporting voices. Frankly, I think this whole business is childish bollocks. MF normally calls a spade a spade, obviously a good thing. On this occasion he "called a cunt a cunt": I agree with the assessments already expressed that, for some, it may have been going too far, but on the whole it was reasonable (accommodation of usage, non-personal, etc.). The whole business seems like a village witch-hunt to me, with the exception that MF doesn't end by saying "it's a fair cop". And why should he? What can we expect if people relentlessy take what I believe to be shallow, self-important umbrage at the way he expresses himself, which is always to the point? I for one wouldn't blame him if he never came near the place again; but I'd rather he did. And I could go on etc. etc.... Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons above (among others) I really don't see the problem with the language used. Frankly I don't see a problem with the context either.
It is an undeniable fact that many admins, to varying degrees and with varying frequencies, seek latitude to do things with the tools that are in line with what they want to do. One example being the series of events that led to BLPPROD. Another being admins that threaten or actually block users with whom they are unquestionably WP:INVOLVED. Malleus has been blocked for having the temerity to point out in no uncertain terms that there are a large number of admins like this. He also inferred in the same discussion that there are a lot of admins that mean well but lack competence, and so end up coming across as being in the same boat, and indeed that there are a lot of very good admins.
I don't have a lot of time for Malleus as a person, and couldn't care less if the feeling were mutual. But he writes more than the vast majority, and he says things as he sees them. If that's blockable we may as well shut down our featured processes, because you'll find relatively few editors there that aren't in that mould. —WFC— 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So, we block editors for foul language now? This has really gone too far. Malleus is a productive and capable editor and he's being blocked because someone was offended at something she read on the internet? Horseshit. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah Malleus, he fucking knows this stuff is going to happen and there's no question he fucking likes it, in some way. As an editor who sometimes is uncivil, trust me, you know when you are crossing the line and you know the possibilities it raises. Malleus is much more highly skilled at it all than me, and is highly willing to be blocked when he lets off steam about all the fuckwittery that goes on. This is the demented social network site that we call Wikipedia. Time for Malleus to fucking roast for a bit, because that's what he ordered off the menu. Malleus is a highly valued contributor to the part of Wikipedia we call the "encyclopedia" or the "project", but Wikipedia is no different than the real world in its social interactions. All the best.--Milowent • hasspoken18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant to see that nothing has changed in the past two years and change. There's still incompetent dumbasses running around making shitty blocks of editors who actually work on the project. Fabricating "consensus" because their lives are so pathetic, the only bit of excitement they can get is from fluffing up their delicate sensibilities over something someone said about no one in particular on an online encyclopedia. And this from an American girl (born with a cunt, and it's in fine condition to this day). Also, cunt is no more "sexist" than dick, so for anyone deciding to cry that argument, be fair about it. And try to form a logical argument for the position, too. Just because a word's scientific term represents male or female genitalia does not make it's use in other contexts sexual or sexist. That's silly. Anyway, as I was saying, so glad to see the "community" still cares more about drama than knowledge. Looks like it's continuing to work out well. Lara20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
new section
I think I've always been fairly straight with you: I really do think Wikipedia would be better off if dishonest cunt, dick of pornstar proportions, you're a moron (but not "that's a moronic thing to say") were clearly unacceptable, and I don't think the expectations should be different for a 10 edit or 100,000 edit editor. But clearly that day is not today; you got a raw deal.
It's a IAR kind of day -- commenting on contributor: I had been planning to revisit today to answer your question "who gives a shit." I think you do. You call Jimbo a California dreamer but I think you're the worst kind of idealist, a Manchester dreamer who hides behind a facade of cynicism -- you actually think this Lord of the Flies encyclopedia might work, and have been working your tail off to make it happen. I was surprised when I returned to Wikiland and saw the mess. I'm sorry this blew up -- I really appreciated your buy in, if grudgingly, to the redaction, and thought it would be sufficient: sorry I wasted both our time for all the good it did.
Ironic that you were one of the few to actually partake in WT:Civility discussions, well, civilly; don't recall many of the folks who have stuff to say about you now contributing there.
Wish I could be surprised at the turn of events, but I'm old enough real life that I'm just way beyond that -- I really am a cynic, I guess. I've pretty much never seen a culture without the type of double standards that you appear to have a major problem with here.
You've both contributed a heck of a lot and stirred things up quite a bit. Regardless of the outcome, you have my respect and I wish you well real life. My only advice is: edit if you it makes you happy, and if doesn't, don't. You don't own Wikipedia anything, its only worth doing if its fun. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)17:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would wish you a Merry Christmas, Malleus. Take this time off to enjoy the season, the outdoors(if possible, its snowing here) and spend some time with the family. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ds and Cs
MF, do you really equate the way dick is used on Wikipedia, to how you used the word cunt in the way you labelled an unspecific number of admins as dishonest? Seriously? I'm having a hard time believing you of all people do, and am wondering if all this wasn't just one giant rick-roll to get you some enforced wikibreak time for the festive period. I'm a working class Brit now in his forties, and I struggle to think of more offensive word you could have used in that context, given you don't have anything more specific to go on (e.g. you don't know for certain that they are all of a particular sexuality/skin colour/religion). Who knows though, maybe there really is a black gay muslim clique of prissy American 17 year olds out to get you. That's a scary thought indeed. Hope you enjoy your crimbo week off anyway, whatever happens down the line. The Automatic Editor (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Look at you lot wetting your pants with excitement. Of course it's not my first ever edit. I've had many accounts. If you checkuser this account, you'll see some of them were used in the past to try to engage with Malleus about incidents just like this, in order to better understand and hopefully change his behaviour, for the benefit of all. The goal was to avoid an arbitration case just like this, where he gets banned for a year or more, which he surely will. My efforts were cut short though by your collective obsessive ideas about what is and is not a dishonest use of a sock, and Malleus it seems carried on as before. All in the name of "protecting" him. So you've done well on that score I see. Muppets. You surely don't expect me to respect your interpretations of things like WP:SOCK, when you make such a spectacular balls up of other basic admin tasks, like calming the wiki-waters and talking editors like Malleus down from their bell towers. The Automatic Editor (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to find it but a month or so back an editor just like this tried to be "helpful", but refused to reveal his identity. That user was blocked. I imagine it's the same person. Parrotof Doom22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I tend to agree that "cunt" is much stronger than "dick", it should be noted that one of the best-paid working class Brits is up before the beak (and most likely the FA) not for use of the word "cunt" or for that of "fucking" but for an entirely different word altogether. This sort of "industrial" language may not be very nice, but it's common enough not to need the ten million posts so far generated.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, dear heart, you don't need to be blocked in order not to edit :P Go and enjoy Christmas, get drunk as a skunk if that's what floats your boat, decide not to turn your computer on, or whatever. But have a good Christmas, whatever. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
But there's the ever-present danger that I might forget I'm technically blocked and, you know, actually mistakenly try to fix something. Best not to take the risk. MalleusFatuorum23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus should not have been blocked. It is improper for him to have to ask to be unblocked. (See above, where he regards it as part of a "humiliation" ritual in which he does not condescend to participate.)
I believe that his statement was sarcastic, and you would do the administrator corps and Wikipedia a favor by unblocking, without asking for MF to request it.
Malleus and Giacomo seem to think wiki powers that be and members of cabals are totally corrupted and untrustworthy; and I agree. PumpkinSkytalk00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
All editors are people, including Malleus and Giano, and so come with all the potential human failings that this fact implies.
I am normally sympathetic to Malleus' position, working hard to improve content in a context that values conformity more than excellence. However, in this case, I am not. Malleus knew what he was doing, and deliberately caused drama, admitting here that he was making a point. It is not a very original one: Derek and Clive were there over 30 years ago, and this has been like revisiting an old sketch. The (anti-)feminism arguments associated with so-called "rude" words, and the sticks and stones argument that taking offence is the responsibility of the listener may make for interesting discussion, but they all miss the main point: everyone is responsible for their comments, the effects they intend those comments to have, and the words they choose, "rude" or otherwise, to achieve that effect.
