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.
Cognitive dissonance
Thanks for the feedback on my edits. You were right about the "interestingly" point. My mistake. The studies I included were reviewed (from "Nature" and "Science"), so I think they're worth keeping, especially since they're more recent than many of the other citations. By adding the recent research, I'm attempting to help the cognitive dissonance page contain more up-to-date material. However, if what you're saying is that I'm going into too much detail, I can simplify the references. I just thought information on the studies' parameters and conclusions would help illustrate the findings better. I was using the other studies included on the cognitive dissonance page as models, most of which contain a fair amount of background, so that's where I was coming from.
I understand where you're coming from, as I had my fair share of undergraduate psychology essays to write as well, but encyclopedia articles are different. You need to be relying on secondary sources such as review papers and reliable textbooks. That XYZ published PQR yesterday is the stuff of academic debate, not of encyclopedias. Wikipedia suffers, in my opinion, because being online it's expected to include every known factoid about every known thing, but that's simply nonsense. The papers you've alluded to contain the opinions of their authors based on a single investigation. Their results need to be replicated by other researchers, and if they can be consistently they'll be included in a review paper or a reliable textbook, which you can quote. Have they been replicated? MalleusFatuorum03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting that Wikipedia discourages from using studies from peer-reviewed journals. I had received guidance to avoid secondary sources like textbooks for updating the page, thus, the research journal additions. I can see the point. The approach does inhibit the medium's vibrancy and dynamism, which seem advantages over other encyclopedias (other than being "free"). The study on music's effect on cognitive dissonance was recent (2012). The hand-washing study was in 2010, and there are other sources that have indicated similar findings, including the following:
Gangestad, S. W. (2011). Understanding self-deception demands a co-evolutionary framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(01), 23-24.
Xu, A. J., Zwick, R., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Washing away your (good or bad) luck: Physical cleansing affects risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 26.
Gollwitzer, M., & Melzer, A. (2012). Macbeth and the Joystick: Evidence for moral cleansing after playing a violent video game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Kaspar, K. (2012). Washing One’s Hands After Failure Enhances Optimism but Hampers Future Performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science.
You're missing the point, but then you're by no means alone in that regard. Is English not your first language? Do you have some other excuse for your obdurate misunderstanding of what you're being told, such as a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and what an encyclopedia article ought to look like? MalleusFatuorum05:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me rephrase and repeat what Malleus wrote. The best original research is not preferred on Wikipedia, because our editors would then have to weigh the quality of individual sources. Rather, like other encyclopedias, we prefer secondary sources that have evaluated the original research. A review article in a strong journal, e.g. a profession's leading review journal, is preferable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"You're missing the point, but then that's by no means unusual for you. Do you have some other excuse for your being such an utterly offensive asshole, such as a complete misunderstanding of other editors' feelings and what a civil exchange about an encyclopedia article ought to look like? Is English your first language or is still fricken Scotch?" 86.150.94.13 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely even you must be able to see the obvious incongruity of complaining about incivility in such an uncivil manner. Have you ever considered the possibility that setting an example of what it is that you demand from others might be a more fruitful approach to adopt in the future? Or are you just another one of those who only see incivility in others, not themselves? MalleusFatuorum23:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like me at all, as I don't have a Scottish (not Scotch, please, that's a drink) accent. Or a beard of any colour. The bloodshot eyes on a bad day I'll give you though. MalleusFatuorum00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You sound like that irritating chap who commentates on the National Lottery draw: "Number seven, its first appearance since the last fucking time it appeared." (I took some liberties in paraphrasing what he wished he could really say.) MalleusFatuorum01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Aha, that guy irritates you, too! You should try it with subtitles: when they bork and you're left with the same caption for what seems like an eternity. Not that I am in any particular urgency to know the outcome - I've never yet bought a ticket, both on principle and because I represent one of their core market, ie: the people who struggle to afford buying a pint of milk but will spend a quid on a ticket with the incredible optimism/borderline delusion that this week they'll definitely win enough to pay Wazza Rooney's wage for a month. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me started on footballers. Did you see the news last week that Carlos Tevez was stopped for speeding and couldn't produce a driving licence because he doesn't have one? The police impounded his Porsche, as they do, but exactly the same thing happened three years ago when Tevez was stopped in his Bentley, which the police also impounded. If Tevez had been a regular individual the loss of even one £140,000 car might have hurt, and the police would have been camped outside his door. MalleusFatuorum01:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and one of my all-time favourite newspaper cartoons appeared in the Manchester Evening News way back when it was still a half-decent paper even if not the Full Monty that once it had been. Two guys sat with mikes in a commentary box, looking out over Old Trafford as a player walks towards the crease: "Brian, is Atherton's appearance here the first time ever that an England player has gone to bat with dirty bootlaces?". - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to admit that I did once buy a lottery ticket, for the very first lottery. I didn't win, so I haven't bought another. By any rational analysis the lottery is really just an additional tax on the "poor". And having said that, those who irritate me even more than that announcer are the winners who declare that it won't change their lives. For fuck's sake, if it's not going to change your life then why did you buy a fucking ticket? MalleusFatuorum01:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I was watching a BBC television on the Victorian ironmasters yesterday evening, which made the interesting point that the last commercial iron producer in the UK closed in 1974, since when the only source of iron is recycled scrap, forcing blacksmiths to use mild steel instead. MalleusFatuorum18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you filling this out, Malleus? Do you think I should, that as an admin I have a responsibility to weigh in? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is so loaded in favour of the easily offended it is ludicrous. My local council has "consultations" like this so the gullible think they are participating in decisions. No good can come of rubbish like this. J3Mrs (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried not to read it so I could approach it with an open mind. ;) Would you be offended if I changed your "favour" to "favor"? I think it's kind of a personal attack to use British spelling in a thread started by someone named for a classic American guitar, and continued by someone working in the United States. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint Johnbod, but I won't be wasting my time. You could always fill it out for me of course, as I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of what my attitude is to civility on Wikipedia. MalleusFatuorum16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a very tempting offer, but I'd better not. Maybe if get drunk in the survey period (not that I'm suggesting you edit that way) .... Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I might, I might not, I ain't sayin'. Can't remember now which administrator it was who suggested shortly after blocking me that I was like a koala bear, who apparently because of the eucalyptus they eat are permanently pissed, or some such nonsense; interesting what administrators and arbitrators get away with. Gandydancer should take note and direct his wrath elsewhere. MalleusFatuorum23:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No. I agree with what J3Mrs says, and what Kiefer Wolfowitz has said on his talk page. And I don't think anyone has any responsibility to do anything about it, administrator or not. To cut to the chase, everyone will be in favour of greater civility from everyone except themselves and tougher sanctions on those perceived to be uncivil. But still nobody will be able to agree on what counts as incivility, and so the discussion will once again focus on what the Americans laughingly call profanity, bless their cotton socks. I'm quite sure you have better things to do than to waste your time on that Drmies, I know I do. MalleusFatuorum15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, so am I now - I was completely unaware as his distinguished history as a research scientist, & have just done a redirect for U.T. Cobley. I've just done my first peer-review for a scientific journal, recommending rejection of a short paper on you-know-what, co-authored by a very distinguished guy. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for considering the request Malleus Fatuorum. I understand your apprehension, and respect your decision. I do believe your input will be dearly missed, and feel that the questionnaire would allow you to express the points you've made here. Again, thanks for considering it. My76Strat (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I managed to achieve filling it in sensibly. Seriously, folks, the more input, the better, otherwise the responses may end up being ... errmmm ... not a "representative sample" ;P Pesky (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
These statements made by Malleus Fatuorum, "Is English not your first language? Do you have some other excuse for your obdurate misunderstanding of what you're being told, such as a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and what an encyclopedia article ought to look like?" are, in my opinion, extremely cruel. I have a very thick skin and just smirk and feel superior at the infrequent insults that have come my way. But to have someone such as Malleus call me stupid would be very hurtful. Say fuck this or fuck that or call me a cunt or a twat and I just chuckle because I tend to be pretty passionate myself and I have a good sense of humor. To be called (as much as) stupid by an admin does not hurt my feelings either--it just makes me very (fucking) angry and again, feel superior to such idiots. But to have someone like Malleus (depending on the circumstances) call me stupid would be very hurtful. Idiots are expected to say stupid stuff. Those that I have looked up to...well, I expect more from them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
But you know, Malleus doesn't really bite newbies, he may miss the mark occasionally, but in general, he isn't opposed to comforting the afflicted, but spends more time afflicting the comfortable. Malleus "goes Malleus" on people who are arrogant, self-important and so on; if those folks have their widdel fweewings hurt, they sort of had it coming, IMHO. Montanabw(talk)20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I told that student clearly what the problem was and (s)he either refused to listen or failed to understand. I repeated my advice a little more strongly, end of story. He or she will be gone in a few weeks time anyway, as all these student editors are no matter what I say or do, then perhaps I'll take some time to write a proper article on cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps I'll let you do it, if you can. I have absolutely no time at all for the position you seem to espouse, that the most important issue for Wikipedia is the declining number of active editors; the most important problem is very obviously the declining number of good editors, which seems to be rapidly approaching zero. MalleusFatuorum22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think I may have spoken without fully understanding what was actually going on. I was surprised to see you being so short with that editor because in my experience you have seemed so patient and kind. As for the suggestion that I am concerned about the declining number of editors, I'm not concerned about that--actually I don't even know much about it. I agree with you about the importance of keeping good editors and I'm concerned that the place is showing signs of corporate rot. As for using peer reviewed studies such as the one mentioned above, I don't agree that there is no place for them in Wikipedia science related articles. In the type of articles that I edit they are frequently all that is available other than those that are corporate funded and government approved. About rewriting the article, actually I am not a very good writer. I do my best, but every word I write causes me to experience angst. I've only written one article and a great deal of a few others, including, of course Gandy dancer. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging with me on this because considering the type of editing that I do, it's an important topic for me. I'm a retired health care worker and a granny. As a granny, I have an interest in attempting to keep my country less toxic for our children, and now that I'm retired, I have the time to attempt to at least try to provide up-to-date and accurate information on pesticides, etc., that seem to be affecting the health of our children. Rather than clutter this page, would it be OK if we move the discussion to your or to my talk page? Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the best one to ask; I've been inactive for well over a year and have no desire to change that. The best person to talk to about WP:PSTS in general is SlimVirgin who wrote much of it; the best people to talk to with regards to sourcing for medical articles (which have their own, even stricter, rules on the use of primary sources) are SandyGeorgia, Anthonyhcole and the talkpage of WP:MEDRS. – iridescent00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I don't know why the questionnaire contains more than one question: "Should we ban Malleus Fatuorum, and if so on what grounds? Could we get away with incivility?" MalleusFatuorum23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, funny - that's exactly how I read it, too. Of course, I would ban you purely on the grounds of eating porridge with salt in it and urinating in the foyers of Home Counties' railway stations while singing The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond and sloshing a can of Tennent's Super down your sporran. You Scotchite, you. =) Keri (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I seem to keep disappointing today, but I hate porridge, I've never eaten porridge, I despise the Victorian fashion for kilts and their associated paraphernalia, and I've never drunk a can of Tennent's Super. Apart from that a very accurate analysis. (But I do like the bagpipes, so there must still be some Scottish in me.) MalleusFatuorum01:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Different punctuation: On what grounds could we get away with incivility? Answer: Pass RfA and become and Arb. — Ched : ? 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've only ever tried to do three things here: write some decent content on stuff that caught my imagination, help others to do the same, and try to make people think about what's going wrong here. If my language has at times been rather more colourful than some might like then tough, at least it made them think. Even if what they thought missed the point completely, it at least offered their "leetle grey cells" some unaccustomed exercise. MalleusFatuorum00:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, dear heart (and others), I'm convinced that the only way to avoid getting a skewed result from a possibly/probably skewed questionnaire, is for everyone with a real passion for balance and sense, and most definitely all those against whom said questionnaire might be / is skewed, to complete it to the best of their ability, putting their own views as firmly-but-unheatedly as possible, and doing so while pretending (if there is no other way) that the questionnaire isn't riddled with hidden agendas. Pretend that it couldn't be about you (or someone you know), but is about hypothetical and anonymous situations, and bring to it all the intelligence, understanding, acuteness of intellect, and tolerance as is humanly possible. If the "puling masses" treat the questionnaire with contempt and disgust, then we have a self-fulfilling prophecy where only the input of the faction-for-intolerance gets heard at all. I don't know whether it's because I'm female, or a grandparent, or British, or just getting old (and having lived through some of the most almighty shittiest situations there can be), but I find more and more that what is really, significantly lacking in here is patience, tolerance, flexibility of approach, and fundamental human wisdom. The kind of wisdom which says you cannot re-train a rescue-case animal by beating it into submission. Ultimately, leadership is followed by choice, not by force, and it takes long-established nations a very long time to appreciate this; WikiLand is very far from a long-established nation, and has an unduly high proportion of folks who haven't been around long enough to learn the wisdom of a bit of patience and tolerance as opposed to harsh, vindictive and draconian measures to "teach him a lesson!"
Please try, all of you, to complete the questionnaire in that light, so we can at least attempt to get more of a balanced and representative input here. Otherwise all we will get is the voices of the 10% of the less-tolerant whose voices are loudest, and that is not only no good for the WikiCommunity, but, long-term, for the encyclopedia itself. Pesky (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth would anybody contribute to something so heavily biased in favour of the easily offended? Contributing to it gives it a validity it does not deserve. The smaller the sample the better.
This is my take on "civility", some good contributors have written articles to a very high standard that are regularly "improved" by other editors who just don't know what they are talking about and get reverted. Some get confrontational, a spat erupts. At this point the page-watching busybodies swoop including admins with poor interpersonal skills. In my opinion the busybodies do more harm than good. They create drama and disruption to a far greater extent than the involved parties, especially the ones who specialize in not writing articles. And anyway some editors really should be told their contributions are rubbish in whatever language is most appropriate and some of them have been around a long time. Unfortunately most can't accept criticism, and do nothing to improve, after all why should they, Wikipedia is there for everybody to edit, except those considered incivil by the lynch mob. Nobody should be blocked for incivility.J3Mrs (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty closely aligned to my own views, but not an exact match. I've left some thoughts on the process on the relevant talk page, and I think, contained in one of my responses to the questions, this is the best way I could think of of putting that point:
Quality and number of contributions are very important, just as a measure of "percentage of incivility". If two editors have both had four instances of incivility noted in the past two months, but Editor A has made 5000 edits in that period, and Editor B has made only 1000 (or even less), then Editor B is the worse offender. Simple numbers of offences are a wholly inadequate measure of an editor's overall level of incivility. It must always also be remembered that the editor with many thousands of article edits is far more likely to encounter really disruptive editors, total stupidity, civil POV-pushing, and all the rest, much, much more often than the editor who hardly edits articles at all, so will always be on the receiving end of a lot more genuinely disruptive hassle. It all takes its toll. The two will be inextricably linked.