Malleus chose his words to achieve the effect he wanted, eventually making a particularly hostile comment about an individual editor (You are so much a fucking cunt Spitfire), perhaps with the intention of burning all bridges (see the edit summary). It doesn't require familiarity with UK culture, or indeed the work of Derek and Clive, to appreciate that this phrase is not a term of affection. He has subsequently stated he did not call anyone a cunt. Someone so critical of dishonesty on Wikipedia could well be reminded of a phrase he often uses: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Season of goodwill this may be, but not a good time to be a goose or a gander. Geometry guy01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that "fucking cunt" meant "fucking simpleton". Further, I believe that Malleus intended "I did not call anybody a vagina" when he stated that "I did not call anybody a cunt". Kiefer.Wolfowitz03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you MF's lawyer now, Kiefer? "What my client meant to say was not 'oh I forgot about that', but 'I meant something completely different from what I said'". You can easily bypass the whole c-word nonsense and imagine substituting "wanker" or "arsehole" in Malleus' insult to see the effect aimed at the "witless" Spitfire. I may sometimes suppose, but I do not presume. Geometry guy09:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Geometry guy,
Please stick to the issue, rather than calling me a "lawyer". Is my account plausible or not? It is the most likely account known to me.
It is not nonsense for some to object to the use of "cunt", which rivals "n*gger" as the most offensive word in the U.S.
NPA is satisfied when I rewrite "hypocrite and fool" as "behaved (willfully for more than a day and despite superiors' advice) as a hypocrite and fool", but honesty and English suffer.
I should be proud to be a lawyer, particularly Malleus's, but I am no lawyer. You should read Justice Hugo Black's dissent in the case of George Anastaplo to begin to understand the importance of protecting dissent.
Previously you and Malleus have been wrong and I have been right in my objecting to a description of SandyGeorgia as appearing to be sexist, as the person who wrote the unfortunate statement admitted, months later, in an honorable apology---the better for not having been compelled by hireling wolves, Red Guards civility mobs. There are other cases where I have removed sexist or misogynist attacks against women, some of whom are not saints. Given my consistency on sexism and given your half-assed record, you have no cause to doubt my bona fides and no cause to continue the recent tone.
I think t'wiki is a not-far-off-accurate slightly-distorting mirror of Real Life. There will always be, in any large community, some who are corrupt, some who are untrustworthy, some who push boundaries (and some who push them too far), some who knuckle under, some who stand and fight (whether right or wrong). There will always be the enlightened, the banal, the idiotic, the stubborn, the power-hungry ... and one can either think "Power corrupts!" or "Power attracts the corruptible!" or both. BUT - and this in an important "but" - there will also always be good souls, peacemakers, people who quietly keep a low profile, and the whole shebang of "types" that there are IRL. One of the things which causes the biggest problems, in any community, is undefined and nebulous rules. Consider, for example, the idiocy of having a law which states that "partial nudity" is a no-no somewhere. What do they mean by that, precisely? Do they mean everyone has to be covered from topmost hair to toe-tips, masked, gloved, hatted and cloaked? Is it OK not to wear gloves? Or do they mean topless, bottomless ... what the heck do they mean? This is exactly the problem that we have with WP:CIVIL. Nobody really knows, and everyone interprets it differently. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My final request
I've been carrying a grudge against User:Gwen Gale since she blocked me, two or three years ago probably, because I deployed the word "sycophantic" in a discussion of administrator wannabees. But it's really time up on that now, as I think User:Balloonman said elsewhere. Obviously I can't reply to that now, so if anyone cares to maybe they'd like to spread a little bit of Christmas cheer. For the rest, I'm signing off now, and joining in solidarity with User:Fifelfoo. MalleusFatuorum02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"Darn"? ... please let's watch that language there PumpkinSky .. you are getting dangerously close to a wp:civ block. — Ched : ? 03:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been very disappointed in Gwen Gale for years now. I defended her against ArbCom trolling. It seems her reaction to serious abuse at the hands of Wikipedia's elite has been to embrace its values and to ape its practices, in the hope of becoming one of them. (Hi Lara!)67.168.135.107 (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Makes me wonder how many great Wikipedians have been driven off by Malleus. Food for thought. (For those who aren't paying attention. I am not implying that Malleus is one of the mindless hoards (hoarders? hoard members?)) — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think anyone - at least no one productive. I clashed with Malleus some time ago, but he was still happy to copyedit some of my work when I coerced him to do so. Having now watched him a bit (oo err) he is consistently helpful to newbies and experienced editors alike when they ask for assistance - even to the extent of helping out editors who have struggled unfairly against the arcane and rather superior processes we have :) He just doesn't mince his words with people, in his view, acting like idiots. *shrug* However if you have evidence to the contrary? --Errant(chat!)16:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I had a minor disagreement with Malleus early on, and it in no way made me think about leaving. I don't perceive Malleus as malicious, but I've certainly run into my share of editors who do seem to be. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus!
How long it has been. :) I want to thank you. I left Wikipedia and I got married to the most wonderful and beautiful woman on earth. And then I sold a novel that became a bestseller. All thanks to you. Thank you, Malleus, and I'm so chuffed to see you still around on Wikipedia so much. Making quality edits still, as ever. Merry Christmas, good buddy. ScarianCall me Pat!09:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you must be mistaken, as I'm married to the most beautiful and wonderful woman on Earth. She can be a bit mouthy at times though ... why haven't you finished laying the tiles in the hall ... but it really was love at first sight. Now fuck off. MalleusFatuorum02:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Awww please don't do that to me. Lol. Anyway, it is Reservoir Rod, Goodlands MAURITIUS. Malleus, this promotion would have been impossible without you. You just made this perfect (just like you). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It would have struggled a lot. Malleus, I don't know what to say about the bill. Lol. As I have told you in the past, I am quite timid in real life. And I really do not know how to deal with such situation. What I mean is that I know you are trying to play a bit funny and naughty with me but I really do not know what to say / participate in these. Lol I hope you understand what I mean? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I got you this drink for Christmas... but then I drank most of it... *hic*... but you can have the rest. Merry Christmas. Lara16:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been out of my tree for longer than I care to remember ... never worried about mad cow disease either, I reckoned that as I've also been a mad cow for years, I was probably immune ;P Have a great Christmas. Pro-tip: get 10ml hypodermic syringe and long needle (yes, unused is to be preferred). Fill syringe with brandy. Inject into Christmas cake, Christmas pudding, mince pies (probably not veins, though, as I'm told it really burns...). Repeat. Many times .... enjoy! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I could do with some liquor this Christmas. I don't normally drink—only on rare social occasions—but I've got reason to celebrate AND be depressed, so I could knock it out all at once. Alas, I have no liquor in the house, and any such place that sales it is surely closed until Monday. But yea, sorry to hear you've fallen from your tree, Mal. How are your limbs? Do you need a tourniquet tournicunt? Lara02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Mine aren't canned - they're entirely fresh, lovingly prepared by hand, "steamed, flavored with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with larks' vomit!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Fucking Christmas
you utter cunt. Better head for bed now, bloody 1pm kick off at Pride Park on Sunday so I'll need to sleep for most of tomorrow before drinking again. Black Kite (t)00:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently enjoying a bloody excellent Rioja. Trust you are also enjoying something of a similar nature. Best wishes to you and yours. Pete. Pedro : Chat 19:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was that the previous indefinite block was too severe and should be lifted. A new one of one week has been substituted.
The the use of certain sexist language constitutes uncivil and unacceptable behaviour.
You have a long term pattern of abuse.
There was no consensus that the admin who lifted your block was in a conflict of interest.