A driver who does 1,000 miles a year of driving along quiet country lanes is far, far less likely to be involved in an accident than a driver who does 30,000 miles a year in inner-city areas frequented by boy racers. It doesn't mean that the 1,000 mile a year driver is a better driver.
An editor who turns up making snide or judgmental remarks about someone on noticeboards or talk pages once every twelve edits is a far worse editor, civility-wise, than one who responds coarsely to stupidity once every 1,000 edits.
I don't think any numbers are appropriate at all, I could easily up my edit count when copyediting by pressing save much more frequently. Quality of edits outweighs number every time. J3Mrs (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is, of course, true. But non-automated article edits are probably the best indicator that we currently have of contributions to the encyclopedia itself. I think one of the things which the longer-sighted and more intelligent of us need to get across is the shallow lack-of-insight in equating mannerisms with manners which seems to be very prevalent in some areas of the community. Pesky (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted a follow-on question to Carcharoth which touches on elements of this thread, and attempts to address the question, "Why on earth would anybody contribute to something so heavily biased in favour of the easily offended?" [1] Perhaps I am wrong, again. But I am interested in what is right. My76Strat (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Precious
forum
Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective"!
I can see you've done an awful lot of work on that, and GA doesn't look to be too far away. I've only had a very quick glance through so far (I'll try and find time later/tomorrow for a more thorough read) but one thing leaps out at me immediately. The Wikipedia Manual of Style deprecates the use of "The ..." in section titles, so a section header like "The drag strip is born" would be better recast as "Birth of the dragstrip"; there are several others that need to be recast in a similar way as well. That's a big subject you've chosen, and I foresee the very distinct possibility that a future FAC might be dominated by what you've included and what you've left out, so that's one aspect you need to be prepared to defend. MalleusFatuorum18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
When are you planning to move it to article space? Any objection to me editing the article in your sandbox until you do? If there are any issues I come across beyond the scope of simple copyediting I'll raise them on your talk page in the meantime. MalleusFatuorum18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Very nice article, Dennis. Needs more Ace of Spades though. Just joshin'. One sentence ("The past decade has seen a resurgence of retro styling in new automotive design") fixes the article in time, and perhaps you might instead specify a decade? Keri (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Very impressive already! Something should be bold in the first line ;) - Try to consistently have punctuation before ref. Lead should normally have no refs, as a summary of things referenced in the body. My main concern: how about separating refs from body? (Much easier for maintenance, for example for helping now, example: Franz Kafka) - On the Main page: Bishop and Bach cantata are a nice combination right now on the First Sunday in Advent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a fairly recent convert to list-defined references, but they undoubtedly do help to make the text less cluttered. On the subject of bolding something in the first line, I think the problem is that the article title isn't quite right. I think something like "1950's American automobile culture" would be better, and would lend itself to an introduction along the lines of "1950's American automobile culture has left an indelible mark on the wider culture of the United States, in both positive and negative ways", or something like that. Much punchier I think, but as it involves renaming the article I'll leave that for Dennis to decide. MalleusFatuorum20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has no name yet, only after the move. Are there similar articles as models? To start with a number seems a bit strange. I named an article Messiah structure, to have it show when people look for Messiah, but it was renamed to more formal soon. There are always redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis: Trust me, you should rename the article as I suggest; I'm very rarely wrong. ;-)
@Gerda: It's very common to start an article title with a number. Look at all the sports FAs/GAs for instance, such as 1948 Summer Olympics torch relay. Added to which I've never been fan of the "X of Y" workaround employed by those too scared of apostrophes to write the more idiomatic "Y's X". MalleusFatuorum21:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A wise decision Dennis. I will smite any misguided doubters who have the temerity to take on the mighty Malleus, ruler of all the known Universe and ... ah, must try and find those pills I seem to have misplaced. If I were you I'd move the article into article space now and nominate for your DYK this evening. DYK is only concerned with the mechanical stuff such as article length and whether the hook is cited, easy peasy really. GAN will be a lot tougher, and FAC even tougher again. MalleusFatuorum21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added alt text to the first two images (and copyedited the second caption to fit) as an example for you Dennis. I'll do the others if you don't want to, or I'll help you with your own efforts. There are a lot of images, and you should recognise that they should never be decorative, but are valuable when you use them to make or illustrate a point. For each image, consider what point it makes, or what text it illustrates or reinforces. That helps you decide not only whether an image should be included, but where in the text it should be placed. Finally, ensure that the caption refers specifically to the point you are making, and then use the alt text to complement the caption for anyone who can't see the image. Hope that helps, but feel free to ping me if I can do more for you. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If the apostrophe is used because it is possessive, wouldn't it be 1950s' If I wanted to talk about the decade, I would mention the 1950s. If I wanted to describe something as being of that decade I would say the 1950s' something. If I wrote about 1950's something, I would be making that something of the year 1950. The best source I have for this is a Q&A from the Chicago Manual of Style [2]. RyanVesey23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Ryan is correct. That habit of changing "1950s" to "1950's" appeared in mass media a few years back and has caught on...much like a fungal infection. I keep hoping it will die out, but it lingers on. Intothatdarkness14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Should the image captions be more highly linked? For example, should "NASCAR winner "The Fabulous Hudson Hornet" link NASCAR and Hudson Hornet? I don't know if Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking requires links in the captions; however, it certainly excludes captions from being counted towards not linking something twice. RyanVesey22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted your most recent addition, as repeating the caption in the alt text is just irritating for those using screen readers, who can already hear the caption anyway. Writing decent alt text is a skill that very few seem to have here, and if I were you I'd not worry about it for now. I've got graver concerns about the structure of the article, as I've explained on the talk page. MalleusFatuorum00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
My personal experience is that, if I really, really want to know that what I've been working on is truly worthy, enlightened input such as Malleus's is worth more than his own weight in gold - and more rewarding. Pesky (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
[Pesky chuckles] I know! Still worth more than that, though. A brief word of praise from Malleus is worth more than a million bytes of effusive flattery from various others. If something you've done pleases Malleus, you know it's fucking good. Pesky (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You (plural). - I don't have all the desirable skills myself, it's learning by doing. - It doesn't take any special skills to take WP:TFAR on the watchlist and comment, suggestions and talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you've got the bones of a 1950s' culture article there now Dennis. I'd really like to merge the drag racing and Nascar stuff as subsections in an overall Automotive sport section, or whatever you'd call it in America, but before I do too much more take a look and see if you think I've been too brutal with your work. MalleusFatuorum18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I fully expect that some material might well make its way back in, but hopefully in an appropriate cultural context now rather than a technical one. BTW, rather ironically given the discussion about what this article shold be called I found this in the Drive-in movies section: "... they are still associated as part of the 1950's American car culture". :-) MalleusFatuorum19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Those were great. On NPR's Whadda ya know, one question was, true or false?: Liberace's live-in lover had plastic surgery to look more like Liberace. Reminds me of Imam's line to Kirk in Star_Trek_VI:_The_Undiscovered_Country, after he said, "I cannot believe I kissed you!": Iman's shape-shifting character, now looking like Kirk, replied, "Admit it! You've wanted to do that for years!" Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I drove by to drop off a few references. I'm sure Malleus saw the formatting and thought fuck, there we go again. (My apologies.) Nice article, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Back in the day, up until the the bomb, there was a well-known dispenser of fine wines and spirits in the centre of Manchester. I had a friend who worked there and got some massive discounts. A bottle of 40 year-old Balvenie for £7, anyone? I also got free tickets for Scotch tastings at Old Trafford, which included one memorable (sic) occasion when Manchester United were playing at home, being the other Old Trafford across the road. I was pretty legless when I left but the Metrolink was so full of football supporters that I could not have fallen over if I had tried. A pint of Joey Holt's on the way in, a good tasting session, a haggis and neeps, and a tram full of happy supporters of some weird sport. I do believe I made it into work on time the next morning. Happy days! - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
?
Malleus, how do you do it, making so many edits to one article, improving it all the while. Doesn't your back give out? Do you use a lot of cocaine? I've been plugging away at Under the Volcano and feel like progress is slow--that there is so much work to do, and I don't even have the books yet: I've only read a dozen of the million available journal articles. I thought of you briefly today, while I was talking on the phone to a friend back in Amsterdam; I was telling him about Austerlitz, selling him on Sebald: my friend spent a semester studying in Manchester and thinks back to that time fondly (as do I--I had a key to his apartment where I could play Wolfenstein on his computer). I'll send him a copy for Christmas. The more I edit here, the more I am grateful for the work that people like you have done: it's a long list, but you're up there. Happy days, dear Malleus, and please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, don't look too closely at my latest. OK, it's less than a day old but there are bits in it that are proving awkward vis-a-vis close paraphrasing: bloody difficult when it turns out that the ODNB writer appears to have closely paraphrased stuff from an obit published 40 years earlier in The Times. If he couldn't get round it, I reckon I'm going to need to do some deep thinking. Which is why I am just off out with the dog, via the pub ... - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The only FA in which I've had any significant involvement - James Tod - is intended for TFA on the 19th. No idea why and I appear to be the only person who has had a notice from the bot. I'm not sleeping well, going through phases of up to 48-56 hours of awaked-ness, and I'm supposed to turn up for a hospital appointment on the TFA day. I'm told that people keep a watch on these things but I've also seen some comments in the past here about what a palaver it can be. This one could well be controversial and might well attract rather more than mere vandalism, depending a bit on chat at Orkut and similar. I'd really appreciate it if some trusted eyes were on it. If you are regular contributor to this talk page, you're trusted. Ta muchly, and do feel free to tweak it beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I've replied on my talk - basically, bollocks to it: let it run. It will be an experience of some sort. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it too Sitush. From experience I'd say that you were better off not watching on TFA day, so your hospital appointment is Heaven sent really. If the worst comes to the worst (and I'm sure it won't) you can always simply revert back to the previous version anyway. IIRC I was once blocked for about 20 minutes for a 3RR violation on TFA day, back in the days when I used to get blocked for using any polysyllabic word. How times have changed, now I get threatened with a ban just for being here. MalleusFatuorum01:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Shocking! I believe there may be a grammatical error in Malleus's last post. Should it not read, "I'll keep an eye on it too, Sitush."? GoPhightins!01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame that asterisks are not punctuation but try :!|( ;'" That's a 4-space-3 set of punctuation marks. GoPhightins, go figure ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never really understood the British distaste for commas. As I understand it, the reason Brits use DMY rather than MDY—aside from the fact that it is the most common form in non-english languages—is because MDY requires commas and DMY doesn't. RyanVesey02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the date thing not because the Brits were here first? ... Or does this reflect the US English is more English than English English argument? US discard letters all over the place but add commas. It's an odd world but I guess we all end up using the same amount of ink. Ink? What's that? - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Woah and damn. 3RR is a bloody good point - too easy to step over in a situation like this. I'll take the angle grinder to my hands a few minutes in advance. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
SandyG made an interesting point on my talk page earlier about TFAs: "I've overcome my fear of the vandalism, though, partly because in general the mainpage just isn't vandalized as it was several years ago." I think she may be onto something there; the introduction of edit filters has stopped lots of the silly blanking/naughty word vandalism, the antivandal bots catch most of the rest. Yesterday's FA, Ace Books, had 'only' 46 edits all day, with I think a net improvement in the article; at times, though, there were a couple of hours between edits. In early December 2008, by comparison, Interstate 70 in Utah had 99 edits, including gems such as this and this. I've been lucky with my three TFAs in that few people could be arsed to vandalise them, let alone improve them. One ran at a weekend when I tend not to be able to edit anyway, and it was just fine without me, so I'd agree with MF's point that it can be best not to watch... BencherliteTalk01:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with SandyG, as I often do. For whatever reasons the misery of TFA day has been reduced quite considerably over recent years. MalleusFatuorum02:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
A strange reason to withdraw from the review. It is a fact though that too many GA reviewers (even one would be too many) try to impose their vision on an article rather than simply assess it against the GA criteria and make suggestions as to how it might be improved beyond the scope of the GA criteria. I don't know what tuning James May was using when he took an electric guitar out onto the streets of some English town and invited passers-by to try and play the opening riff of "dah-dah-daah, dah-dah-dedah, dah-dah-dah-deedaah". MalleusFatuorum02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
My information-gathering Kung Fu was weak today, and it took me 30 minutes to find this video (the sequel to how to serenade,[6]), in which the little creatures sent into the stratosphere were already dead---not quite up to Top Gear balls-to-the-walls standards.
Mays calls his tuning openfifths tuning, and his has exactly two openpitch classes (two open notes in different octaves). Translating So and Do as C and G, we see that it is the C-G-C-C-G-C tuning "popularized by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young in their songs 'Four and Twenty' and 'Suite: Judy Blue Eyes' (which was transposed up one whole step)", according to Sethares's guide.
The fifths are the basis of tonal harmony; in late medieval times, people sandwiched a minor/major third (E/F) between the fifth (C,G) to get the minor/major chords of diatonic harmony, which has been the basis of everything popular since. In rock guitar, the fifth is the power chord, and so this tuning lets you strum 6-string power chords, changing the tone by barring one finger across a fret. Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There was more friction in this GAN review than in past reviews, but I accept my share of the blame for that. I could have written diplomatic sentences about WP:SELF, etc., perhaps adding sprinkles of "maybe", "perhaps", and "I know you that you have good reasons, but I feel", before ending with a question mark? I remember that a leftwing political organization's youth had once proposed (in the heydays of feminism) that the men have to adopt the mannerisms of California teenage girls, soon to spread even to young men, like like---which was defeated by indignant women.
Or you could've just dropped the condescension, which was the only reason I stopped doing the review. As if I would actually fail it over your use of semicolons ("Why the semicolon?" is "try[ing] to impose [my] vision on an article", I suppose?). Nice spin. Much deliciouser when you're talking about people behind their back. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs22:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Curly,
My link is to the condescension discussion, hardly spin".
Your misreading of "despite" follows your misreading of WP:SELF and your botched copy-editing. I thanked you for the useful comments, from which I have learned, and I tried to acknowledge the effort of your failures with a simple "no(pe)" (to avoid embarrassing you), wishing you would review English, e.g. "was" versus "had been".
As Americans, we are inexperienced in condescension duelling. Discussing condescension is here as uncouth as discussing passive aggression would be on the talk page of a Swede. ;D
Regardless, almost as much as the arrival of The American Luthier with Petersen, the reviewer's earlier comments helped improve the article. Even when he was wrong, his comments sometimes led me to rewrite a sentence, so much the better for the article.