There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. If so, I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself. (There's plenty of them out there.) Have a merry Christmas and see you in the New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus do reconsider and when unblocked, hopefully in a short while, stay away from RfAs. It's widely known that the page is full of socially ambitious dicks and tits making complete arses of themselves. However, for reasons I do not fully understand many of our European friends find the "C" word beyond the pail and it sends many of our North American friends into orbit - even those who use similar words which apparently are not so offensive in their eyes. Now to some passing admin, please unblock Malleus and let's put this whole silly thing to bed. GiacomoReturned08:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't be amazed that while someone can be so easily blocked for a few choice insults, an administrator can get away with a slap on the wrist for long term tendentious editing—even following an RFCU. But I am. Parrotof Doom09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Fuck this shit; I'm downing tools until this cunt's resolved. Indefinitely if required. See you in a week or until Malleus is editing of their own volition again. Solidarity. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I just went to ANI to have my say, but it seems one of our North American friends has closed and archived the section. Yet again America is allowed to decide these matters while all law abiding and God fearing European folk are asleep in their beds. There was a time when I would just have unarchived and carried on, but it is obvious that Americans and their delicate sensibilities rule here. Putting the prim American bias to one side; It really is about thime that Wikipedia bought these little Admins to rule, and stopped just anyone wandering in off the street having a quick RFA, supported by chums made elsewhere, and them turning them loose and untrained with a block button. It encourages the worst behaviour from the power crazed who are too young or stupid to have power in real life. Malleus got cross - people do; get over it and get a life. If people are so shocked by hearing a few expletives that they want to impose the death penalty on a highly valued editor, then Wikipedia has greater problems than even I thought it did. Now, will some sensible person unblock him, ask him not to use the 'C word' and lets have some dialogue and get on. GiacomoReturned10:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What consensus for a one week block? I see two votes for that and multiple unblock votes. Hawkeye, are you daft? Malleus you have my support all the way. And Giacomo, I'm one of those bloody Yanks, except I don't have a cunt.PumpkinSkytalk11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Damm. I must have doe my sums wrong. I thought you were all in bed for another hour or so. Some of my best friends are American - I think it depends which part you come from and I'm sure that you are delightful. However, cultural differences and tolerances have to be accepted here not imposed on everyone. GiacomoReturned11:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this is a problem with Americans. I see no sign that the editor who was originally very offended by Malleus's use of the word cunt is American. However, I'll admit I don't see the consensus to reblock mentioned above. Maybe I don't understand what consensus means. Could someone perhaps enlighten me? OohBunnies!Leave a message :)11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also European, and female. A nudge off into laughter instead seemed to have already put the snark back into its box. A hefty block being applied hours after the end of the situation is probably really not the best way forward - though obviously I can see much room for improvement. Just not sure of the best way to get the improvement - equally sure that a punitive block was not it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Only "certain" sexist language is unacceptable? How do we decide which is the good kind?
I also want Malleus to be unblocked. I really appreciate his way of stating things directly. I don't like hypocrisy - a bad quality which Malleus does not have. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: how about we all take a week off from this Malleo-drama?
So Malleus is blocked for a week. Just accept it. Good or bad, block, doesn't matter: the project will survive a week without him.
Some passing admin, please remove Malleus' talk page write access for the duration of the block: good or bad, doesn't matter: again, the project will survive a week without him dropping F-bombs or otherwise.
Enjoy Christmas without Wikipedia, Malleus. The project will survive a week without you. It's for your own good. And many [who?] would say what is for your own good is also for the good of the project
The alternative: it would appear to be Suicide by admin. Would the project be better without Malleus? See the above.
OohB, I agree that it wouldn't be fair to shut this brilliant, generous and occasionally potty-mouthed plain-speaking editor up for a week. But we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get into arguments, like those between the pro-Malleus and anti-Malleus factions. And it's obvious what faction I would be part of. But despite that, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. So that's why I suggested it. Please do disagree. These are things we both think that do matter.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think he deserves it for his smug attitude - this annoyed me: "So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" Hohenloh + 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So now editors are to be blocked for their opinions. What a state this Wikipedia has got into when ignorant cunts can become admins and block those who disagree with them. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I know I have a "kinda-reputation" for being "civility police". So be it, if it has to be. But it's not the opinions that are blockable, per se, it's the way we express those opinions. There's no clear borderline between civil and uncivil - it's all shades of grey. And I know darned well (because I know Malleus is not lacking in smarts) that Malleus knows when he's gone down the dark-grey end of that area. Again, I find myself wishing for the magic wand of niceness to wave about! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is though, that everyone has a different idea of what is and what is not uncivil. Everyone interprets the civility policy in a different way, and then everyone stands around acting baffled and belligerent when everything goes up in smoke like it did here. Everyone is different, so expecting every single person to conform to every other person's differing view on civility is, at best, a bit absurd. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is absolutely true. Mulling over this, today, I've added a bit to my essay. We are not gods; we are not omniscient; we are not infallible. None of us. And, short of an editor saying "I'm this kind of animal, deal with me this-a-way for improvement in what you perceive to be my problem areas", it's always going to be a trial-and-error thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, I am not American, nor did I ask for or expect this user to be blocked; I asked for him to reword his comment and for other people not to imitate him - which I see some are unable to restrain themselves from doing. The word is as objectionable in the UK as it is in the USA, and the fact that a small minority find it acceptable does not make it so. Deb (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, the word is considered a far graver insult in the US, and there it is reserved almost exclusively for women. Not that it's terribly important. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Put it this way, if you used it in the street, you could be prosecuted. In the UK it is also reserved for women, and that is the reason for my objection to it. Swearing I can tolerate (though within wikipedia, only in cases of extreme provocation), but sexist abuse needs to be discouraged, in the same way as racial slurs. Deb (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
In the UK "cunt" is definitely not reserved for women, in fact I don't believe I've ever heard anyone aim it at a woman. Linking it to sexism is pathetic. Parrotof Doom19:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You are both mistaken. I can see how you are thinking here - it's okay as long as you are not using the term to abuse a woman (and yes, I have been on the receiving end). That's like saying that the term "nigger" is okay as long as you are not using it to abuse a black person. Sure, you can get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. Deb (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
They are certainly not both mistaken. You are. In the UK, "cunt" is categorically not a sexist insult. It isn't used about women and I've never heard it used towards a woman. BigDom19:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You know what actually is sexual harassment, and would get you fired at every corporate out there? this edit summary. Don't worry though - sexual harassment is a problem for thee, not for mee! Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It's probably my least favourite of all cusswords - but, as with all else, it really boils down to the way in which they are used, not to the words themselves. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
We all have different experiences and backgrounds, and we ought to welcome that, not to try and impose a Bible-belt idea of what constitutes civility on each other. I vividly recall being rather shocked as a child hearing my grandfather use the word "bugger", and to this day I find that to be the most offensive of the forbidden words. MalleusFatuorum22:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Deb, I'm dropping a [citation needed] on your entire argument. I've called plenty of people cunts, usually to their face, and at least once on an American street. So what, exactly, could I be prosecuted for? And while I've never lived in the UK myself, I've spoken to many who have/do and they've all agreed that cunt isn't as offensive there as it is here in the US. Of course, this is all anecdotal and completely worthless information, thus the fact tag. And to call it "sexist abuse" is beyond absurd. I've called Mal "a dick of porn star proportions" before. He could call me a cunt of porn star proportions if he liked. It's only more offensive in the visualization. "Proportion" isn't necessarily a good word to pair with "cunt" in this context, if you get what I'm saying. Anyway, fallacies aside, what does it matter? Is it somehow oppressing women for the c-bomb to be dropped? I just don't buy most feminist arguments. Lara21:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I may have called you a "witch" in the past as well ... not sure ... might have been someone else. The truth though is that, as others have said, "cunt" is a word I've never heard applied to females here, so sexist it is not. MalleusFatuorum21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe that someone actually tells UK editors that they are wrong about UK matters!
I am over 45 years old and have lived in the UK all my life, 20 years in Manchester and 20 in the East of England.
In the UK, "you daft cunt" is often used as a term of endearment, admonishing someone for their stupidity whilst still keeping it friendly. "you daft twat" is less friendly; "you fking cunt" would be unfriendly. "What a cunt" can mean a person, an object, or an event (similar to "that was bad luck")
"cunt" is DEFINITELY NOT a sexist term in the UK - I have only ever used it once in my whole life to refer to a woman. In the US it is most probably sexist.