The reviewer's last angry comments about the article being a "how to" or "textbook" are less persuasive, and had been addressed with reference to the image-rich examples of Sethares, Griewank, Petersen, and Denyer. However, to be safe, I asked the painting-expert Ceoil to look at the question of text versus images. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone spare the time to make an example edit at Godfrey Herbert? I thought that I'd try using {{sfnp}} but I've hit a problem with citations of anonymous newspaper articles. I've set up fn 24 with its corresponding citation, and I've tried using "Anon." as the author, meddling with the date format and all sorts of other stuff but for some reason it keeps throwing a Harv error. Perhaps if someone can fix that one citation, I can work out the rest. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, although I've shown you how it's done I wouldn't actually recommend using the snfp template for newspaper articles. Much better to use that only for book references IMO. MalleusFatuorum18:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Is that a personal preference or is there some underlying issue? I keep picking up bits from you, RexxS, the late Jack Merridew etc, such as using {{efn}} rather than #tag anchors etc. Usually your rationale is based on more than preference, so I'm curious. Also, what would you recommend?
We're supposed to adopt a consistent cite format, so if {{sfn}} is not to be preferred for newspapers then it probably should not be used anywhere in the article. I'm trying to avoid {{cite newspaper}} because the urls are horrendously long and really do make editing harder. Although, I suppose, I could just not include the urls, given that they're behind a paywall anyway. I've used plain-text cites before - Lohara dynasty, Papadu and others - but some people have pointed out that they're awkward to maintain because there is no link through to the bibliography. Ucucha's script highlights any problems there when using {{sfn}}. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I use the {{r}} template for everything except books, as it's only with books that you have the multiple referencing to different pages of the same source issue. I've changed the citation you were struggling with to show you what I mean. And on the subject of consistency, if you're using the {{citation}} template, as I prefer to do as well, you ought to be adding "|ps=" to the end of each sfnp citation to suppress the trailing fullstop. MalleusFatuorum19:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the same as newspaper articles, with the {{r}} template. With journal articles you don't give the page number but the pages range where the article appears in the journal, as in ""pp. 55–58". MalleusFatuorum20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. This is raising more issues than I had originally considered. Firstly, I've always cited specific pages in journal articles and would have thought that a "must" if a quotation was used. Secondly, I wasn't aware that trailing fullstops were an issue: why {{sfn}} doesn't default to omitting the things is plain weird if they are deprecated. A final point that has emerged relates to your example edits on the article (appreciated, by the way): some parameters have been removed from {{citation}}, the most obvious being that for location ("London: The Times"). It looks like I'm due a re-read of WP:CITE because some of this stuff has been my m.o. from the outset & I'm buggered if I'm prepared to keep doing things incorrectly.
I like {{r}}, btw. Seen it before and my objection has been solely wrt the clutter it adds when reading cites of pages. So, combining use of that with {{sfn}} in an article gets the best of both worlds. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not that trailing fullstops are deprecated, but that the article should be consistent. {{sfn}} was designed for compatibility with the {{cite}} family of templates, not {{citation}}, which emit trailing fullstops whereas {{citation}} doesn't. And as for that location parameter, it's far more trouble than it's worth and adds nothing of any value. MalleusFatuorum20:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
What I think and what you'll get are completely different things. After spending my dole on some books for the article, you might just be the recipient of a beer or a pack of porage oats. Take your pick ;) - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I hate fucking porridge, so I'll go for the beer. 02:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I just want to make one thing clear. I've never tried to fuck porridge, so my statement above shouldn't be used to imply that I ever have or ever would. Can't really see the point of trying to anyway, as ... <bleep/> MalleusFatuorum03:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Jack Merridew and I had some discussion about how best to use citation templates when I was messing about a little with The Coral Island, which I'm pleased to see is now a GA. I was initially a little sceptical, especially about using list defined references, but I'm now totally converted to the idea. MalleusFatuorum23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't McDonald's have the possessive? Their corporate site uses it, as do other sources I've seen. Not trying to nitpick, but someone might fuss. Intothatdarkness19:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Bloody hell Dennis, you mean the Americans are responsible for McDonalds? - I can stop blaming the Scots then :) That probably explains why they can't pronounce their own name properly (the first 'a' shouldn't be sounded unless it's spelt Macdonald). Richerman(talk)19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Micky Dee's"? ... or ummmm ... would that be "Micky Dees'"?
(edit conflict) I've only been to the US once, on a skiing trip and to visit a friend who'd moved over there a few years earlier. On our drive up from LA to Lake Tahoe we stopped off at a Wendys for breakfast. I thought they were talking a different language when they asked me how I'd like my fried eggs done. Err, fried? What the Hell is "easy over" anyway? I had a similar problem in a shoe store when I went up to the till and the assistant asked me if the shoes I was trying to buy would do for me, which I now understand to mean "will there be anything else you require sir?". After about a minute of me failing to understand what the no doubt well-meaning sales assistant was asking me I was about a picosecond away from saying "of course they'll do for me you stupid fucking cunt, else I wouldn't be standing here in front you trying to buy them", before my prefrontal lobes kicked in. I guess that my cute English accent may have helped a little bit as well. MalleusFatuorum02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever seen Morecambe and Wise on TV? "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order."[7] And BTW, Scots are just as British as we English are, as are those Irish lucky enough to live in the north of that island. MalleusFatuorum02:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
In 1995 I had to travel from Split in Croatia to Sarajevo in Bosnia. It was 8 or 9 hours of twisting mountain tracks, temporary bridges, mostly in darkness, through a war zone, negotiating numerous militia roadblocks, with minefields on either side of the road... But the thing that almost drove me insane was the incessant and unintelligible growling of my Sweaty Sock driver. I sat there nodding and occasionally "Hm"-ing and only understanding one word in twenty while praying that a sniper would put me out of my misery. He even laughed - at his own jokes, if indeed they were jokes - in a blood-curdling Glaswegian accent. Keri (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd far rather have America as a friend than an enemy, that's for sure. We get so many of your TV programmes here in the UK and you get relatively so few of ours, so maybe we understand you more than you understand us. MalleusFatuorum03:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's cultural at all. We keep ferrets for instance, and we're quite accustomed to gutting and cleaning up rabbits for consumption by them and ourselves. And to be truthful, a "Ye Haw" screaming American with a knife would just freak me out. MalleusFatuorum04:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just yankin yer chain, Dennis. Regards Darwin, as someone pointed out in a YouTube comment about the first clip, people that fucking stupid don't deserve to be that fucking lucky! Lucky, lucky bastard. Keri (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to those in Ireland who, reportedly, have now decided that they'd rather be a part of Britain (ok, the Uk and Ireland, etc) than a part of the Republic? It's amazing how economic circumstances, which surely underlie this alleged shift, trump entrenched religious and political positions. Not that the the UK situation is great, of course. Would that pragmatism worked here on WP. - Sitush (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I was completely bemused the last time I was in the Republic to be confronted by the "Celtic Tiger" bollocks. The illusion seemed to be based on property prices and some weird idea that "artists" like Bono were actually artists, and therefore should pay no taxes. It's a crazy place. MalleusFatuorum03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is, but practically everyone you meet is worth meeting. McCarthy's Bar sums it up nicely. I used to do a lot of camping/walking over there, especially round the Macgillycuddy's Reeks, and one of the best nights out I've ever had was in a "proper" IRA pub in what was then called Dingle. That I was not a Catholic and was an Englishman didn't stop the flow in the slightest. Aside from a few EU-sponsored roadbuilding projects and the property price issue that you mention, the Tiger didn't really seem to affect those in the deep south. My dad and uncle walked round there soon after WW2 and loved it also: all the farmer's wives were pushing sugar, butter and bacon and stuff at them in an attempt to bulk up their ration-starved bodies. The Lonely Planet guide used to have a single sentence in the "Health risks" section: no snakes or cholera etc, of course, but "Apart from cholesterol, Ireland poses no serious threats to health." Great place, if you can get beyond the headlines. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone make the sound of the first a. It's often given the sound of an I though, which explains "Mickey D's". Interestingly, there's a Wiktionary entry wikt:Mickey D's. RyanVesey02:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hm. This goes a long way to explaining the blood sugar, the cholesterol etc that I think you've recently mentioned somewhere. You probably should go Fruitarian. But, hey, life is for living and when McD start doing devilled kidneys, I'll be in there. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't enjoy McDonald's anymore unless I make it myself. When you get the perks of designing your own burgers always made fresh, nothing else will ever taste the same. RyanVesey03:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Either you own a franchise ("make it myself"--you're the cook in your own McDonald's?), or you're plain weird: why would anyone want to make a McD's burger? Why not make a good one? Drmies (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that a McD QP with cheese is 50% water, you'd think they'd be good for you. Perhaps marathon runners should be handed burgers instead of those tasteless bottles of plain H2O. Although I guess they don't cool you down so well when you throw them all over your head. Keri (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Reminds me of an old joke. Beautiful woman walks into chemistry class to, whatever, give the teacher a letter or a form, and the students go all ga-ga. Teacher says, "you know, she's like 75% water". "Yeah", says one student, "but such surface tension". Anyways, I'd like one of them Big Macs right about now--I'm sure they go well with mescal late at night. Drmies (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if you could possibly give this a quick once-over. I put it up for a peer review a while back but nobody bothered. I would just appreciate your thoughts on it before FAC because if there's still a lot of work to do I wouldn't want to waste reviewers' time just yet. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite ready for FAC yet, but it's certainly not too far off. A few initial things from a quick read through:
The ISBN for Waite (1968) is clearly wrong. Is that perhaps an ASIN? If so, you don't need it, as it's unique to Amazon.
You need to make the population growth table more accessible for visually impaired readers by scoping the rows and columns. Probably ought to make the year column sortable as well.
I'm very unconvinced by the Television section. What has Elgar cycling through the Malvern Hills got to do with either the town or the civil parish?
You've got a section on health care, but you also need something on the provision of public utilities, police and emergency services etc.
You'll get a lot of grief over that bulleted list of notable people, and rightly so. In what way does someone dying in the town make them worthy of mention, for instance? So Nigel Kennedy has a home in Malvern, so what? For all we know it's up for sale and he'll be moving out tomorrow.
You need to combine those tiny subsections in Tansport.
I don't see what architecture has to do with culture. I think you ought to consider separating out a Landmarks section for stuff such as the Council House and the Lawnside School for Girls, and probably the public artworks as well. In general I think the Culture section is very muddled, and here's one example from the Music section: "A sculpture group by artist Rose Garrard comprising the Enigma fountain together with a statue of Elgar gazing over Great Malvern stands on Belle Vue Terrace in the town centre. The Elgar Route, a 40-mile (64 km) drive passing some key landmarks from Elgar's life, passes through Malvern." What has any of that to do with music, particularly music in general,
Malvern water would seem better under Economy than culture to me.
I'll have a more thorough read later, but I'm struggling with an operating system upgrade, so I'll only be able to pop in briefly between system reboots for the next day or so probably. MalleusFatuorum15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks enormously for what you have done so far - any further comments will be most appreciated. I'll start addressing those points when I too, have got over a system upgrade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I seem at last to have a stable operating system, after much wasted time, so I'll take a closer look at your article later and leave any further comments on your talk page. MalleusFatuorum21:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
William the Conqueror (c. 1028 – 1087) was the first NormanKing of England. He had been Duke of Normandy since 1035, although his illegitimate status and youth caused him difficulties and he did not secure his hold over the Duchy until about 1060. In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the English throne, then held by his childless relative Edward the Confessor. Other potential claimants included the powerful English earl Harold Godwinson, who Edward named as the next king on his deathbed in January 1066. William argued that Edward had previously promised him the throne, and that Harold had sworn to support William's claim. William invaded England in September 1066, defeating Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and was crowned on Christmas Day 1066. Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, but by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure. William's final years were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. In 1086 he ordered the compilation of the Domesday Book, listing all the landholders in England and their holdings. He died in September 1087 on campaign in northern France, and was buried in Caen. (Full article...)
"I know how to write down words on a piece of paper? That’s what you do, man, you put down one word after the other as it comes in your head. It isn’t like having to learn how to play the piano, like you have to learn notes. You already learned in school how to write, didn’t you? I hope so. You have the idea and you put down what you want to say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and shit where they belong, if you aren’t positive yourself. Maybe fix up the spelling where you have some tricky words. There people do that for you. Some, I’ve even seen scripts where I know words weren’t spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it. So I don’t think it’s too important. You come to the last page you write in ‘Fade out’ and that’s the end, and you’re done.”