I am appalled by the attitude of many admins that over-react to blocking people, and now those blocks are used to count towards "he has been blocked X times in the past year(s)"? Sort it out guys. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"If you're turning part of a woman's body into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a woman's body part negatively—and it is thusly misogynistic, because it inexorably insults women in the process. Specifically using a misogynistic slur against a man can't be anything but intentionally misogynistic. If you don't intend to demean women, then don't use misogynistic slurs." Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
As said before - it's definitely not my favourite word. But if we're giving anything more than lip-service to sexual equality, where's the big difference between calling someone a cunt, or a dick, or a prick, or a tool ... where? I don't like the word - but there's sound logic in the argument that if it's OK to call someone a dick without being seen as anti-male sexist, then it should be equally OK to call someone a cunt without being labelled misogynist. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am genuinely unsure if Kaldari genuinely believes all that guff, but it does worry me that people continue with this modern form of sexism. The sexism thing is a growing issue largely because of the more radical elements of feminism. As one of my (female) friends likes to say; "they're all cunts, and the sooner they go away the sooner my boss will see me as a person instead of working out whether he can ask me to do the photocopying without it being harrassment". --Errant(chat!)22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's rich. I disagree with you in an AfD (2 months ago), and that means I have a vendetta against you? I've heard some paranoid stuff on Wikipedia before, but that's really out there. Especially as the AfD was decided in my favor. Apparently you're the only person who hasn't let go of that particular argument. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kaldari, I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to express just how much of a shit I don't give about some feminist's blog. When I drop a fact tag, even in user talk space, it's a request for legitimate support for the tagged argument. And, not surprisingly, your source supports my whole "be fair" plea regarding calling people dicks. So, not all was lost I suppose. I should clarify, though, that I disagree with the feminist too. I don't believe calling people dicks or cunts "inexorably insults" anyone. I happen to think both are quite lovely in their own way. Best when together, if we're being honest, but I digress. Sort of like calling someone a douchebag. It's not insulting douchebags. Many men would quite like to be an actual douchebag, as it would be their only opportunities to get near a vagina, much less up in one! Regardless, words only hurt if you let them. There was some childhood rhyme about this. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." How many childhood residents of Denial chanted that shit on the playground? o/ FURTHER DIGRESSED, I apologize. I'm still waiting on a source for the above claims. All of them, but particularly the UK sensitivity claims. I call bullshit big time on that one. Lara22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember that our Prince Charles once sent a text message to his current wife to the effect that he wished he could be one of her tampons. (Is "tampon" what they're called in the US?) MalleusFatuorum22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This evening at 7:00, I hereby renounce my claim to the throne of England so that I may be free to live as a tampon in the trousers of the woman I love.
Here is your citation: Quote: “the word deemed the most offensive word in the English language”. Evidently I am not as odd as you would like to think.
Kaldari has explained clearly why and how “c...” is a sexist insult. One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness, which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it.
To suggest that a phrase like “you daft c...” could be used endearingly is astonishing to me. I don’t know anyone who would use a phrase like that without expecting to give offence (and I work in manufacturing industry where swearing is commonplace and a lot of people can’t say a single sentence without using the “F...” word several times). Possibly this is a case of regional parochialism: maybe in Manchester it is considered acceptable to use abusive terms in an “endearing” way. Those who are accusing me of cultural bias need to take a long hard look at their own.
The UK law has not changed, though the application of it may have done. There are individual cases where the use of bad language has not been considered to fall within the spirit of the Public Order Act – that doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted for it.
The only thing about this that really concerns me is the number of contributors who appear to be piling into this discussion as an excuse to use terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment. It’s a case of double standards in operation, from precisely the people who are accusing others of hypocrisy, and that’s sad. Deb (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
What worries me is your complete lack of understanding that other people's view on the word in question differs from your own. We do not get a thrill out of saying it, we are not using this as just an excuse to say it. I personally have no problem with it and have used it in the workplace and heard it in the workplace, countless times. You have a complete inability to recognise that your opinion of the C-word as highly offensive and sexist is exactly that, your opinion. It is an opinion I do not really share, although I do live in Scotland where young men regularly replace "guy" with "c***", as in "See that c*** over there?" and it's not meant to be offensive, just vulgar slang. Cultural differences, y'know. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment; really? Well I was called a cunt by one of my students a few weeks ago - which led to a pretty interesting class discussion about the term, including me using it. It gets used in the office too, i.e. my work environment. So... :) One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness; what about dick? Really there are only two differences between use of the two terms - one is the insidious sexism that because it's a male term it doesn't matter as much (some of the more alert feminists are actually now realising this). Secondly because historically womenwere disparaged, so it is easy to see the term as sexist. Really it's just a word - and a large part of the problem related to it is because of individuals leaping on those who use it without malice (toward women), accusing them of insidious sexism and failing to understand that they simply persist the problem. which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it. oh get of your fucking high horse. One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts. And they give even less crap about most of the radical feminist ideas. --Errant(chat!)15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We are probably gradually going the way of the French, whose primary school teachers often tell their charges to stop playing the cunt (faire le con - or is it la) etc. I not sure Malleus is not slightly ahead of his time though, in this as in other things. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Errant, nice wording. "One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts." This hits the point home too! As a woman and feminist, the word does not offend me in any way. If someone calls me a cunt as a genuine insult I'd be no more offended than if they used "bitch" or "asshole". There's even a feminist movement to reclaim the word, much like gay people reclaiming "queer" and using it as something to be proud of. (That's on the Wikipedia page about cunt). OohBunnies!Leave a message :)15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I'm going to have to pass on The Daily Mail as a reliable source for this. I remain unmoved. Possibly because I find it intensely pathetic when people allow themselves to become offended or (gasp) degraded by a word. For full disclosure, I went through such a phase, but then I graduated middle school. It's sort of like the childhood lesson about bullies: You'll only be the target if you react. Cry or get angry and they'll keep on you, because that's what they're looking for. The words don't matter if you don't let them. Like Ooh Bunnies!, I could not care less if I'm called a bitch, cunt, whatever. They're impersonal insults. WTF do they matter? They don't. "They're sexist! They degrade women! It's abusive!" No to all the above, stfu. Crying about shit like this does more to hurt women than the use of these words. That is my opinion. It's value is equal to yours, Deb. Lara07:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The way to deal with bullies is to refuse to be bullied, and to let them know they may have bitten off more than they can chew if they persist. I've never been one to back away from a fight, no matter what the odds, a bit like you in that respect I think. And I've got no time at all for the feminist twaddle. All the women I know are as tough as old boots, well able to look after themselves. MalleusFatuorum13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm pretty sure if I'd ever called anybody a cunt on here I'd have had the civility police out in force making me feel as if I'd committed the worst atrocity known to man and would never have had the support Malleus has had. Women like a bad ass Malleus, you, our resident Dirty Harry, sure are on good terms with the ladies on here despite the supposedly "sexist" and "vulgar" word. they are smitten with you mate. Wikipedia needs a bad ass to stand up to the pretentious "establishment" on here and reduce the significance of adminship to what it really is, a mop and brush, janitor work. And yes I totally agree its completely pointless the willingness to block people just so they can go "yey look how powerful I am, I can control a better editor than myself" or simply to be pointy and treat every word as a taboo however light hearted it is. In this case the blocker was Hawkeye7 though who is a brilliant editor with a superb listed of good articles and was only following the "consensus" an ANI so he us excused but the admins on here who are not and slap the cuffs on anybody for anything know who they are. I've had it done to me and it can be pretty pathetic at times. As its common knowledge that the website has scores of the types Lara identified above it is about time that the NPA thing changed. The way some people act or what they do on here is usually far worse than any one comment anybody says but the NPA system ignores the real damaging behaviour which drives away our top editors like Yellow Monkey in favour of punishing even the most juvenile of playground remarks. You are very right that bullying is a far worse problem on here and unless somebody actually calls anybody a word or is particularly "offensive" then it goes unpunished. So in other words Malleus, don't be a cunt and let them win, come back here once the block is removed and just swing your large cajones in the face of any admin you think is a being a dick and continue to focus on what you do. Oh and Merry Christmas BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld11:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Well stated, Blofeld. Although, as a point of clarification, Hawkeye7's consensus was fabricated by Hawkeye7, so he's not excused. Lara16:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from one blocked editor to another
Obviously I can't post on your talk page WebHamster, just as you can't post on mine. I hope you'll soon be allowed to continue the good work you did here but whatever, I wish you all the best of luck mate.
Merry Christmas Malleus! I've been enjoying the last few days tremendously myself. I wish you a similar experience.Maunus (talk·contribs)
Reason's greetings! Have a mild and rational Newtonmas. I look forward to all this excitement dying down and to the unblocking of you and Hamster, for the improvement of more articles. Oh fuck, I forgot to bring an opener for the Orval. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
And speaking of WebHamster - a look at the investigations concerning his account show the validity of the original comment that led to Malleus's block. A significant piece of evidence used in closure of The Pink Oboe's account was that both account holders had said that they had suffered a series of mini-strokes that made it difficult for them to type or to spell properly. Everyone involved in that bit of vindictive nastiness should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Richerman(talk)11:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I like how an editor (admin?) called both Webhamster and an IP "DICKs" and a CU didn't even flinch in their response. Totally okay. Lara16:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
For what little it is worth, HelloAnnyoing is not a checkuser. No checkuser made any edits to the page while the "21 November 2011" part was up. Not that it makes any practical difference, but yeah... J.delanoygabsadds04:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Belated greetings ...