Looks good Dennis, I'll have a proper look through later. Just one thing from the lead: "By 1950, most factories had successfully made the transition to a consumer-based economy, and the industry produced over 8 million new cars. By 1958, more than 67 million cars filled the roads." The industry produced over eight million new cars when? In 1950? And given the size of the US that many cars certainly wouldn't have "filled the roads". MalleusFatuorum21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Could use a few more images of popular cars of that period I think. I wouldn't mind a gallery at the bottom. although I know its not to everybody's taste.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you decided on the title yet? Please not "1950's" unless you mean to talk about that one year only! PamD23:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Try not to begin a section with a pic on the left, even if every TFA (so far) has it like that ;) - first a few lines, then left pic in context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look and feel changes with screen size etc. I'm not someone who really gives a toss about images, being something of a philistine when it comes to recognising a decent one. However, if ever that guideline changed to "right-hand side only and default size only" then I wouldn't object. As soon as people start meddling with location and number of px etc, all hell breaks loose. Perhaps that reflects the nature of people contributing to the Indic sphere here but, honestly, has anyone really looked at how positional issues might affect display on, say, a mobile/cellphone? Am I completely bonkers? Probably. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I can think of situations were a left-aligned image under a section header would arguably be better than a right-aligned image: floor plans of houses springs to mind. When I'm reading the text and I come across a mention of the Library for instance, and I want to get a feel for where that would be in the house, I'd find it easier to flick my eyes to the left rather than to the right, or in the worst case scenario have to scroll right to see the image. MalleusFatuorum00:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. Presumably it is a behavioural thing? I wonder whether a naturally left-inclined (as in "handed") differs from someone with the opposite? I'm left, btw, although I find that I have become borderline ambidextrous (apart from writing) as the years have gone by. The ambidexterity may reflect the numerous forced issues due to broken bones playing rugby etc, or perhaps it is just that I'm getting old and have gained experience! - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's to do with the way we read, or at least the way that those of us in the English-speaking world read. Our eyes jump from left to right scanning words/phrases and then skip quickly back to the left, during which time we see virtually nothing at all. I'd like to see recommendations such as this one based on a much firmer footing than "don't do it because I say so". MalleusFatuorum02:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You should do it yourself Dennis, it's fairly straightforward. The problem is that anyone who's already submitted five DYKs has to provide a quid pro quo review for a sixth, and that's just about the last thing I'm ever likely to consider doing. Apart maybe from a third try at RfA of course. MalleusFatuorum00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
And it'll only get better of course. I was a bit worried about it initially because of its lack of focus on culture, but it's been transformed. The next time one of your fellow admins claims that I find collaboration impossible I hope you'll manage to raise a wry smile. MalleusFatuorum00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Whoop! Whoop! Good stuff, all. Be proud of it, Dennis. We need more content-producing admins who are also active in their admin role. Too many are too focussed on one side or the other. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
GA ia achievable in the short to medium term, but don't underestimate how rigorous most GA reviewers can be; it's by no means an easy gig. FAC is a whole different dimension though, everything's got to be as close to perfect as perfect can be. That'll likely take some time, but you could easily have a GA fairly soon depending on the availability of reviewers, and that's no mean feat. MalleusFatuorum01:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It's an important article, I agree. One thing about Google links though. I always avoid them for four reasons: whether they work or not depends on where you live; if they're available in your country then you can find them by clicking on the ISBN; even if they are available in your country it may be that the page you're linking to isn't included; and like all web links they can suddenly go dead. The book is your source, not Google. MalleusFatuorum02:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This is or used to be the standard link for GBooks issues. I agree with your concerns but not enough to stop me using them: if the things do not work then the isbn is (should be) still there. It is a convenience thing. I'm slightly bothered about subliminal promotion, however. - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line for me is that anyone who doubts needs to look at the book. Maybe what we need is a proper {{google}} template for those sources that haven't been checked in dead tree format, somewhat equivalent to the |via parameter in the (subscription required) template. MalleusFatuorum03:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Major thirds tuning has a few links to pages at Google books, in footnotes using harvtxt(), to help readers find the passage needed. While unconventional, such pagelinks seem helpful to readers (and have not received complaints). Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, ultimately it has to be a matter of trust. For instance, how many people in the world have access to Robert Nicholls' 1985 treatise on Manchester's Narrow Gauge Railways, ISBN978-0-9507169-2-3, which I relied on quite heavily for certain parts of Chat Moss? Apart from maybe Iridescent I'd guess none. It's a slim volume, but at least one used copy is available on Amazon for £20. Anyone who wants to check on the accutacy of the article only has to stump up, like I did. Transient Google links add nothing for me. MalleusFatuorum03:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just ordered Coles, Alan (1986). Slaughter at sea: the truth behind a naval war crime. London: Robert Hale. ISBN9780709025979. for the not-so-princely sum of £4-odd, including P&P. I used Abebooks quite a lot - sometimes there is stuff there that is not at Amazon, and v.v. As far as trust goes, well, there's the rub. You see, in the Indic stuff it seems to be routine for contributors to cherry-pick to suit their affiliation. They'll often cite one sentence but not the qualifier that immediately precedes or follows it; sometimes they deliberately mis-cite; and I've even seen them cite a chapter heading. Basically, there can be no trust: every single source has to be checked. You can see some of the problems that emerge at Talk:James Tod, although that is a fairly mild situation because I pretty much locked it down from the outset. And when you lock something down, you are open to accusations of ownership. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Trust has, of course, to be combined with a healthy degree of scepticism. When I review an article I'm looking at several distinct but inter-related aspects, such as does the overall story make sense? Are there curious changes in the writing style? Is some particularly non-intuitive claim adequately sourced? Stuff like that. But it ultimately has to come down to trust, as nobody will have been able to check everything. Speaking only for myself, I regard the sort of misuse of sources you're describing Sitush as a far worse crime than "incivility", or the dreaded "personal attacks", yet I can't remember ever seeing an editor blocked over that issue. Strange that, for a project nominally about writing an encyclopedia. MalleusFatuorum19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as one who was blocked for using the word "sycophantic" I really can't agree. Admins by and large act like primary school teachers, and have no idea what's really happening here. Anyone found deliberately misrepresenting sources ought to be sent to Hell in a bucket. Calling you a "fucking cunt" pales into insignificance by comparison, for instance. When did this obsession with civility begin I wonder? MalleusFatuorum04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Talk of the devil
I have mentioned you at ANI, indicating that you may be something of a role model. I mean no disrespect by this; I am just trying to understand and explain some recent incidents. Warden (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your analysis is insulting both to me and to Sitush. It's amazing how so many persistently behave as if the sacred civility policy only applies to others, and in particular to those they disagree with. And a more back-handed way of trying to have me blocked/banned in the context of a dispute I have had absolutely no part in would be difficult to imagine. MalleusFatuorum08:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You and I share one Wikimeet in common and we barely spoke together at that, what with all the admin types wanting a chat with you etc. Warden is making some huge assumptions here and I've now said as much. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
That certainly is the most bizarre analysis I've seen in a long time. And to then come along here to say 'I mean no disrespect' is incredible. You mean no disrespect? - oh well that's ok then. Richerman(talk)10:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm hoping we'll have an opportunity for a proper chat at a future meetup Sitush. IIRC the only person I know to be from Manchester I spoke with at any length at that February meetup was Richerman. Iridescent and I had a bit of catching up to do, and I had a long conversation with RexxS, neither of whom are from Manchester. When did it become an indictable offence to be an editor from Manchester anyway? I'm very happy to be associated with all of the fine editors from the GM project: you, Parrot of Doom, Richerman, Jza84, J3Mrs, Nev1 ... too many to mention really. MalleusFatuorum10:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There should be an ignoble prize for writing "administrators should note that indulging this type of editor", like staying after school and writing 500 times, "I shall learn to control myself." Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I came across this, Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect", recently. Can I be like an honorary member of the Manchester group? I'll cheer you on and toast you, and I think I may have made an edit (or comment) or two in relation to Gropecunt Lane and Cock and Ball Alley, or whatever that was called. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
yes, I'm sure there are plenty of editors who'd really like to toast you, Malleus, or even give you a proper grilling down the pub... "too many to mention", lol - poor old Nev1 got hounded off my ip wiki trolls, didn't he, and he was the best of the bunch IMHO 86.128.22.173 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there another? ;) I don't know about that, Dr.--they've introduced all kinds of legislation. But I'm not worried: when I'm over there I just send my brother to the shop. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Chris Brown the asshole American "musical" artist was recently pictured legally smoking spliffs in a cafe in Amsterdam. Maybe its just Amsterdam I dunno!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally silent tp stalker here. I just wish to surface briefly to state that the above use of "I mean no disrespect by this" is the very best such use that I have ever seen. Is it possible to nominate it for the Manchester Mafia Medal or Chorlton Clique Certificate or some such? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Civility Award
You are hereby cordially awarded the "Manchester Honorary Gallagher Parker Jacket" of f***in' good manners and general obnoxiousness. "May ye wear it prodleey, mate, alright? 'kin'ell!!" 109.153.214.166 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I don't know how I got there but I did. I made some tweaks (in my usual inept ways) and added a few things, reorganized a few others. Please have a look, and note my note on the citation templates. BTW, it was a great read: thanks to you and the other editors. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this--as you can tell, maybe, from my edit summaries, I was being challenged by myself, various PC issues, the weather, and a couple of other things, and this was just a screw-up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, pace the legacy section, he's not quite dead yet. He's still a "Manchester Literary Celebrit[y]", as you'll see next time you check your email. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There's more. I checked JSTOR just to see what was there and found a lot; I'll be glad to get you some more articles--I think I can actually email you the results from the search. BTW, I haven't gotten Sippy started on Coral Island yet but I will. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And on the JSTOR subject, I think that you missed the initial 100 on the list. I just scraped in there and so if you should need anything and the good professor is otherwise engaged in his swimming pool or making a bacon sarnie ... - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not that good a professor, Sitush. Just ask my boss. And I picked a couple of juicy ones--the list was indeed quite long. In the meantime, I got distracted by mass shootings and the impending apocalypse, which you Brits/English/whatever should be all over, like ham and cheese on rye. Haven't had a bacon anything in quite some time, actually. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Glad to hear you've been busy earning money. Can you lend me a fiver until a postal order I'm expecting arrives? :-) MalleusFatuorum23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Nah I'm a volunteer, it's costing me money to do (but building bridges is fun!) As for money, I'm paying a builder to renovate the back of my house and then the tax bill will be in January, so I'm effectively skint! Parrotof Doom09:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
What about £2.50 then? The photographs look great BTW. I seem to remember James May building a footbridge out of standard Meccano pieces across a canal in Liverpool? MalleusFatuorum22:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
GA stalking
Hey Malleus, you offered to keep an eye on my first attempt at a GA review. I then got sidetracked with a lot of bleurgh at ANI etc, which should end up before the Arbs but probably will not. If the article is still up for review then I'll take it on tomorrow. I'd be grateful if you could spare a few moments to look in, and if you say nowt when doing so then that is a good sign. Ta muchly. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
What was the article again Sitush? If I spot anything I think you may have missed as the review develops I'll let you know privately, but I'm sure you'll do just fine. MalleusFatuorum02:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Have you had a read through the whole thing yet? I'd be a bit critical of some of the prose, which doesn't entirely make sense in places. For instance, "Guest's two younger brothers also served in the Transvaal Scottish.". That "also" implies that someone else who served in the Transvaal Scottish has been introduced earlier, but I can't see anyone. Similarly "Ernest's eldest brother, Ivor, also served in the war, as a lieutenant in the Engineers." What Engineers? "Champion's practice, as Deputy Sheriff, consisted mainly of debt-collecting and lending money to doubtful borrowers at a high rate of interest." The borrowers may well have been doubtful, but I'm doubtful that's actually what's meant. "He served on a committee to help returning soldiers to adjust to civilian life." One too many "to"s there, and a good example of the kind of thing I'd just quietly fix rather than bring it up during the review. "... Rhodesia determined to stand by Great Britain in the event that war should break out, as was expected." What was expected? That war would break out or that Rhodesia would make such a declaration? There's also been a subtle switch at some point in the article from "Southern Rhodesia" to "Rhodesia", which I'm unconvinced about. Wasn't the place still called Southern Rhodesia at the time we're talking about?
I haven't finished reading through yet, and I haven't yet checked other aspects of the article such as images, or spot-checked sources, so I'll get back to you on those. But so far so good. MalleusFatuorum15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I must admit to not spotting the switch from Southern Rhodesia in my initial read through but I'm now working line by line. I started at t'other end with the images, links etc. I was aware of numerous problems with the prose before I took it on but I'm hoping that they can be resolved. I'll probably not pick up all of them but I'll catch a lot, provided that the nominator does not become dis-spirited. In fact, I've stopped adding comments for now so that they can catch their breath. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you're doing just fine Sitush, so I'll let both of you catch your breath. The other main thing to check is for too close paraphrasing as that's a hangin' offence in these here parts, for nominator and reviewer alike. So you ought to take a look at at least a few of the online sources. I'd have to say that the phrasing in some parts of the article looks a little suspicious to me. And for dead-tree sources you don't have access to yourself you can always ask the nominator to provide the original text. MalleusFatuorum22:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine Sitush, although I personally like to structure my comments by section heading of the article, otherwise, particularly if a long article, it can be difficult to find exactly what you're referring to.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld11:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've realised belatedly that a bit more organisation might have been useful. One to remember for the future, and perhaps to introduce for the remainder of this review (I'm not backtracking). It does look as if I'm going to have to call on more experienced reviewers for one point: I'm fairly sure that I'm correct regarding focus but the other party is not. I'll be having a think about how a compromise could be reached. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting
I see Jclemens is showing his true colours now the voting's over. It's a pity this question wasn't asked a bit sooner - I wonder if the answer would have been the same? Also, I thought that little question and answer session above that with his acolyte MartinEvans was hilarious - talk about never asking a question unless you know the answer! I must say this is the first time I've voted in, or been interested in the outcome of an election on here. I voted to support Elen, who I don't think really did anything wrong, and oppose the sanctimonious JClemens for his slimy, back door attempt to influence the voting out of public view. Shame he got exposed wasn't it? Richerman(talk)10:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Gerda's right about nominating for GA soon. It can take a while before a reviewer turns up anyway. Once that's done we can take a bit of a breather before getting ready for FAC early next year. MalleusFatuorum00:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
About that apostrophe....no, never mind. But if I was being pedantic I would say that it was only American suburbia that was brought about by 1950s American automobile culture. In the UK suburbia wasn't brought about by any automobile culture, American or British - it was the railways what done it. :-) Richerman(talk)01:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have raised some concerns about Nostradamus on the article talk page. As Sandy Georgia kindly informs me that an FAR is premature, I'd appreciate some input on the talk page and some ideas on how to improve it first without delisting.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Good list criteria
Hey Malleus. I have developed an early draft for a possible good list criteria that we were discussing at GAN. Here is my draft; take a look and give me your thoughts, please. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2114:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That might do the job I suppose, but as I've said, I don't see the FL criteria as being particularly demanding, so I don't really see the point of GLC. MalleusFatuorum22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't find it demanding either, but it may be because we are experienced in writing content and with those processes and they don't represent any difficulty for us, which sould not be the case with many users. Just a thought, though. — ΛΧΣ2122:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ungrammatical/unclear
I am puzzled by a statement on a talk page relating to a community in Goa. The person querying says The article currently includes ungrammatical/unclear sentence: "Some are Christians, among whom are Roman Catholics, while others are Hindus."
Well, it has gone beyond my pay grade and I may have to call in Drmies etc because the idea of wandering through Fowler, Partridge etc is just too much. See the (only) thread at Talk:Kharvi. I'm nowhere near as good as you when it comes to grammar, which is why I asked. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hm, and thanks. Fluffermutter has provided a quite deep analysis of the problems. Being a bit thick, I do not understand them. Is this really a US/British English issue? And on an article whose talk page bears the "Indian English" template! Preferably without blinding me with grammatical terms, how might it be constructed in Am. English? - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Fluffernutter is wrong; it's just a construction that some Americans seem uncomfortable with. All the suggested alternatives are ridiculously awkward. MalleusFatuorum00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It might just be a point-y thing and if no-one else had passed comment then I would have set aside my bemusement. But Fluffermutter did pass comment, caused me to become even more bemused and, well, here we are.
I had a Mrs Hanley, Elen. I still see her occasionally as she was the teacher who encouraged me to buck the system and apply for Cambridge. We still disagree regarding whether "undoubtedly" is a word (cf: "indubitably") ... and even after getting a scholarship, college prizes and all sorts of other baubles + an examiners' note that my entrance examination work would have got me a First, she insists that I've never written anything above what she would class as a B-. so there's me told, eh? Lovely lady, though! - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends on how many Roman Catholics there are. If Roman Catholics are a majority, it should be rewritten to say "most of whom are Roman Catholics". If we know all of the individual denominations we could write, "among whom are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians". If we know that a portion of the Christian population is Roman Catholic and nothing else, I wouldn't include it. RyanVesey02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy the grammar of the sources on the matter:
The Hindu and Roman Catholic Kharvi are the significant communities found in the fishing activity. However, due to mechanization and consequent, high profit nature of the activity, non-traditional fisher folk communities are also getting attracted to this occupation.
The Catholic fisherfolk, locally called Kharvis are mostly settled along the coastal belts of Salcete, Mormugao and Tiswadi Talukas. […] A few persons of the older generation have some knowledge of Portuguese language (Rao 1993). The Kharvis, mostly belong to the Catholic sudra caste. Like their fellow fisherfolk communities, the Catholic Kharvi's staple food is rice and fish curry.