Seasons Greetings
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.
Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I wish to make only one statement: the notion that I'll take this block "on the chin", and continue editing here in five days time is so far from reality it makes my eyes water. Grow up people. Address the real problem here, which is Jimbo and his acolytes. Get rid of his toxic personality and maybe one day you might have a project that adults feel comfortable contributing to. MalleusFatuorum01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've come to chat with you. I missed all of this because in a huff I unwatched hundreds of pages and was working blind (not such a bad thing), and didn't realize until last night what was happening. I want you to know how much of an inspiration you've been and how much I've learned about writing from you, fwiw. Try to celebrate the holidays in some sort of good cheer, though personally I'll say this sucks. Big time. I have no other words about this to be honest. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
My hope is that this will clear the air surrounding civility blocks, but my expectation is that it won't, as there's so much dishonesty here. Keep on doing what you do TK, don't worry about me. MalleusFatuorum02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I do worry about you, because I know how much effort you've put in here. You can be cavalier about it, but writing is hard. That's what the people who don't write don't realise. Not only have you written consistently good content, you've copyedited (often work that you didn't want to copyedit), and you've taught your craft to others. That's a gift. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, a lot has been said already on the RfAR, and I haven't added to it myself, as I think that my comments there would be superfluous, and I prefer to stay out of the drama myself. I don't expect to find myself at any time in the same situation as you, as I don't in general have much of a different tone in communication as that what is at times enforced, yet I have some decent hopes for a somewhat reasonable outcome. It's easy for me to talk on this one, as I'm not in your situation, and don't expect to be at any time, yet what kept nagging me in the back of my head is the question who will speak out for me when I come in a situation where my opinion, presence or presentation is not appreciated no, I'm not equating your blockers, the supporters of your block, or those that are keeping quiet about it to nazis, it's the general principle that I'm refering to.
Anyway, I don't think you know me, I'm not a prolific content creator myself, as - in general - I find it pretty hard. Possibly even too hard for me. I do think however you need to know that your content work - and content work in general - is not only appreciated by those who are good at it, and spend a lot of their time there, but also by at least some of those that content themselves with trying to keep the place workable by doing a bit of dusting and brushing up in administrative areas, so that those that do the real work can keep doing what they do best.
I'll second that, and similar thoughts above - Malleus, I came here to let you know that Reculver was promoted to GA this evening - well, yesterday evening now but I'm still here! My thanks to you for your careful copyediting and encouragement - much has changed in the article since then, but I felt more confident in the quality of the article and the GA process after your input. Here's to you! Nortonius (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Richwales is talking out of his arse. What I've said is that the block will end if and when I decide that it does, nobody else, not even the almighty ArbCom. And when it's ended I may or I may not continue to contribute here, again my choice. As for making a "vow", well, words fail me. MalleusFatuorum15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer "This user recognizes that "cunt" is colloquial English outside the USA," since our goal is to remove a provincial puerile block, for which wider support is preferable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst you walk your dog I honestly think you should reconsider this. It seems a woefuly bad idea for people to start appending this to their user page - on so many levels. However to take just one objection I would have; We can make the basic assumption that the block(s) was/are bad. We note the fact that Malleus will not request unblocking (per his long standing precedent), and is not even that fussed if he is unblocked (per above). Thus this statement (demand?) is akin to making a protest to demand that a badger must look like a horse. Pointless, distracting and irrelevant even if (with modern surgery) technically possible. Pedro : Chat 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me add this box, which I believe to be more informative and conducive to gaining support for Malleus. I apologize for not having read the previous statement.
I suggest restoring the demand to unblock Malleus. I agree that Malleus should not have to (and perhaps should not) ask for an unblocking.
Otherwise, I would suggest adding a demand for removing the bits of the administrators who committed such stupidities (and then wrote hypocritical attacks, etc.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For fucks sake Keifer and Yworo get over yourselves. A "userbox" (whatever you take that to mean) protesting something on a website???? Protesting to whom we don't really know and protesting what is fairly unclear as well, given Malleus does not want to be unblocked. Bloody hell, really? Head, table, bang. Pedro : Chat 19:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x3 This is pointless on so many levels. Holding up your protest signs outside of the court house isn't going to result in an admin unblocking, unless they're drama-addicts and want to become involved in arbitration. And while I'm the LAST person to claim there aren't a fuckton of drama-addicted admins, some of which are unsurprisingly already ass-deep in this situation, there is a certain place they prefer to be, and the list of those involved is not it. It's about causing other people problems, not themselves. If you want to help Malleus, start compiling evidence for the case. And keep in mind it's a game. A game that has been played on this site for years. Mal doesn't want to be unblocked, he's leaving and never coming back. Until the game restarts in a week or two. So get involved in a way that fixes the glitches in the game or go write an article. Otherwise, it's counterproductive bullshit feeding into the drama cycle. Lara19:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I had a mini dream of reaching 125,000 edits, seemed to me to be a solid contribution to the idea of freely available information. How daft I was. MalleusFatuorum19:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You could still achieve that goal... simply log on for a day and use all of those various "tools" people use and voila, in a day or two you'll break 125K edits!---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon00:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Given the above, you'll no doubt have some clown create the "Malleus Fatuorum Barnstar". That's posterity right there. Who gives a fuck about content if you can have a barnstar and a userbox named after you - giving away infromation to help expand the mind and think criticaly simply pales to insignifcance. Pedro : Chat 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe that anyone really thought I'd return to editing once the block expired. I'm not a child and I refuse to be treated like one. MalleusFatuorum04:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Jehochman, eh? Here's an editor who responded to a very politely worded and reasonablequestion with a snarky and impolite reply. Who sent me indeed? Obviously I am not free to criticise his (poorly thought out) actions - someone must have coerced me into doing it. I hope no one gives an ounce of weight to his opinion. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)04:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, those who spend the vast majority of their time searching for and involving themselves in drama tend to be experts in how such drama will play out. Hypocrisy does not go unnoticed either, of course. Lara05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If it turns out that Jehochman is correct, then the time will have come when the English Wikipedia needs to be split into a US version and a non-US version --Epipelagic (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if Malleus is banned for calling somebody a cunt it would prove what I've thought about wikipedia all along. That wiki politics and correctness and often unfeasibly high standards of personal conduct are considered way more important than what matters most, content and development of content to GA and beyond. The sooner the site starts treating people like normal human beings who are prone to losing their temper or snapping at people every now and again the better. Unless its racial or religious abuse and something very seriously threatening I really would take it with a pinch of salt. If somebody intrudes and you feel they are point pointy or patronising when they are totally not wanted its a pretty natural reaction to tell somebody to stop being an ass and to get the hell off their talk page. Blockable, maybe, banning would be very extreme.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much that the standards are unfeasibly high, it's that they're not applied to everyone equally. Dimbo Wales, for instance, had he not been so revered by his acolytes, would have been banned ages ago because of his toxic personality. MalleusFatuorum16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
What I detested the most about people turning up sticking their beak in was their holier than thou attitude like some school headmaster grounding a mischevious child when in reality if they were to meet you in RL it would be a different story. Yeah you see some people getting away with everything by their persistent bullying for many months and then you so much as utter a single word which could be seen as offensive the civility police are out in force. It can be a complete joke at times but if it was solely based on the warped "establishment" I'd have given up editing long ago. You'd have to pretty mad to edit here otherwise if you didn't get anything out of editing or improving content yourself! ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, Yes. On matters to do with Larry Sanger, Wales quite clear has a conflict of interest but he was able to campaign off-Wiki to have Sanger's biography changed. Think of what would have happened to any other user who did such a thing! He is recently posted a fair amount of crap on Cla68's talk page and that has encouraged the acolytes to join in.
I'm not in your class as a writer but I have contributed some serious content. Wikipedia lost roughly a year's worth of contribution when Wales responded in a typically pompous way to my frank words about a troll. Wales put in his usual five seconds of thought into making a typical crass comment about being professional. But I suppose no more should be expected from someone who thinks that Ayn Rand was some sort of profound philosopher instead of a mad-eyed cult leader who thought that any man she wanted should become her living dildo.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, in response to your comment last night, I find it difficult to believe that you would find it difficult to believe that anyone would think you'd return to editing after the block expires. This same situation has played out more than a half dozen times. It always goes pretty much the same, with the same threats, and then the same ending. I think we all know that if you're not banned, you'll be editing. And the project will be better because of it.
That said, you are, of course, correct that there is a serious inconsistency in the way this site is moderated. Largely because the promotion to adminship is arbitrary and there is zero training once you're in it. People want to talk about how this is a professional environment, and calling someone a cunt in a business office would get you fired. Blah, blah, blah. People need to stop talking out of their asses and start thinking about what they're actually saying and how intensely stupid and pathetic it makes them look. This isn't a professional environment. It's anyone and everyone, from every age, gender, sexual orientation, SES, religion, [and everything else] blindly working with no qualifications and no pay while being governed by a power-hungry subset.
This is not a professional environment. It's not a professional endeavor. No matter how many hats hang on one's rack, it's all pointless. The titles are worthless. But most won't admit that, and so they live in Denial and pretend that it's important and profession so that they can continue believing that they are important and professional. Wikipedia wasn't built to scale, and the inherent lack of structure in the model, chosen solely by our benevolent GodKing, ensures it. These problems will never improve. And the games will continue, largely with the same players, because this has become their lives. Lara19:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well said, I think a lot of people here, Jimbo included, think of wikipedia as a professional political institution rather than an amateur encyclopedia. I get the impression he sees himself as a world political leader rather than head of an encyclopedia information project. In fact I rarely see him comment on the encyclopedia as a information development and strategies for mass improvement except for the annual fundraiser. It would be different if we were all getting paid and working for a formal institution but the reality is wikipedia is far from it. We can all strive to make the encyclopedia as good as we possibly can and more professional itself in writing, that's far more important than pretending we are all professionals working for some important organization and trying to be politically correct and "civil" about everything. A lot of people here I believe have completely lost track of what we are supposed to be about. The most important things are content and for it to be enjoyable and educational to read and produce and in all honesty others here destroy this for other people with their pretentious policies and policing. Malleus might not be the most "civil" of people at times, but to me he has always seemed to be one of the editors who care most about the quality of wikipedia improving and trying to cut all of the bullshit that goes on on here and we need more people like this who at least care about improving quality and the quality of prose. Readers couldn't give a monkeys about whether the person who wrote the article was "civil" somewhere, they care that the editor took the time to provide the information and write the articles. I'm not saying that means anybody can run about as they like on here, within reason, but I think far too much goes into trivial things people might say instead of the real damaging harassment and bullying over many months on here which is never accounted for. In all honesty I rarely comment on forums these days as the way things run I am pretty appalled. At times it seems like I'm the only one who really sees how ridiculous things often are and how unnecessary things can be. I'm very glad to see that at least some others here scoff at it in the way I do. But I've learned there is little I can do about it so I myself try to ignore it and just look at articles.. When Malleus decides to return it will be on his own accord and on his own terms not because somebody took his handcuffs off. Good luck anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The peanut gallery and behaviour in the chimpanzee cage
It's my view that all broadminded and intelligent people will ignore the Arbcom case completely; even if that means certain people striking their comments and pointedly taking it off their watchlist. There is nothing more pathetic and voyeuristic to watch than a group of people playing with themselves - which is exactly what this case is. If that is how certain people get their kicks, who are we to deprive them of that solitary gratification? I know for certain that Malleus has enough friends to have himself unblocked anytime he likes - that he does not want to call in favours or give his enemies the pleasure of seeing him ask shows his complete understanding of these people's love of ritual humiliation and he quite rightly choses not to indulge or distract them further. The time for protest and action is when these people tire of enjoying their own company and turn their deeply provincial and addled minds to further persecution of Malleus and/or other editors. Malleus is holding a full hand of trumps - I don't see any cause for concern, and while he's holding it; he's keeping these people off the streets and from bothering others. Malleus is to be congratulated rather than advised here. GiacomoReturned20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That Malleus holds the trump cards, and that arbcom are impotent, is self-evidently true. That's what's so destructively brilliant about this type of trolling, as you well know Giano. When you get slightly tired of people stroking your ego over your (granted impressive) content contributions, you simply behave like a spoilt dick, in the knowledge that it will infuriate some, and yet their fury will be rendered impotent as your sycophants defend you (so adding to the frustration and fury of your detractors). You then get to sit back and watch the drama, feigning your own martyred victimhood. Not a bad day's work. The only weakness is the need for the blatant pretentiousness that has to maintain the pretence of virtue. Yes, arbcom are mugs for taking the case, because they haven't the balls to do do anything, except that which will prolong and exacerbate. (Oh, I expect this post to be removed as being too close to the bone!)--Scott Mac20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I do hope not Scott; it's so rare thay you and I are in agreement. The only small thing is that (unlike Malleus), but like so many, I don't contribute much to content these days - so you are wrong there. I'm more of a political observer. GiacomoReturned20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be very suprised if your post is removed Scott; however if it is, then I'm the fool. If it is not then, well .... Pedro : Chat 20:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
@Scott re: your sycophants defend you that very phrase once got Mal blocked. That you or I .. or really any admin. can utter such a phrase without an eyebrow being raised is exactly one of the things that can be so frustrating around here. What's good for one should be good for all, but that's simply not the way it works. ... IJS. — Ched : ? 22:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually it isn't - that's simply straining on the gnats. Either my post is correct, in which case Malleus ought to be banned for the troll that he is, or my post is direct personal attack on him and should be sanctioned as such (and Giano's, which I think is accusing him of acting like a caged chimpanzee). I suppose I could have said "admirers who will defend you right or wrong, in order to impress you", but since that's almost a dicdef of sycophants, we are into trivialities. See the big picture.--Scott Mac23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed... Do I think there is a case to be made against Mal? Yes. Has it been made? No. People tend to jump over trivial transgressions that it undermines their argument.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this almost entirely accurate assessment coming from Scott? Lara03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
What distresses me most about this whole affair, beyond the issue of incivility, is how Malleus promotes an us-vs-them attitude. MF by and large reserves his trolling for WT:RFA, I always always read MF's first post in any thread there (and anywhere else), because I often find that post to raise a highly cogent point. But it often devolves quickly and MF is not one to cede the last word, and will sooner or later personalize it. Especially on WT:RFA, Mal has it down to a fine art and knows exactly where to paddle the canoe and drop a lure around dusk. In one sense, yeah, admins and prospective admins need to be able to take the heat, but - I can't really envision "writers vs admins", to me the disctinction is between those of us who came along and fell in love with the idea of a project where everyone could work together to create a great encyclopedia, where I could add my ideas to other peoples', and they could add to mine, and we all review each other. The "versus" is all the other people who come here with outside agendas, and those unwilling to discuss or learn. This organizing into factions, along lines that can never truly be resolved, is unproductive and corrosive IMO. My facile puffery. :) Franamax (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Malleus promotes an us-vs-them that was created by certain Admins a long time ago, and has been upheld by many Admins ans Arbs ever since. Malleus is merely guilty of highlighting a problem, which is most certainly not of his making. GiacomoReturned09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Giano. Sorry, but that's just more of the "virtuous Malleus" nonsense. He's not highlighting a problem, he's exploiting a structural weakness in order to divide and troll. The structural weakness is that either civility blocks ought to be discontinued altogether, or they ought to be made to stick (the community can't agree, and the result is increasing frustration). Who created the problem? No, I wouldn't only say "certain admins", I'd give your own trolling more credit than that. I've always seen Malleus as a poor imitation. If you are popular, you'll always find someone to unblock you - even for fairly outrageous incivility - that unblocking will simply make you more unpopular with frustrated others - which makes them look for a reason to "get you" - rinse and repeat. Of course anyone, who was not a self-conscious troll, and who genuinely wanted to help the community here, would abstain from the type of unnecessary remarks that feed the cycle, in order to avoid the who community engaging in this silly time-sink. People who are clever and articulate (as any good writer must be) know absolutely how to do that - it is just that they choose not to, because they enjoy the drama. The "cultural difference" argument is also bullshit, because if I use a form of words that obviously causes unintended offence, the correct response is "oops, sorry, I genuinely didn't know that word was offensive to so many of my fellow Wikiedians. Please accept my good faith in using it, and I'll stay away from it so not to needlessly upset anyone else again". If we are genuinely committed to a collaborative project, then we do our bit to collaborate. Where I blame arbcom is that when the problem of "vested uncivil user" first emerged, back in 2004/5 or so, they ought to have slapped it hard. "If you want to contribute here (and our FA writers evidently do) then don't do that - or you'll quickly end up banned" - had that be the line, there never would have been an issue for trolls to exploit. Instead, Arbcom went for repeated ineffective wrist-slapping, which simply served to increase the howls of injustice, without providing any deterrent, or remedy to the problem itself.--Scott Mac12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