Is it any wonder that, the article is confusing to Americans and British languages? I notice, that you've lost the link to Goan Catholics that used to be in the article.
Gaonkar, Rekha R.; Rodrigues, Maria D.C.; Patil, R.B. (2008). "The Socio-Economic Condition of Fishermen in Goa". Fishery Management. APH Publishing. ISBN9788131303207. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Patil, R.B.; Gaonkar, Rekha R.; Rodrigues, Maria D.C. (2006). "The Fisherfolk Movement in Goa: A Conflict Between Tradition and Modernity". Fishes & Fisheries. APH Publishing. ISBN9788131300350. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
I wanted to commend you for your work on this very unusual article. Writing about George Washington or Helen Keller is all well and good, but it's articles like yours that keep me perpetually in love with Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a look later. My wife's got a long list of things she thinks need doing before Christmas, but I ought to be entitled to a break some time this evening. MalleusFatuorum15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a fairly radical hack at that Dennis, so see if you're happy with what I've done. My general idea is to make your point early in the section (which is that the automobile unions advanced women's rights) and then develop that theme. MalleusFatuorum21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure the Teamsters stuff should be there at all; when did they finally allow women to be truck drivers? The same year they allowed women into the Mafia? The interesting unanswered question is why did the AUW open up to women? Was it, for instance, the increasing number of women working in the auto industry? If so, why were there more? MalleusFatuorum22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The central role of the auto industry to the American economy should be expanded, besides the "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA". The postwar consensus of Keynesian demand-management lasted until Thatcher and Reagan. There is a discussion of the automobile worker's pay sustaining the economy, e.g. with the anecdote of Reuther and Ford discussing who would buy the cars. (There are ridiculous French-communist "theories" of Fordism, which are related to the internal politics of the French CP.)
The Women's Auxilliary of the UAW was essential to the success of the sit-down strikes of the 1930s; the women brought food and other supplies to the men. The experience of World War II helped advance women's work. (I would drop the academic numbered "waves of feminism" typology, which I had thought was inflicted only on Swedes.)
There should be some discussion of race. August Meier and Elliot Rudwick's Black Detroit and the Rise of the UAW discusses the importance of the UAW's winning support of Black ministers. There was a lot of immigration from the South (including Appalachia) drawing Scotch Irish mountaineers, Southern whites, and Blacks north. (There was a book on this migration, which may be worth consulting.) The role of interstate buses in the Civil Rights movement is important.
The UAW has been traditionally thought of as the leading social-democratic force in the USA, and in particular the Reuther brothers had a lot of influence on the Democratic Party and the Civil Rights Movement. Nelson Lichtenstein's Trot-leaning The Most Dangerous Man in America probably has this covered, along with criticism of excess praise....
The late 1960s developed a 1950s nostalgia industry, which flourished in the 1970s: Sha Na Na, American Grafitti, Happy Days (Fonzie), etc. This could be a section or another article (e.g. the nostalgic songs by Springsteen and Tom Waits).
What little I remember of the 1950s here in the UK I don't look back on with any fondness whatsoever; it was a bleak and miserable time. And as I was still a kid at the start of the 1960s it largely passed me by. Towards the end of the decade I was old enough to buy a scooter and become a Mod, which was fun for a while, but the 1970s was my decade. MalleusFatuorum23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all. So, I'm playing with the little boy (he's four months old today), pulling out all the stops--howling like a wolf, flapping his little ears, peekaboo, the whole nine yards--and guess what he does by way of 'thank you'? A very big...what in Dutch we call "pants cough". It's a lot like editing Wikipedia, except that he also laughed at me sweetly. Drmies (talk)
Regarding ad hominem
Hi. Can I ask you something?
The quality of a lot of our articles depends on the quality of debate on the article talk page, and that is often quite poor. Banning ad hominem (and by that I mean ad hominem not rudeness) from article talk pages would improve the quality of debate on article talk pages, and so improve the encyclopedia. Smarter people than you and me have determined that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and I agree with them. Do you? Do you think, as I do, that the quality of debate on article talk pages matters and that banning ad hominem from them would improve them?
We ban other forms of off-topic discussion from article talk pages; shouldn't we, of all people, a group that runs on argument and persuasion, employ best practice on our article talk pages? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not Malleus, and I'm butting in--I hope you and Malleus don't mind. I think, Anthony, that's not so simple. If an editor on a talk page makes a comment but doesn't know--to use a phrase I've seen used before--his arse from his elbow, then pointing that out is easily perceived as an ad hominem. And maybe it is. But it happens sometimes that, for instance, an inference is drawn based on a work of scholarship that only one of the parties has access to. And it also happens that sometimes someone really doesn't know their arse from their elbow, and refuting a cock-and-bull argument (often accompanied by the requisite wikilawyering) can be exasperating and redundant to everyone else. Saying WP:IDHT to someone--would that be unacceptable? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Pointing it out may be an ad hominem. And yes, good rhetoric is difficult. If there is a competency problem, that discussion can be begun on their talk page and escalated if necessary. I'm not proposing banning ad hominem, just banning it from the article talk page. I'm advocating a quiet word outside when you think there is a competency problem or they're a paid pharma shill. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Clarified 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Or in a tl;dr format, talk pages would be improved if people spoke as an authority only on matters they actually know something about. Parrotof Doom17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Most editors don't seem to have the logical sophistication to be able to distinguish "You're wrong" from an ad hominen. So just as the "personal attack" policy is widely abused to silence all dissent and disagreement so would any proposal such as this one. It would just be one more arrow in the quiver of the wikilawyers. MalleusFatuorum17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following you. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia editors are not able to read and understand Ad hominem. I haven't read the article, perhaps it's impenetrable, but basic rhetoric is taught in first year critical thinking classes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree they haven't been making the distinction. I disagree with your proposition that they are incapable of it. That strikes me as absurd. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's just a blunt challenge for them to make sense, then no. If they don't rise to the challenge - if their reasoning stays at that level, if their competency level is genuinely a problem - take the competency discussion elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Clarified 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The answer is that it's categorically not an ad hominem, simply because it fails to address the argument at all. I'm now struggling to understand why it is that you've singled out argumentum ad hominem for special treatment as opposed to any other logical fallacy. Is it a subliminal application of the fifth pillar? MalleusFatuorum20:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No. It's not categorically anything. The second point, "This does not logically follow", expressly addresses the argument. Whether your response is argumentum ad hominem depends on where you go from here. If you address the second point and show your interlocutor the flaw in their reasoning (perhaps by pointing out which of Aristotle's 256 syllogisms they're using), thus proving the unsoundness of their case, you're engaged in logically valid argument. If, instead you pursue the first point and simply assert that, because he knows nothing about formal logic his assertion can have no worth, well that's ad hominem. One approach dismisses an argument on the basis of who's putting it forward, the other on the nature of the argument itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
... thus rather nicely proving my point; evidently even you don't understand what an argumentum ad hominem is. Stating that the argument is illogical in no way addresses the argument, any more than claiming it's written in Klingon would. And it's not an ad hominem whether or not it's preceded by what's known here as a "personal attack", aka the truth. Is it too late for you to get your money back for that "first year critical thinking class"? MalleusFatuorum07:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of "Stating that the argument is illogical in no way addresses the argument." Can you elaborate? I'm thinking that's all it's addressing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Rather simple really. The response is an opinion, not a logical argument. If you need any more help with understanding the difference between abuse and logic then maybe you ought to consider asking your "critical thinking" tutor. MalleusFatuorum12:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you would explain how "Stating that the argument is illogical in no way addresses the argument" can mean anything sensible to a rational person. You respond with offensive, patronising, nonsensical, obfuscating waffle. How disappointing. Thank you for your time. I've learned something. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)For example, some might take your comment "Are we !voting?" as a personal attack (questioning their ability to reason or the sincerity of their position) and respond accordingly. I may be relatively new here, but I've seen that sort of thing before. The more avenues you give people to take offense, the more likely they are to do so (or at least claim to do so in order to gain an advantage in a dispute of some sort). Intothatdarkness17:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a math background, so I am predisposed to support logical reasoning. That said, I think resorting to dismissal of argument simply because they are logical fallacies can be overdone. To provide an extreme example, support some new editor makes an argument, moderately complicated, that requires some research to refute. Someone does that. The editor tries a different argument, in a different place. Same result. Rinse and repeat twenty times more. Then the editor makes a 23rd bogus argument, and some exasperated editor responds, you've failed 22 consecutive times to present a decent argument...I reject your argument without even researching. This is a logical fallacy. Yet, other than the fact that it would never take 23 instances to reach that point, how many editors could honestly say that they would go out and research the question to find the correct rebuttal? Sometimes enough is enough, and we conclude that editor (not that argument) can be rejected. --SPhilbrick(Talk)17:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure what you describe in the first part of your comment is not a logical fallacy. It seems to be dismissing a person's argument without listening to it. Perhaps there is some Latin name for it but, even if there is, I'm only talking about ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would bet that logicians like G. H. von wright and Peter Geach did not regard all ad hominem statements as logical fallacies, but rather as (often) helpful advice to persons with character problems. Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess if your aim is to improve a person's character, discussing their motivations and shortcomings would come into it. But if you're debating a point, logical fallacies do not advance the argument. Therapy can be done on user talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a form of ad hominem. You've decided the argument can be rejected, not on the strength of the argument, but on the identify of the person espousing the argument. That's classic ad hominem. (at best, it is induction, rather than deduction).--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I see. "They have presented numerous different arguments to numerous persons, and they've always been found wanting, so I can say, with sufficient confidence to justify dismissing them, that on this occasion their argument will be without merit." Yep. I agree. Anyway, it belongs outside the article talk page because, by definition, it doesn't advance the argument itself.. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's too simple. We go to experts to ask questions about specific topics and we'll accept (or not) what they say based on their authority. If I go to Ealdgyth to ask about horses or medieval bishops, and she presents me something that's based on her research and her library, I will accept. If someone whose primary interest is editing articles on the Celtics (the soccer club) weighs in, and all they do is add fan talk and they can't put a sentence in English together, I have pretty good reasons to reject their argument since I don't accept their authority. It's part of AGF to accept things, but, as is often pointed out, AGF is not a suicide pact. Obviously, my comments here pertain to a particular kind of discussion, in which authority is at stake and not all parties have equal access to information, which happens all the time here. "Malleus, you're wrong about those Pendle witches cause you're a complete arsehole" is a different kind of situation. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we agree. If a person is a patent idiot or too poorly-expressed to make themselves understood, there are competency problems, and some (hopefully sensitive) discussion will have to be had. I assert that the place to broach that is their user talk page or one of the noticeboards. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's an example of something else that I think undermines Anthonyhcole's proposition. During a discussion at the WP:GOCE's talk page about whether "etymology" or "toponymy" would be the correct title for a section on the origin of a place name the peanut gallery began a separate discussion about the personalities involved in the discusson here. Any guesses who "Father Jackum" and "Father Grizzly Jackum" are meant to refer to? In what way is such a discussion intended to be helpful? Once again, why not address the real problems here rather than hypothetical ones? I seriously doubt that there is a significant number of ad hominem arguments on article talk pages, and I certainly don't recall ever seeing one. Not unless you mistakenly categorise mere rudeness for argumentum ad hominem that is, which is what I think has happened here. MalleusFatuorum20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any explicit ad hominem in that example but perhaps I'm missing something implied there. I don't think actual ad hominem is very common on article talk pages but it is common enough, and when it arises it is off topic and can be (and is) used to derail real debate when one side is failing with formal argument. This person's argument can be dismissed because he is a Christian, is a fool, is a shill, is my enemy or (as SPhilbrick pointed out) has argued this unsuccessfully for a while now: that kind of thing is what I have in mind. Anyway, thanks for giving me your views. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
So we agree that it's not common, so why make a special rule for it? Can you point even to single instance of argumentum ad hominem on article talk pages? I see loads of rudeness, as we all do, but apparently you're quite relaxed about that strangely. MalleusFatuorum08:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I assert it is not very common but common enough - and toxic enough to shut down debate when deployed with force by those with no good formal argument - to warrant discussion. I'm not sure that's the case (both common and toxic) with other logical fallacies. I'm happy to consider others if you want, but this is the one on my mind. Rudeness is a different thing. "You've got a conflict of interest here" isn't necessarily rude but, if it is said to undermine an argument, it is ad hominem.
We can have the rudeness discussion if you like. When rudeness rises to the level of insult - calling names like "disingenuous" or "sly" for instance - it should be moved to user talk (where I think pretty much anything goes, provided people stay away from others when asked to) when it occurs on an article talk page, and may warrant moving to user talk when it appears on a project page, depending on circumstance.
The race that gave us Dave Davies could not produce such spawn. Moreover, until their voices stop breaking, they cannot have the hairy toes of Welshmen and Hobbits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Funny, but although I live 38 minutes by road across the Welsh border I've never considered myself "Welsh". Most of my family are English, my Granddad was a Londoner and my mother's parents from Devon. I tend to view Welsh folk of mid, northern and west Wales much like the English do. Sorry if anybody reading this is one of the Welsh patriotic types! I suppose comparing me to a typical Welshman would be like assuming Malleus fits the stereotypical " Mad fer it" Mancurian! I consider myself British. There's classy, sophisticated Welsh, and then there's eh, working class Welsh. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No they don't---not unless they are speaking about sheep in code. Actually, Master Martinevans123 has excellent taste in humor, apparently finding something in my archives funny. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) There was a Roman discussion of Wales, that still is in print as a Penguin. It said something like, "the Welsh are fierce warriors who paint their faces in blue, but if they have trouble they can be easily routed." I would be terrified if a Welshman made me read a Welsh dictionary. Martin has helped out or at least said something sensible on several musical articles. Cut him some slack. Just take the gossip as a crush respect. My gradeschool teacher said that boys only tease people if they like them. Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time in Wales. The major social problem I see there where I am based is, in fact, not blue-painted Welsh folk but rather anaemic-faced drug addicts who have been moved along from Liverpool. The crime rate has gone through the roof in the last few years, although most of the stuff goes through the door, obviously. Nothing wrong with the more approachable Liverpudlians ... except that they're from Liverpool ;) On the positive side, I did some IT work for a construction company that has prospered in building drug-addiction centres etc around both areas. It kept my freezer stocked for a month or so. Lamb and Scouse, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"Nothing wrong with the more approachable Liverpudlians ... except that they're from Liverpool". LOL!!!! Yeah I know what you mean, those anaemic drug addicts, they're known as Scallies. Very pale often gaunt looking chaps in navy tracksuits with lego very short hair and Reebok classics. Steven Gerrard... they have a dreadful image especially in London where Liverpudlian women have a certain reputation.. We get the same types in south Wales, particularly Bridgend which is as chav a place as anywhere. but none of us can help where we are born, I could just as easily be born in Ipswich or John o Groats. Its not like I'm of a different race or something just because I was born 160 miles from London! The stereotypical Welsh man is somewhat crazy, loud mouthed, a drunkard with a beer belly singing into the night, rugby obsessed, with a love of shagging sheep. Not too different to the Irish stereotype I guess. Not that I would know about the sheep shagging (sheep "dogging" might go on up in Rhondda hehe) but I certainly know many people who fit that stereotype. Every place has its mix of people though. Martin is actually a decent chap with a great sense of humour, but I think you got off on the wrong foot over an FA he was critical of. That said, I can think of several people on here which you and a couple of people here really seem to like, me personally I can't see the appeal in them! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why those sheep shaggers have taken a dislike to me, and I'd bet they've forgotten themselves. There's an awful lot of "I recognise that name, can't remember why, but he upset me" bollocks on here. MalleusFatuorum11:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh some people never forget, this is Wikipedia where editors save diffs to use in future fights. I think you told one of them to try writing a decent article rather than messing around with the Pendle Witches. He does it to me as well so you're in excellent company :)J3Mrs (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've commented on that nomination. Maybe I'll eventually succeed in coming up with a phrase to describe the evident dishonesty and hypocrisy on display there that doesn't include "fucking dishonest cunts", but I doubt it. MalleusFatuorum03:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your sense of humour Sandy is as dull as dish water, sorry. I didn't ask to be "complimented" on the main page, the community are entitled to vote for what they want. Personally I'd be happy with a signpost announcement and something from the foundation to acknowledge my efforts, that would be enough for me, I've already received considerable appreciation on my talk page. I think your comment is mean spirited Sandy, even if you don't rate DYKs and its contributors and think the proposal ridiculous or not. My emphasis has never been on the DYKs as such, but the fact that it is a mechanism to at least try to get stubs up to a decent status and to encourage new content. It has a number of flaws I would agree, but I think its good to build up a bank of articles. We've gained over 80 GAs from my DYKs, even if that means 920 are not, its still a worthy achievement, even if it might not be appropriate to have a DYK about me. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it was, but do you expect me to turn up at DYK and state "you're all mad". The last I looked at the page it was a just a couple of people remarking, I didn't think it would be taken seriously and hadn't realised that many people had commented until I saw this here. I've said that I would be content with a signpost article and at least a word from the foundation of appreciation. I've been well thanked on my talk page. You appreciate praise too Malleus and have often said that you are worthy of something in thanks. But you definitely grossly underestimate how much decent research went into all of those articles, most of which could be promoted to GA with a couple of days work. I know you and Sandy view DYK contributors as the dustmen or even dust creators of wikipedia, but DYK process flaws aside, it is a fact that a lot of articles passing GA were DYKs. Maybe value shouldn't be placed on 1000 DYKs by the community but I've noticed that a lot of people in support are regular DYK contributors who know how much work it takes to produce that number of half decent articles. I think its just a way of the community stating that they appreciate the work, even most of the people opposing have said so which is a reward in itself.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There's always the Wikimedia UK "Wikimedian of the Year" for 2012/13. I'd be delighted to hand over my crown to you in Lincoln next May (at the AGM). Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Blofeld, for starters, the outrage I expressed is not at you ... it's at the sheer chutzpah of the DYKers (who seem to wear permanent blinders in all matters) that they could breach everything Wikipedia is about without even consulting the broader community. That sums up the issues that occur in that walled garden.
Now, as to you: this looks like trolling for compliments, and you certainly are asking to be recognized as if your contributions are somehow more valuable than the scores of others who do just as much. Your posts above show more of same. Do you honestly believe your 1,000 DYKs contribute more to Wikipedia than 10 FAs ? Or 20 GAs? or one bot owner who has to their thing day in-day out? I guess you do. I promoted over 1,400 FAs; do you think each promotion didn't take me longer to review, correct, comment on, read, deal with problems on FAC, etc than any of your DYKs, which can be knocked out in one session? You expect acknowledgement from the Foundation? Are you f'ing serious? Well, that's just grand, because if the Foundation singles out one contributor among the thousands here who do just as much as you do, I'll be sure to point out how Sue Gardner failed to support the FA process, in favor a less significant one, responsible for boatloads of copyvio in here.
And leave my dull dishwater out of this: I'll see enough of it over the next week without your reminders. FYI, the suggestion of the Malleus DYK came from another Wikipedian who was outraged at what you had done by fishing for compliments on Jimbo's talk. I did think the (so far) part was cute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
1400 FAs, yes that's staggering, and you absolutely deserve recognition for your involvement in that! No, somebody asked Jimbo a few days prior to that about my approaching DYK 1000 and Jimbo said that he would support a single DYK on the 1000th article. See the history and also the DYK talk post. I thought it appropriate to notify him, seems as he showed an interest in it. Otherwise, c'mon, Jimbo is not exactly the place to go for a milkin is he. Did I expect Jimbo to turn around and say "Santa's best little helper, cookies for you". Nope. Jimbo and foundation are not known for handing out compliments or thanks. That was why I would consider a thankyou from time to time worthy of something, unlikely though isn't it!! He seems to have been pretty busy, but I thought that he may have suggested something in regards to the earlier suggestion. Did Sue Gardner really indicate she doesn't support FA? That is shocking.
As for do I consider my 1000 DYKs more valuable in terms of providing information than 10 FAs and 20 GAs. Absolutely. We are an encyclopedia, the info provided in those 1000 articles in total is more valuable as an encyclopedic resource. Do I consider them more important in terms of the quest to get every article to reviewed as a GA or FA with a seal of approval, no. There is a difference. Read through every article of User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK. After several days you tell me if more effort went into all of that or the last 20 GAs on my user page. The difference in length and quality of a few of my DYKs and GA is minimal, although I acknowledge the quality varies between barely start class and strong B class. You'll no doubt be able to pick holes in most of them but by sheer work and amount of research and breadth of topics, undoubtedly its far more.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec @ Blofeld) No, you still don't get it. I don't deserve recognition; I was one person as one cog in a process where scores of persons do every bit as much work as I do. I don't expect, want, deserve or need recognition: we all need for Sue Gardner to unequivocably support content contributors, rather than wave her hands with dismissive easily misunderstood statements about a process she's never been within 10 feet of.
Why did you post to Jimbo? What has he do with the price of beans in China? Perhaps you posted there because it's the single most watched talk page on the pedia? Fishing for compliments, self-promotion. And you are now admitting above that you are in support of the proposal, so drop the pretense.
On your argument that DYKers are supporting, I notice that even Gatoclass and Alansohn don't (surprised me, but take your tomato). Maybe they've come around to understanding how easy it is to commit copyvio and get 100s of DYKs. Giving special recognition to the copyvio factory that is DYK would be wrong on more levels than one: how about giving Nikkimaria credit for being the only thing holding back the copyvio tide these days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not very nice. Please don't behave like a prosecutor. I agree and Dr. B. agrees you have a just concern with DYKs, but let's treat Dr. B with respect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I "might not get it" Sandy, I don't get you either. But all I know is that there are several editors here who genuinely deserve some credit and recognition for their works, and I count myself and some of us here among those people, whether you like it or not. I think me passing 1000 DYKs should be announced and publicized at least at the signpost, even if a DYK out of the question. I've told you why I posted on Jimbo's talk page because he had mentioned about a single DYK feature and I wanted to inform him that I'd already passed the landmark. I agree with you on the flaws of DYK, remember I even contacted you ages ago for major reforms? But you seem to think that every DYK simply for being a DYK must automatically be a piece of shite and that every one is a copyvio's paradise, and that view is wrong, even if you may be right about a lot of the articles. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"Several"? You are still serious? No, thousands ... let's recognize all of 'em, huh ? Yes, let's do ... let's have the Foundation begin to understand that the unpaid, underrecognized volunteers are important. Singling out one DYKer doesn't do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I think if you really analyse contribution to wikipedia you'll find that there is a super group of producers who produce the majority of the FAs, GAs, even DYKs and new articles, same in regards to FA and GA reviewing. Yes, there are thousands of contributors since wikipedia began who are worthy of praise, maybe even editing right not, but I believe there is a distinct group of top contributors to wikipedia and I think they know who they are, and also that they've done so much for wikipedia that they're worthy of more than just a t shirt... My opinion anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, you really have to get off your high horse and show a little respect for people who actually create content: 1000 new articles or DYKs is impressive and your implication that Blofeld is some sort of copyvio demon is really quite offensive; I'm amazed he's been this patient with you. To create a decent B-class DYK (which, actually, is about what is needed to get approval these days) is a true effort to be acknowledged and praised. But then, you also seem to hate student-editing projects as well, and lump them all under a single rubric of copyvio paradises as well. I guess if you want to live in a world where the mere proletariat cannot edit articles, and thus all new content must, like Athena, must spring full-blown and perfect from the head of the gods, I guess you can keep on tilting at that windmill. Montanabw(talk)17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you're reading between the lines text that I'm not writing; wish I could help you with that. Nor do you appear to be paying attention to the quality control issues at DYK. Got data to back that B-class thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I have immense respect for what you have done for FA. Phenomenal. I genuinely mean it when I say that you have undoubtedly been one of the most important figures in the history of wikipedia. I might not get it or you might not want to hear that but I know what you've done and I am one of the first people to acknowledge this. But at the same time I genuinely find your general approach to a lot of editors who are outside your close circle abrasive and in all honesty at times dictator-like. I frequently feel like I'm being spoken to by a state judge for crimes worth several life terms whenever I receive a comment from you. I generally try to speak to other respectable folk on here as I'd expect myself to be spoken to but I get a strong sense that you view most editors here as lesser human beings, myself included who you clearly think are pretty dumb and far below you in intelligence and insight into developing an encyclopedia. I don't know your background, and its none of my business, but I gather you are highly intelligent and used to being in charge of stuff, that's fine, but I'll never understand why you frequently feel the need to assert yourself and belittle the efforts of others and anybody who doesn't solely work on FAs like you. You have strong views, I accept that, but please acknowledge there is more to wikipedia than FA reviewing and that we have a duty as an encyclopedia to cover a comprehensive range of topics to the best of our ability. Our millions of pages views are not centred around our tiny percentage of FAs but in millions of articles, most of them desperately in need of even a couple of minutes expansion work and research. Ultimately of course we want every article up to FA status, I choose to spread my eggs in many baskets rather than generally focusing on one or two articles to brilliant condition. But I and many editors work really hard here, are quite capable of producing infinite numbers of GAs, even FAs if we feel compelled to, but choose to centre most of our efforts in producing pretty decent articles yet to be reviewed for GA.
Speaking from myself personally I am motivated by praise and that I feel that my work is really benefiting the project. I may be egotistical, call it what you may, but I think must people are motivated by something on here. My work is the product of a love of content and the desire to cover as much of the world and topics in a well researched fashion to interest people around the world. I can't help it if encouragement makes me tick. I'm sorry if this offends you but it shouldn't do. Sure, think that DYK and the proposal to praise me a joke, that's fine, but please be a bit more respectful towards me and the content I try to improve wikipedia with. I believe everybody commenting on here now has the same goals and comparable abilities to produce quality content, so why not support each other and get on feeling more positive about building wikipedia? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
So, how about you address the issues that lead to this tone you don't like. Do you really believe that a walled garden discussion at DYK is sufficient to breach self-reference on the mainpage? Do you disagree that the fact that they attempted that shows an insular mentality? Do you disagree that honoring one editor could be read by the thousands others who do just as much as failing to honor them (particularly if they aren't part of the "reward culture")? There are real issues here, Blofeld. Talk about them, not how much you don't like me being the messenger. I told you it's the sheer chutzpah of what DYK thought they could do without consulting the community that is what concerned me.