When you said "correct response" I think you missed the following words: "in my opinion". Because in my opinion, coming from where I do, anyone who comes out with such things is talking out of their arse. Parrotof Doom13:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, there are lots of sheds of grey. No one comes out of this well. But the case is very a big waste of time. A quick analysis of the responses of the arbs, shows there's no agreement even as to scope. If you manage to get consensus for anything it will be a bit of finger-wagging either at incivility or at wheel warning. I don't blame you for this - but it is why I urged you to reject it.--Scott Mac13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid Scott is doing his usual waffle of sanctimonious pseudo-reasonableness, so I shall dicount it. Regarding civility: I have been saying for eons that Wikipedia needs a list of naughty words because it's very clear that what passes for a colourful adjective in one country can be grossly offensive in another - then editors can be officially warned "say that again and you're out." I don't use the word cunt anywhere, but off Wiki I often describe people as dicks and tits and to be honest I don't really see a technical difference. However, I still clearly remember being offended when called a cocksucker [17], but being told by the community that I was overreacting when I wanted the offender blocked - you see in my book one is a calculated insult to a homosexual, the other a commonly used adjective for an idiot - and while I may be an idiot I'm not gay and even if I were that would be inapropriate. The point I am trying to make is that many talk about the civility problem, few seem keen to actually address it other than by screaming for indiscriminate blocks - until one has a clear law, one cannot prosecute people for breaking it. GiacomoReturned14:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That rather proves my point, "one man's sauce is another man's gravy" (or whatever the espression is); we have either got to start addressing each other as thouh we are at Mid-Western sunday school or realise that we are all different and that we are all adult and just get on with it and adopt a water of a duck's back attitude and despite Mr McGloomy down below, I do think we could have a list of ten or so very naughty words that are deeply offensive to even the more broad minded of us. GiacomoReturned14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A list of sweary words is an amusing prospect. Perhaps we'd need a sweary word nomination process, and then a vote to add one. But I'm quite sure I can keep finding more that you bawbags haven't yet added to it, and make you bampots look like a bunch of glakit hoors. So, onw yi go ridding thu the brron floom, because, in any case, anyone with a decent command of the Queen's English knows how to deliver a perfectly polished, but most uncivil, put-down without resorting to anything remotely scatological.--Scott Mac14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
ya know .. I love you kids .. I really do. At least a few of you know the difference between "your and you're" .. "to, too, and two" .. and irregardless (sorry Mal .. couldn't help myself) of how it plays out in the end .. MF has made his point quite well.
hey Giano .. tell ya what - you guys get together over there, and we'll get together here on this side of the big puddle and we'll each pick 5 things that are offensive to each other - and then promise not to say those things. I'm gonna go back to trying to learn to be a better writer (in this "toxic environment" .. sorry Bish .. that was way out of line for a godking) ... I wish all of you the best. — Ched : ? 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually I'd have to agree with Scotty Mac on the "silly time sink", although I don't think Malleus would do it intentionally. One pretty trivial word completely blown out of proportion results in what will undoubtedly amount to several weeks of meaningless banter amongst editors who potentially have the time and ability to be producing very good quality work. That's actually one of the biggest problems I think is that people turn very trivial comments or issues into something huge of utmost importance which grip editorial attention away from what really matters. I fully agree with Malleus on the cowboy admins and how the whole system is geared towards politics rather than content and a "civil" system which fails to punish people fairly and appropriately but I personally think there is as much problem with editors blowing tiny issues into something massive through over discussion and threats (like threatening to ban Malleus) which result in mass time wasting as there are admins whipping out their pistols and handcuffs on here. Its all bollocks. Occasional banter is fine but talk pages are supposed to be about the discussion of articles really. All Malleus did was call somebody a cunt. That was all he did. Simply a word which describes an extremely unpleasant, irritating person in the context he used it in. Had Malleus said "you are such an extremely unpleasant irritating individual" nobody would have battered an eyelid. But people would have found some other "issue" to turn into weeks of mindless discussion. The root cause of the whole problem which plagues the site is very clear, people tend to overeact. Much of the BS that goes on here could be avoided if people responded to other people normally and not making the worse possible scenario out of every situation. Had that editor not turned up unwanted with his holier than thou attitude, Malleus wouldn't have called him that and he wouldn't have been blocked or threatened to be banned. Given that the worst possible scenario usually occurs I can't help thinking that some people here actually enjoy the wiki drama on here rather than actually contributing. One thing that is very clear is that wikipedia is enough of a farce at times to entertain...♦ Dr. Blofeld15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec ... grrr0
If all of this armpit-scratching, ball-scratching, chest-thumping, chimp-grinning, primate shrieking and gibbering, and peanut-throwing ends up resulting in the only thing(s) I've said Teh Arbs should do ... i.e.
First: we need some real clarification of what we mean, wiki-wide, by incivility. What is OK, what is definitely not OK, what is "borderline" (and how many times within a set period can one risk impinging on that borderline). We need to know where we stand.
Second: Whatever we decide upon, it has to be the same standards for everyone. If it's "not OK" for a raw noob to say it, then it's "not OK" for our biggest content contributor, our most-respected Arb, or even Jimbo to say it. And whoever says it, the community should back up whoever complains about it. A community which has different laws for different classes is not a community - it's a tyranny. And it will never, never get away from huge clashes between opposing camps to whom different rules apply. Lord Denning put this extremely well: "Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy."
It is quite impossible to reduce civility to a list of "naughty words". Unreasonable invective will always have to be judged by subjective standards, all you can hope for is reasonable judges. Any club, workplace, or college campus, will in the end have officers who make a judgement call and discipline those whose interactions are held to be antisocial, or otherwise unacceptable to house norms. You simply can't reduce human activity to an objective codified set of rules - it isn't science or arithmetic. That was always a nonsense argument. --Scott Mac15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No, not nonsense at all. In fact, a very good and simple idea. There is already a list of clearly proscribed words - try registering a new a Username using the C-word or the F-word as a main part. 109.154.158.71 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the point being made as Lara said above is that wikipedia is not a formal club, workplace, or college campus and really shouldn't have officers making judgement calls, That's why wikipedia sucks. On a website where most of us are unpaid or unqualified in our positions there is very valid argument to be made, "why should I be judged and ruled over by people who are no more qualified or entitled to than myself is the point".♦ Dr. Blofeld16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Dead horse? The concept of civility on wikipedia is pretty much subjective and the true incivility in the form of bullying over many months and wearing people down over many months with their pretentious policies and behaviour is never punished yet a man who utters a single swear word will be, even banned. It is a very real problem and I really don't see anything being done about it.