Not everyone is motivated by praise; I am motivated by quality, because when I came to Wikipedia, it had horrific coverage of the articles I deal in, and by working at FAC, I sought to raise standards across the board. Difference here is, it wasn't about me-- it was about working in area that can lead to improvement in quality across the board. I understand some people want/need the praise. I agree the Foundation could do a better job at that. I can't fault you for wishing the Foundation did a better job of that in general, or for you specifically. I don't agree that this is the way to do it; slippery slope, and how are we going to deal with the thousands of worthy contributors? How can you value content contributors over, for example, vandal fighters and bot operators? I put forward an alternate proposal at DYK talk. I am still astounded that DYKers thought they could put something like this on the mainpage without consulting the entire community-- that sums up what is so wrong in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly? I think having a DYK on me would be inappropriate. Why? For the fact that the vast majority of readers would likely not even know anything about wikipedia's DYK process and not consider it even remotely remarkable, and for the fact that it isn't promoting encyclopedic content. As highly flattering as the proposal is, I'd rather see something instead which promotes content and a positive environment without it seeming a vanity affair. No doubt others will follow me in reaching 1000 DYKs and surpass anything I've achieved on here given time. I think the proposal was intended to be a harmless "give back" thing and I don't think a lot of people really think that mentioning me on the front page for 6 hours would really affect wikipedia in the long term. I'd agree though that if I'm given special attention, many others are worthy of it for what they've accomplished. What about people like Brian Boulton, Jim, tim riley, John, Malleus, etc. You know. Anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Allright, well that makes sense and helps me understand where you're coming from. But you overlooked almost every one of my questions about the insular mentality at DYK, which is what prompted the tone you don't like. Please answer: DYK wanted to breach Self-reference on the mainpage without consulting the broader community. What is wrong in there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think more people should have been notified of the proposal. It certainly would be breaking the rules, but I don't think anybody supporting really thought it would cause much trouble. I think they believe it is pretty harmless. That's probably not the point.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is my point: that DYK is so insular that it doesn't deal with quality, copyvio, outrageously sensationalist and inaccurate hooks, and now self-reference on the mainpage. I am not at all surprised that they thought they could do this without consulting the broader community; it is symptomatic of all that is wrong in there, and what shines through in the quality control issues. Do you think it coincidental that the thread right below the proposal about you at WT:DYK is a thread from me about an inccurate medical hook that had to be pulled from the mainpage by a non-DYK admin after DYK didn't even respond? [10]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It was a FUN idea made in a joking spirit, Sandy!!!! Lighten up. And for heaven's sake, lay off the "walled garden at DYK" thing; at least, look in the mirror and read psychological projection before you say it again. It's a pretty big place over there, you should review a few hooks from time to time, as everyone who actually CREATES CONTENT and submits a DYK is required to do so. (Which defeats your "walled garden" claim, by the way) After all, are you aware that you sometimes talk as if TFA is your own little fiefdom? You are getting some very good advice here from Blofeld and others about how often you really are unbelievely unkind and attacking of others, and if you don't see it, please find a better mirror. In my view, all you ever do is viciously slam anyone who disagrees with you, with the implication that we who dare to say anything critical of you have simply proven we are inferior to your royalness. It really gets quite tiring to hear you keep yelling "off with their heads." Montanabw(talk)21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You mean the article created by St Michaelmas? I think it was coincidental, but not surprised a long dead saint couldn't write a satisfactory article, must be tough as hell tapping into a keyboard once rigor mortis sets in.. My turn for bad humour, sorry!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that is funny!! I was going to mention something about my sister being haughty and being a Leo, a lot of them are apparently, but in this context probably not a good idea to say so without appearing a creep!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree, its makes a big difference to a lot of editors to feel like they are doing something worthwhile which others appreciate, and also important for editor retention of course. Yeah I think page which announces major achievements by editors would be the way to deal with it. Editors make proposals to publicize achievements by individuals and if the community agrees then it appears, much like the recent news. I can see the argument that it may lead to people seeking for praise to editors over the most trivial of work, but I think if a sensible approach was given it could work. Obviously they'd have to be notable achievements but I think that would be a more appropriate way to say, that's impressive, congrats on reaching that milestone for a bit without it seeming overly vainglorious. Obviously some people who are not well known and not proposed for things would miss out and maybe such a thing would cause a lot of problems. I don't know, but I remain firm in my belief that creating a positive atmosphere and encouraging editors to produce more and better quality content is integral to building the encyclopedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Onward to arb election results
well, arb election results are in, so on to the next (real) crisis. Blofeld, I'm sorry that this whole thing became and felt unnecessarily personalized to you. It's DYK that creeps me out-- I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough from the beginning. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Are they? where? How thrilling; what stars of wonderment have been elected this year to amaze us all with their wisdom? Giano (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing startling there then, a couple of hopefuls and the usual bunch of no hopers and Coren to ensure wikipedia plods on its continuing downward spiral. Giano (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What's with your weird threading? Designed to increase my typos? Look at the diff of the results as first posted, before they were formatted. I'm unclear what those "Score" numbers are, but I misread that we had elected only one arb. That might not have been such a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing at all!!!! I was copying you; I thought a new systen had been invented in my absence. So who has been elected then? Remember, my late, great and sainted aunt will be appointing them (as Wikipedia's first lady) - as a close family member, I have a right to know. Giano (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Long time no see Giano. I see Clemens received 433 opposes, roughly half of the turn out. Can't think why, mmm. Sorry to see Elen lose out.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I was sorry to see Elen lose out as well, but I guess it was inevitable. I'm sure she'll take it like the trooper she is though. In other news I think that everyone who voted for Jclemens ought to be indefinitely banned, along with him. Next up for a good spanking at the next election is Mr "any more questions from you scum and I'll ban you" Hersfold I hope. MalleusFatuorum19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Good luck to her indeed. It's not as though they ever change anything. Coren will continue to insult, lie and have his outbursts deleted and the rest will flaff about wringing their hands at the supposed evils of the rest of us, as 'HM King Jimbo de Londres' smiles beatifically down on them. Giano (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously "young and inexperienced" but these "good intentions" lead to uncontrollable firestorms and gives the usual suspects the opportunity for their perennial digs. Nothing good comes of interventions by anyone who "just needs a little focus and experience". I do hope you've told him to start minding his own business and stop looking for opportunities to try to make anyone conform to his idea of what's civil.J3Mrs (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The imposition of "civility" aka "nuke 'em if they don't fucking agree", and the love affair with commas, seem to be two of America's greatest problems. MalleusFatuorum09:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, Hersfold really did threaten to block persons making complaints about the delays. Maybe he should block his buddy Alexandria if his itch needs scratching? But then she wouldn't be able to explain her misuse of administrator tools..., months after requested.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not just the USA, there are madmen all over the globe - Norway and Dunblane spring instantly to mind. However, any nation that glorifies guns and refuses to tighten its gun laws had better get used to such vile happenings. Giano (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Some very thoughtful observations here (thanks, Kiefer) but as an American from the second-most gun crazy part of my country (the south is #1, west is #2), I feel like I risk my life amongst my "homies" by pointing out obvious things like this -- other nations outside of war zones have a few mass civilian shootings; we seem to make a habit of it. Then we suggest the solution is more of the same, (some folks here are actually suggesting that teachers should be armed...) which I believe is the definition of insanity (repeating the same thing, expecting a different result) Your quote from Lincoln's second inaugural is apt. I just feel sad about the whole thing. Montanabw(talk)19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Aren't you used to it by now? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just surprised that you still let things like that get to you. — Ched : ? 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I am used to it, yes, but I'm fucking pissed off that if I react to it in the way i would if it was said to my face I'm dragged to one of Wikipedia's courts. I'm no coward, no matter what some may claim. MalleusFatuorum09:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You are very wicked and evil and very uncivil. In fact, you are the Devil incarnate and with your evil writings and utterings have brought a curse on Wikipedia. Your unjustfied anger is a sign of your possession by evil forces and all your writings should be burnt and as for you rant rant rant............... Giano (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC) (Civility Patrol New Member)
Yep, c'est moi. If you can't beat em, join em! I want to be an admin and run around blocking people and generally fucking up the encyclopedia and anyone who wants to write it. Then I'm going to be an Arb and ban for ever anyone who I don't like or any of my friends don't like. In the meantime everyone but me has to talk in nice gentile language suitable for a chapel meeting in 1930's Alabama or some other God forsaken American place. Giano (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
@ Mall ... the more I thought about it - the more I can understand. In a way it's perhaps like the incessant mosquito at a picnic that just won't go away. I don't know Mall. Wikipedia is for some people a way of life - perhaps even a substitute for life; but it's devoid of much of the physics and common sense that real life has. Small people get this image in their heads that they are somehow "bigger" here than in real life, and it becomes a substitute for reality to them. In real life a 15 year old 5' 5" 95 lb. boy in a bar/pub would not walk up to a 6' 4" 60 year old man who weighed 220 lbs. and demand that they be thrown from the establishment. Sometimes I think that the Internet in general, and Wikipedia specifically have become a substitute for reality where small insignificant people can pretend that they actually have a station in life without going through the work to earn that respect. I guess that makes much of it rhetorical, since I don't really have a good answer. — Ched : ? 09:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
@ Giano - granted, there is no shortage of asininity in America, but that hardly makes us unique. Just sayin. — Ched : ? 09:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
@ Ched, I hate to risk offending half the American editors who are great and my friends, but there is a cultural difference which Wikipedia constantly sweeps under the carpet because it’s embarrassing to discuss. But it has to be said that many American Admins have a puritanical obsession with civility that is only found in the less-educated and lower middle-class populations of Europe. Why should we Europeans bow to America’s (to us) narrow view on civility? I have travelled all over Africa and love the people, but no one expects me to adopt the dress, lifestyle or social manners, so what is the difference? I have travelled all over America, and love the place and its people, but I don’t want to emulate them either. I am not a Methodist from Georgia and have no wish to behave like one or behave like some juvenile little peasant from Idaho who has never been further than his own back yard. Giano (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know; I won't risk stereotyping by naming the states where the more tolerant generally live, but I could. There are stupid, bigoted and narrow minded people in all countries. However, in America they see to demand more respect and have louder voices than they do elsewhere. I think it's something to do with the education system and culture - all this constant saluting the flag and being told what a super-power they are; perhaps it makes them beleive they are as personally as worthy as the nation to which they belong. Whereas the rest of us are brought up to mind our own business and just get on with life. Giano (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think it has more to do with ready access to methods of communication for those loudmouths you mention, Giano. American media is more or less unregulated and competitive, so those who scream the loudest or are the strangest will always get the larger soapbox because they bring the ratings. In addition to the factors Dennis mentioned, there is a distinct trend in this country to stifle those who don't follow PC (politically correct) memes and methods. There are plenty in this country who get on with life and mind their own business, but they don't look good on MTV's Real World or mainstream media so they don't get noticed. Assholes are assholes no matter where they come from. That's a basic fact of life that IMO more people need to be aware of. I can think of a number of editors on here that I consider total assholes, and I have no idea where they come from (and frankly I don't care). Lumping things into country of origin (all Americans are assholes, all Italians are assholes) accomplishes nothing and gives the assholes cover that they might not otherwise have. Intothatdarkness14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Dennis makes a good point; who said, "no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public?" We are, I must admit, mostly the descendants of people who left or got kicked out or Europe for being on the wrong side of something, if simply the poverty divide. So we may have a mass-dissatisfaction complex of some sort. But on the other hand, we have a lot of noble history too, as the oldest functioning republic/democracy in the world. I think that what sometimes happens is that our "city on the hill" idealism collides with the inevitable hubris of being an insular superpower where much of the population never hears another language or sees another currency (other than a few Canadian dimes...) . I agree that we Americans cannot be lumped as a single rectally-oriented mass any more than any other group. (Not even Texans! LOL!) But I think Ched is right that the internet and Wiki have sometimes become a substitute for reality. And though Giano is being a little rough on my neighbors from Idaho (I have cousins in Boise, by the way!), it is true that people who travel may have a better viewpoint than those who mostly live in their mommy's basement. Montanabw(talk)19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of a good solid overblown piece of Christmas drama, wasting countless editors' time that could have been spent elsewhere, causing a hundred times more incivility than what it claims to solve. Guess this will come down as the most idiotic thing done on Wikipedia for the month. MLauba(Talk)11:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear me, I hate to have my point so easily proven, but I see that the editor in question "attends or attended Northern Illinois University." QED. Oh yes, and has a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, and is also a published author in that field. That'll be a Christmas best-seller no doubt. Giano (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The above editor is from the State of Connecticut and is a "senior" editor, but clearly has no idea as to what constitutes a PA. Giano (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do. Sarcastically suggesting that an author's book is unlikely to sell well is about as close to a personal attack as you can get, yet not quite cross the line. As an author myself, I would take it very personally if someone made a similar comment to me. I'd be very surprised if any author would shrug it off as no big deal (except as a defense mechanism.) Do you have any published books, perhaps you just simply cannot comprehend the feeling?--SPhilbrick(Talk)19:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Newsflash - Highly educated liberals in the US are often those with the thinnest skins and lack of tolerance for differing views or ways of communicating. It ain't jest t' Baptists in Georgia.... :-) Intothatdarkness14:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I almost got banned a couple of months ago simply because someone asked for clarification on my RfA topic ban. You don't have to be a genius to see which way the wind is blowing. Alexandria's comment is a classic; drag me to ArbCom often enough and I'll end up being banned simply because I've been dragged to ArbCom often enough. It's a despicable tactic, but one that's all too common here. I've got nothing else to say, except that I ought to have listened to my head rather than my heart, and followed the example at the top of this page. Enough is enough. MalleusFatuorum19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's rather more of a "wear you out through sheer amount of pointless and time wasting annoyances so you throw up your hands and leave" kind of tactic, though the ploy you describe could be, from their point of view, a desirable corollary.VolunteerMarek 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of crap spewed your way, so I'm not in a position, in general, to tell you that your decision is wrong, but in terms of timing, retiring over a lame request by AQFK that is almost universally panned? Seriously? --SPhilbrick(Talk)21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. I'm sure I'll find I don't miss my daily dose of abuse, and I'm equally sure that I'll find some other outlet for the thankless effort I've put in here for far too long. Might even pay, who knows. MalleusFatuorum21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
But will it stick this time? I'm not asking that to be flip or provoke, by the way. I haven't been here all that long, but in that time I've seen you retire at least twice and then "arise from the dead" each time. I understand the compounding nature of all this, and certainly feel you'd be justified in walking away from it. Intothatdarkness21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I know we've disagreed a bit over time, but, honestly, two very good editors with, err, occasional use of "variant" English that have been pointed out lately, you and HiLo48, are really too good to lose around here. I very sincerely hope you reconsider. I also hope that, maybe, the "spirit of the season", if there really is one, makes everyone a bit more charitable around here for a while. Oh, yeah, and I would really like to see someone set something up so that we can't have more [persons] filing requests for arbitration right before the holidays. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You're not leaving without this barn star from me. This is for your tireless efforts. I hope you come back or find something to kill your time that's less brutal than it was here. —cyberpowerOnlineMerry Christmas23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Later
See you later, Malleus. I'll miss you. I'll think of you next time I light up a cigar, and on other occasions as well. Please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
TBrandley is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry to see you go Malleus, but remember you've been a great contributor throughout your time here. And, of course, enjoy your holidays! TBrandley03:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The infestation
Wikipedia has become infested with users who have come here to pull down and humiliate content builders. What really sticks out is how little content they contribute as a group to Wikipedia. Typically they have primitive and puritan notions of "civility" which they pretend are universal values. They call their notions a pillar, and use it as a weapon to bash editors with. Usually the only flurries of creativity we see are when they try to fluff up their wiki-resumes.
You have had to put up with a lot Malleus. I respect your decision to retire, and I hope you change your mind. An option is to become a saint, but that hardly seems your style. Still, damn you Malleus, you have handed victory to the wrong group and left the rest of us with a very nasty conundrum. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, one of my whines on this page is now being used against me in the not-courts of talk page drahmahz elsewhere. Swear to god, unless your article mainspace edits are more than 50% of your edits, WTF are you doing here, anyway? Aren't we building an encyclopedia? For all the drama that hits this page and all the various drama board crises Mal has endured, look at his editing stats: still over 60%. Malleus: If I may be so kind, get your f**king ass (or whatever part of choice) back here, man. Montanabw(talk)19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If he actually intends to make a break this time, I think we should all honor his wishes and stop badgering him to return. It might actually make a difference. However, in the (short) time I've been here I've seen Malleus threaten to retire and then return within days more than once. Will this time be "more of the same" or something different? And if it's something different, will others rise to carry on the quest for balance (possibly with different tactics and methods but the same goal) or will they simply gather and moan about those who have gone before? Do people want Malleus back for selfish reasons or is the intent more altruistic? I will miss Malleus' role as "asshole detector" (for lack of a more delicate term), but if he's actually had enough then so be it. It's his choice, and I (for one) feel we should honor that choice. Intothatdarkness22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Argh!
Malleus, you are a f*cking brilliant editor. And a very thoughtful and entertaining discussant, if that is even a word. Please have a lovely Christmas or other seasonal and/or religious break as specified in Standing Orders and then come back here and do more of your excellent work. Seriously. Please. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just read up on this shitfest. I'm sorry I missed it at ANI and other places--I was busy elsewhere. I have few words, but I will stand you two drinks. Hell, I'll sit you three (I have a sore lower back). Drmies (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you get bored not writing articles, you could always pull the rest of this down for me. My lungs are about half full of plaster dust right now :) Parrotof Doom21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
By a strange coincidence my lungs are full of plaster dust as well, as I've spent much of the day ripping out the crappy plasterboard walls from our bathroom. Much more satisfying than that "writing articles" cock. I need to find out now which of Trafford's dumps accept plasterboard, as my local one doesn't. MalleusFatuorum21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I just broke old sheets of plasterboard and stuffed them into the bottom of the bin. Takes a few weeks but its less messy than filling your boot up with the stuff. Ripping this ceiling down is a horrid job made easier by the fact that the awful woodchip wallpaper is pulling most of the plaster down with it :) Parrotof Doom21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Try spraying water on it from inside the hole first. Works for me, time and again: the problem is less the plaster than all the detritus that has landed on it over (in my case) 140 years. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Sitush is perhaps the last person to take construction advice from, he used this wonderfully erotic device to chop off his toes! Malleus, we've never really interacted except for a couple of sentences on the doctor's page, but as I mentioned in the last case, it is a pleasure reading your articles. Good luck with your alternative hobby going forward (if you indeed manage to stay away from here -- I know I keep coming back every couple of months, so it is difficult), but if you do return, it might be easier to edit if you don't confuse this place for an encyclopaedia and accept it for the social experiment it is. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff02:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't do it, Please. Stay here and have patience! I don't know the situation enough to begin to speculate or assume why you would want to leave, but you have far more support than you may realise. This is a project worth sticking with. Wikipedia has so few major contributers that spand such a broad area and you are, not only a worthy editor, but a contributer of great proportion! I don't have the words to convince you. That I know. But there are reasons you should stay that are worth considering. Criticism and controversy are overshadowed by the overall positve things that you do. Please consider retirement......waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off in the distant future.