Measuring civility goes much further than any single word anybody might say. Its fine for some people to wear others down over many months to the point they have no choice to leave wikipedia as nobody is being "attacked" with a word. How many of the individuals responsible for driving Yellow Monkey away by their extraordinary attempts to wear him down were even given a warning let alone blocked or banned? Just not right. I'm outspoken here because history keeps repeating itself and driving away more and more people who actually care about what we are really here for and "following principles and punishing people" seems to be more important than anything, and its usually the more valuable contributors who end up bearing the brunt of it. Pretty soon the wiki world will be a barren waste ground consisting of nothing but rookies patrolling it in their wiki police cars running on their own toxic stink. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of a "list of naughty words" - something very much more basic and fundamental than that. Not quite sure what it would be - in my own view, naughty words in and of themselves are not the problem. Heck, (ahem) I've been "dragged up" amongst actors, writers, farmy types, stableyard types; I have children who have children (and whose vocabulary is still not quite as extensive as mine, lol!) and the "naughty words themselves" are not where it's at. There will be some guideline or "wary area" we can come up with , as a community, which will let us all know where we stand. And, whatever that turns out to be it must be applied equally to all. No "getting away with it" because someone's an admin or an arb, or the world's most active brilliant-content contributor - one rule for all. Nothing else can even come close to justice. And I have a passion for justice, and a seething hatred for injustice. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Fed up with Malleus' potty mouth? Fed up with Jimbo's pleading banner. The answer is pretty obvious - the Wikipedia Automatic Swear-box Donation Tool. A $1 for every c*nt, 50c a f*ck. You'll be queuing up to use the so**ing thing, you a**holes. 109.154.158.71 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
ROFLMFAO! If I had money to donate, I would have bought another bottle of Baileys ;P I have nothing available to donate except the truly invaluable resource of myself :o)
Support enforcing a Wikipedia swear jar. Wait, shit... I curse a lot, so that would require a lot of donations on my part... hmm, may have to rethink this. Lara21:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The easist solution is for Wikipedians who want to be treated like "ladies" to identify themselves and then the rest of us could avoid them like the plague. GiacomoReturned22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
While reading the above, I noticed that someone pointed out that your block is due to expire soon, and your response was: "I don't recall agreeing to that." Did you really not notice that the initial indefinite block was followed by an unblock, then by a week-long block, then by an unblock, then by a restoration of the week-long block? Or are you making a point that whether you chose to edit or not has nothing to do with your block log? From what you said here it looks like you genuinely didn't realise that the block length had changed. But then you talk here (16 hours earlier) about blocks expiring. The other thing I can't reconcile is statements like "I've never been one to back away from a fight, no matter what the odds" with your stated intent not to participate in any ArbCom case because it would be a 'farce' (I can't find the diff right now, possibly you said that in an edit summary). As I've said elsewhere, if you refuse to participate in a case then that is passing up a chance to argue for what you think, and to try and achieve change. At the end of the day, though, it is your choice whether to participate or not, though others may feel compelled to defend you or correct mis-statements by others. Hopefully any case won't be too much of a timesink. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Ched, can you, hand on heart, say you know what Malleus wants here? My point is that by not making a single statement at the request page, but instead making scattered comments in various places on this talk page (along with a lot of noise from others), it is difficult to actually work out what is going on here from Malleus's point of view, and what Malleus actually wants from all this (I could speculate, but that would be putting words into his mouth). My question would be: what is really the aim of all this? The same question needs to be asked of those arbitrators who have agreed to accept a case. Arbitration cases with no agreement on scope, and refusal to participate by one of the named parties, end up as a mess. I think that if Malleus decides to participate, he actually has a good chance of influencing the case in a positive way, but as I said, it is his choice. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is Malleus' perogative to dismiss the Arbcom, their supporters and his enemies by ignoring the so called case; and he is quite at liberty to do so. That the Arbcom have dug themselves into a hole by foolishly accepting the case is really their problem not MF's. Reading some of the Arbs' comments proved to be one of the lighter moments of my over in-lawed Christmas. Is Silk Tork really so naive and full of silly talk? Similarly, Malleus is at liberty to recognise the indeff block, so thoughtlessly applied to him. It may be better for all, if you went off and thought through how to prevent trigger happy little admins over-reacting in future and how to get the Arbcom to recognise the wisdom of accepting cases on which their are no laws to base them. I have to say, the first signs of this new Arbcom are not encouraging. GiacomoReturned18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no interest in ArbCom and its show trials. I would encourage everyone to just ignore it and let them get on with their inevitable ban asap. No skin off my nose. MalleusFatuorum18:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's not entirely consistent with your position at the beginning of November (when you seemed quite willing to engage in the [later rejected] arbitration case GWH was intending to, and eventually did, file), but it is your choice. Maybe this case will have a different outcome to the predictions being made, who knows? Thank-you for taking the time to answer my question. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not inevitable
An arbcom ban is hardly inevitable, in fact, I think it unlikely as things stand now. In any event, you could make a choice not to let it happen; I won't condescend to enumerate what steps you could take to appease the "powers that be." If it's true that We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to get dragged into all of the other wikimadness[18] this is easily within your control. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Proofreading please?
Hi, I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. Would you please consider doing a spelling, grammar, and sentence order check over the Olympic marmot? Don't worry if you're too busy, but I would love your help because I've heard of your great editing skills. I'd really appreciate your expertise before submitting my article for teacher review so it's easier and more correct for my teacher to read and assess. Thank you! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use Malleus's talkpage as Copyedit Central, an exchange or marketplace where the users who used to rely on his skills can connect with other copyeditors. Casliber and Pesky, I'm sure you can find more appropriate talkpages to post your eager offers on. (Hint: User talk:Imthebombliketicktick would have worked in this instance.) I'm assuming good faith and mere thoughtlessness here, but fuck me, it's an effort. Move the copyediting lovefest somewhere else, now. Bishonen | talk22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
Oh goodness, I didn't realize that you had been blocked before making my request for your help! I'm sorry. Some other editors jumped on it though, so it worked out. Thanks again, Casliber, Pesky, and innotata :) Best of luck, Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This should read: "An arbitration case against you has been opened. It will meander on for months. A great many mouthy people (of whom you have barely heard) will say how horrible you are, and then Arbcom will announce a humiliating punishment. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do or do not say will fuel the mouthy people and be construed againt you" GiacomoReturned08:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think Wehwalt you are the person to be pontificating on incivility at all; as you would not recognise it if it bit you on the posterior [19]. GiacomoReturned09:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To paraphrase a judge who announced a decision completely opposite to what he said before, the matter does not appear to me now as it did then.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Giacomo, despite having a german name, Wehwalt is ok. Bit stern and sharp with words, like youself. I believe ye are both solicitors. Enjoy the cage fight, gentlemen. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't beleive I have ever claimed anything about my RL existance, so it looks as though you are beleiving wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia hates anyone with any real professional knowledge, so anyone claiming it is immediatly doomed here. It's my opinion that any laws governing Wikipedia are dreamt up and upheld amateurs, the underemployed, the unemployed and the umemployable. I'm not sure Malleus is going into cagefight, there he would dhave a sporting chance, this is more the Trial by Ordeal - Malleus with his hands tied fights a 100 venomous serpents while the multitude throw peanuts. GiacomoReturned12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
At one time, I was very much into Wagnerian Opera (before I got into post-hardcore music) and Wehwalt is the alias of Siegmund in Die Walkure I was very much taken by Hunding's shout of "Wehwalt! Wehwalt!" which begins the final scene of Act II, which is one of the few really dramatic, fast moving scenes Wagner ever wrote. In fact, when I went to Bayreuth in 1990 and got to go on a private tour of the Festspielhaus, I quietly sang the line from the stage. So I've sung Wagner at Bayreuth. Rather badly, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
In order to spread "Wikilove" as if your talk page were a public toilet beneath a busy train station, Fifelfoo has given you a Caucasian Chalk Circle, complete with an anti-cathartic twist ending where the goat-herders defeat the fruit growers, where the baby goes to the wrong mother (or is cut in half), and where the people's judges are nothing of the sort. Feel free to add a photograph of a kitten or something if it makes you feel any worse. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, to say that you are one of our finest contributors would be an understatement. Saying that you care a great deal about this project would also be an understatement, given the amount of shit you've had to put up with here. Chris Cunningham's indef block of you was a vindictive, punitive block if I ever saw one. John was 100% correct in unblocking you. That should have been the end of it. It's truly sad to see what this has become. This project needs you, but as much as I want to see you stay, I don't think any reasonable person could fault you for walking away at this point. I wish you the very best. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey... it's premature to dole out valedictories. Regardless of appearances, competence and a deeper decency may still breathe somewhere in hidden recesses of the current administration. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything which begins with "admin" is never going to include me! Howsumever, competence and decency do exist in the rank and file. And (really!) amongst some admins, too! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Awarded to MF, a self-proclaimed cynical bastard. Really, you should be blocked for using such words about a valued content editor, and I'm going to tell Kaldari all about it. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari is a personification of everything I hate about this place. You, and many others I could mention, are what keep it going and make it worthwhile, not the Kaldaris. MalleusFatuorum18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have learned a lot from you, and whether you choose to stay or not, or get kicked out in this trial where I don't even know what to say or whether it matters, I won't forget those valuable lessons. Please give my regards to Mrs. Fatuorum, and a happy new year to both of you. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
username
Not sure what you mean by "hiding username?" I just changed my username 14 Dec and am using a customized signature which includes the old username until the end of this year because -- in the disreputable places I hang out -- someone would undoubtedly accuse me of socking . Nobody Ent (Gerardw)17:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