Malleus, I haven't spoken to you much but your track record of all those GA and FA nominations and reviews speaks head and shoulders over people who just whack random barnstars on pages. I've occasionally ranted at people who haven't, in my opinion, put the articles first and foremost as I would like, but sometimes I think your ability to call a spade a f**king spade just means you know how to get on and make the encyclopedia better. Illegitimi non carborundum. --Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Reconsider
You don't know me, Malleus, but it's difficult to spend much time here without noticing you, and I've read a lot of your material (I've lived in the areas about which you've written). All I can say is that I can not believe that it's come to this; that a devilishly talented writer such as yourself is being successfully chased away from this project over a few naughty words. The substance of the matter over which you're being hounded is so trivial in real terms, it's comical. Please, reconsider. We cannot do this without people like you. Regards Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for your brilliant actions to the Wikipedia, regardless of how they turned out to be, and what effect they had on other users. If there was a chance you would not go, I would try to ask you for it. Please dont go.
BBC's "controversial laws are often misused to ... settle scores"
The BBC's Shahzeb Jillani says blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan, where scores of people have been killed by mobs or vigilantes.
... controversial laws are often misused to persecute minorities or settle scores.
...
In 2011, two leading politicians - the Governor of Punjab province, Salman Taseer, and the Religious Minorities Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti - were assassinated after speaking out against the existing blasphemy legislation.
Don't let the turkeys win, Malleus. You are one of the most civil editors. (I can hear detractors asking: "How is that possible?" It is because Malleus has got ethics. [WP is confused by, doesn't know how or what to do with ethics, so it ignores them as though they don't exist. It substitutes instead a fig leaf called the "civility policy" based on "bad words", and the current trumpeting of that leaf as supreme law is too laughable for comment.] You gotta stay and continue the good fight. Instead of the bastard-backward status of things, where you are harassed using the lame leaf, a big opportunity is being missed, namely, securing the consensus of the top content contributors, as to what is good and how to support it, and what is bad and how to suppress it, for maintaining and building the biggest and best online encyclopedia. The experienced contributors know. They are overlooked as resource in favor of policy wonks in yellow ties.) There are too many smart people here now (I think) to permit your banning, since that would take a good measure of stupidity (wouldn't it?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
got ethics -- Made my day. We should be moving the failed "civility" policy to an ethics guideline, which would include such neglected virtues as intellectual honesty in arguments. --87.79.128.82 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Come on, Malleus, Don't let the turkeys win. Hersfold is a bully. Don't let the bullies win. Listen, do not take ArbCom too seriously. How one could take seriously the arbitrators who support banning you, yet refuse to block a self-identified pedophile? 71.202.122.192 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I would retire if I were you. You have to deal with campaigns of harassment from young men who make Scottywong look like a model of civility and fair play. It is better to play guitar or write from another account, perhaps one of your many administrative accounts. Nice that nobody caught up to your having used all of those accounts to sway the ArbCom Election! Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
What is WP's mission, does someone know and can they define it clearly here? (Is it comprehensive and good articles? Or is it to maintain "anyone can edit" above all other criteria? What exactly?)
What caused me to wonder what the mission is, is this comment by one of the participants in the Civility Questionaire run by User:Beeblebrox:
I really do hope that we can create a decent civility "policy" - I'd rather have a happy healthy environment and miss a few articles then have good articles and an unhealthy community. We can't meet our mission if we don't have a healthy collaborative environment. --SarahStierch
So, what is the mission, exactly? (It seems to me, that unless the mission can be defined without competing objectives, then that would lead to all kinds of problems, including impotence for doing any restucturing, that might be good for the Pedia.)
I presume the mission isn't a bunch of platitudes all strung together as a wish-list (which wouldn't be helpful and begs to be ignored and forgotten like most "mission statements" cooked up to sound nice), and instead comprises a real and focused objective. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That solution would avoid the "Section 230" issue that currently keeps WMF right out of content matters, though the record of WMF-promoted "educational programs" so far is not at all impressive. Maybe they are practicing to get that right before implementing this idea? (Joke - they surely aren't) But there are plenty of less drastic ways of using money to upgrade the content if the will is there, which it currently isn't. By the way, I would of course be extremely sorry to see Malleus go, but am rather counting on him not being able to kick the habit after a few more days of plaster dust and turkey. After all, apart from the elusive Parrot, there's bugger-all on tv. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thx for that. Yes, there are the platitudes: "empower and engage". (For Malleus's case, it's been more like: "impugn and enrage".) Has it ever entered anyone's head at Arbcom that all during the "whatta we do 'bout Malleus" deliberations, the behavioral problem-shoe has been on someone else's foot? (It's always been on another's foot.) "Bad words" are like shadows -- they don't show order, color, texture, or depth. Equally intelligent would be a dog chasing its own tail. There seems to be an expertise developed in driving away talent & experience. Did the mission statement take into account the unsavory side of human nature in large organizations? What then? (Let the wolves have at it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Tomcat(7) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ferret legging, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see you have retired, your contributions to the Good article project have been immense. I wouldn't worry about the reassessment, if the nominator does delist it using their current evidence I will be personally taking it through the community route. Was just letting you know as they forgot that step. Hope you are having a good holiday. AIRcorn(talk)15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a corrupting project administered largely by teenage bully boys encouraged by the support of arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad with their "maturity" bollocks. I won't be back. Immature of me perhaps, but fuck it. MalleusFatuorum07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The project may once have been worthy, but it's now just a failed Internet "civility" experiment. There's a limit to the number of times an adult can be expected to tolerate being called immature by a bunch of fucking kids. MalleusFatuorum10:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
An "editor" recently used three accounts to remove the phrase train station from Wikipedia at the rate of three or four edits a minute, carefully disguising their sockpuppetry by editing in different geographic areas and using slightly different vocabularies in their "charmingly polite" replies to anybody who challenged them. I certainly wouldn't want to meet that person in "real life"- rather have someone swearing at me than that kind of obsessive psychopathic behaviour. Ning-ning (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Right. (Kids.) But no further sanction will stick, since there's a semblance of intelligence rising (risen). (At least I think so. It's an important beginning of change/evolution/reformation/rectification toward intelligence that you've already pushed far along, and so, you shouldn't leave now.) The kids are like bugs that go 'crunch' when you squish'em. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but give me a shout if it ever happens. I see that KW's talk page access was blocked last night. Stuff like that doesn't seem to be a step in the right direction to me, just more of the same old same old. Things need to change here, but they hardly ever do, which is why Wikipedia is in its death spiral. MalleusFatuorum13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Ratatoskr's malicious gossiping creates quite the appetite.
On the bright side, there was a lot of criticism of the removal of TPA by the administrator from military-history, who had almost as much trouble with the block logging as the block policy.
I've simply had a few words to say about what's going wrong here, and I didn't add that ugly retirement template. Why do people feel emboldened to mess with other people's user/talk pages? MalleusFatuorum03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The template was added, then removed (just before I got round to doing so), and then the inserter insisted that you had given them permission. I thought that unlikely but couldn't possibly contest their reinstatement without being uncivil ;) - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
To quote Malleus, "You may do as you please with my userspace, as it's no longer of any interest to me." I interpreted that as permission to add the retirement banners.—cyberpowerChatOffline13:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
So, you'll shoot him if he contributes to another article before the new year? Honestly, it would have been less dramatic just to leave well alone. I don't even understand why you'd want to ask that question when someone was clearly very annoyed. Still, what is done is done. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
In other news, I bought a silly amount of beer today (I'm organizing a Xmas beer tasting event extravaganza tomorrow) and, thinking of you two, bought an English ale for maybe the first time in my life. Let me check--it's Manchester Star. I hope it's good. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not had that one, Drmies, although I've sample much of their range. John Willie Lees beers tend to be quite hoppy. Don't chill it as cold as you would a lager. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not back in any real sense, just commenting because I've seen the back-stabbing evilness of those who see a retirement as an opportunity to advance their vendettas. I'll reconsider my position in the New Year, but until then if you see me write or contribute to another article then you have my permission to shoot me. MalleusFatuorum03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not being able to pass up an opportunity to have you shot, I shall wave the temptation of Priestley 1979, p. 48 in front of you. It matches up with what John Elsom (Elsom 1976, p. 154) says about Ken Campbell's Road Show (a "pub music-hall team") and the World Ferret-Down-Trousers Record, one of the acts in the show. Yes, this is the "JE" who wrote the Cambridge encyclopaedia entry on Campbell that you used (and who, incidentally, gave himself a nice little namecheck in the article on "criticism", that he also wrote, in the same encyclopaedia).
That's great Uncle--I can't wait. I still have two fossils on my talk page, as you well know. Now ferrets, that's fun. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As you ease yourself back into the groove, though, I'd seriously advise moving away from controversial topics like ferret-based sports and towards a subset of articles that are calmer and a little less politicised on the wiki - pieces on the Arab-Israel conflicts, perhaps, or something like that. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't jump the gun - he's only removed the banner. "I'll reconsider my position in the New Year" means he hasn't decided anything yet. Richerman(talk)19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As further temptation, I wave AP 1981 in front of you, so that you know that you can source the fact that Guinness Superlatives refused to accede to Mellor's request for recognition, fearing the RSPCA.
"71-Year-Old Man Is Squirming To Be Recognized". The Times-News. Hendersonville, N.C. Associated Press. 1981-09-07. p. 15.
May I please request you to write an essay on having respect as a more important virtue on wiki than friendliness? That way, other editors shall also benefit from your POV and we will be able to make the community understand why it also hold relevance. With luck, I hope that it becomes one of the policies too someday. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would submit that this whole issue isn't as simple as "respect versus friendliness." In fact, the whole thing is far more complex than that. Malleus is, as always, quite capable of speaking for himself, and I'd be interested in seeing his thoughts on your question actually compiled in one place. But when you mix the number of things that are active in this mess together (various cultures, backgrounds, educations, differing behavior patterns of 'generations' of internet users, grudges new and old held by longer-term users, a governance structure that is broken in far too many ways) you may find that there is no such thing as a simple solution. Civility is a handy stick with which to beat people, but it's not really an answer. Intothatdarkness22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is friendly enough to those who show respect. Malleus, a bad guy in this soap opera has taught me all I know about editing Wikipedia and I have never known him to be anything but friendly. Wikipedia cannot afford to lose good editors. Editors come and go, many become "established" but not necessarily good. Good editors have to put up with trivia and worse being added to articles they have researched and largely written under the banner of "improvement" by new or incompetent editors and are denigrated and accused of ownership when they object putting them at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps protecting good and featured articles so that "improvements" could be discussed might be a first step. But at the end of the day insistent and poor editors should be put in their place. Those who rate "friendliness" and "civility" above content are using the wrong website. Most people accessing wikipedia are not editors but readers wanting information, they aren't interested in the politics or how friendly the writers are, they want information. There is so much badly written rubbish here and it won't improve without good editors. Good editors aren't just parachuted in when the best are forced out. Editing requires persistence, the desire to improve and writing skills which some editors just don't have. It requires a thick skin and the ability to take on board constructive criticism. There are too many fragile egos and jealous souls out there and oh so many with poor comprehension skills. How anybody can say content is not the most important thing is completely beyond me. And please don't say professional, where I worked it was a means of silencing dissent. Those who put civility above content have no respect for the encyclopedia or the writers who contribute good and better content. Editors drop in with few edits expecting respect. Respect needs to be earned, not by visiting the dramaboards and interfering but by minding your own business, doing some writing or article improvement, showing you can take advice and showing respect for those who can. J3Mrs (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
So the IP has created an(other) account to troll from, what a surprise! Still not checking for errors though and no overlinking, that really is a surprise.J3Mrs (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That particular troll account is now blocked. You all can help by starting an SPI and gathering all the information you have--I am not partial to as much knowledge as you all are. An SPI with CU information can help control this, maybe. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As I tried to say at ANI, "Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh!"
Yes Gerda, ironic indeed, glad you have a sense of humour unlike certain others here who mistake good light hearted humour and banter as childish nonsense.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld09:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a bunch of idiots who'd rather walk around whistling, while swinging a truncheon, than write articles. The more of this nonsense I read, the less inclined I am to do any more work here. Parrotof Doom00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I can only hope Malleus comes out of this ordeal intact. It seems some people are utterly determined to drive you away, which is just senselessness imo. ceranthor00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
For some folks this 'going after Malleus' thing has become an unhealthy obsession. Unhealthy obsessions are bad enough when they concern the person who's doing the obsessing but here this also impacts another person (Malleus), as well as the rest of us who have to watch this idiotic drama and take away the intended message (which seems to be "people who create content better not get uppity and respect mah authoriteh!") Volunteer Marek01:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
An interesting essay
I just found this essay which is very insightful, and timely, considering many current discussions. The essays content is only eclipsed by discovering the surreal irony of its creator. While I could easily have been duped to believe the range of negative aspersions freely cast against this editors clue, the reality of his perception and strong writing abilities completely rebut the clever fabrications which might otherwise prevail. I think you will be equally surprised to realize the self evident truth this essay exudes and perhaps inclined to admit he has been unreasonably besmirched by unfounded claims. Cheers, --My76Strat (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Are you able to recommend a trusted copy-editor well versed in {{British English}} to apply their skills to Ely and Littleport riots 1816 during its peer-review ahead of its second GAN? Given the recent, and seemingly still continuing, attempts at baiting you, I can see why you might be frustrated and thus might refuse this humble request. I am more than reluctant to add to your troubles but nevertheless I trust your judgement so completely that I find myself with no real alternative. In any case my mother, bless her, always told me that "you get nothing if you don't ask" --Senra (talk)12:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You realize that you're calling for Malleus to be hanged by requesting him to edit?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld
Dr. Blofeld: I am so sorry. Whilst I admit that British English is my first language, I do accept that I may not always use it correctly. Where in my request have I asked Malleus to edit? --Senra (talk)14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.comedyguys.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/liberace.jpg){kind=link}
