This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't know ..
and full disclosure - I saw a post on Scotty Wong's page. I'm not sure how it started, and quite frankly - not only do I not care, but it's actually none of my damn business. I will say this though - I have a ton of respect for both you and Pedro, so I do hope that you'll both find a way to work through any disagreements you may have. There's far too few good and honest people about this project - so when there's a disagreement between what I consider two of the best, then I tend to wish some resolution can be found. OK - I'm done letting my thoughts find their way to the keyboard now. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
We are not here to have falling outs, but to improve the encyclopedia. There is always a way out of problems. I hope that you settle the issue now. Yasht10117:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I shouldn't stir this, but being of a curious nature and slightly bored I had a look at what was going on. What I don't understand is why people think they can stop by here and tell you how to behave when someone has said something quite unkind about you. I'm sorry to see this, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I could explain it very easily, but how long do you have? To cut a long story short it boils down to dishonesty, hypocrisy and a lack of personal integrity. Or in other words, too many kids. MalleusFatuorum01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's too many kids. Many of the universities in the US are finished for the summer or about to be finished, too many kids are passing RfA because they flock to pass each other, and then they believe they have the right to treat adults like two year olds. It's pretty sickening to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There's another aspect as well. A fairly new user such as Yasht101 will no doubt soon be looking to chance his arm at RfA, and might be likely to consider a Pedro nomination a path to success, so why antagonise your potential nominator by acting honestly? MalleusFatuorum01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I will not consider Pedro to nominate me after seeing all this stuff happening around. In fact I don't see myself as a successful RfA candidate in 1 year Yasht10101:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that you're already thinking about it. I've been here fairly long, have a respectable edit count, have done quite a bit to improve the place, but no one has ever considered me for an admin. I'll never see myself as a successful RfA candidate. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I've never wanted it. But the problem is that editors like us have a very good sense of the place, yet no place here. Except for writing and tidying the damn encyclopedia that is. But we're just the proles. Anyway, I'm done for the night. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Very true. I pretty much just use this place as a scratch pad now, waiting for something better to come along. I used to be very gung ho about GA, and even about FA, but I've come to realise that civility is far more important than content, so I can't be bothered any more. MalleusFatuorum02:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be even better if regular editors weren't treated like naughty children, while administrators get away with murder? MalleusFatuorum02:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Admins are treated that way pretty often nowadays. Admins don't get away with all that much more than editors on average. Maybe you're too set on vilifying them to ever be convinced otherwise though. Equazcion(talk)03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe I don't go around wearing blinkers? If I'd called another editor a "disingenuous 'oh-so-clever' two faced fuck-witted tosser" do you think I'd have been dealt with so leniently? And bear in mind that comment was made by an administrator who'd already been blocked twice for incivility. If referring to an unnamed editor as "sycophantic" is worthy of a block then surely that is. MalleusFatuorum03:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean blinders? As in, anyone who disagrees with you must simply be blind? Or do you have some particularly valid reason for telling me that? I'd even say it's a possibility, if you weren't just lumping me in with your generic blanket assumption you use on everyone. I'm not sure what reason I'd have to wear blinders. I've been slighted by admins in the past and have railed against them. I've even been offered RFA nominations and rejected them on the principle that I disagreed with the whole admin upperclass thing I used to see here. It's tough to get someone blocked for incivility, so it doesn't happen every time. Those with a history of it get it more. I think that's a fairly good system. I'm glad it's not easy to block for incivility, but I'm also glad those who show a pattern do get it from time to time. A single slip-up shouldn't warrant some sort of hardline police action, but something ongoing should be kept under control with blocks. Equazcion(talk)03:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that your best shot? You whitewash what is clearly the root problem here and come up with that? And no doubt in preparation for your attempt at RfA later this year. I call that pathetic. MalleusFatuorum03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, again, whitewashing is just a generic way to argue. Anyone who disagrees with you must be whitewashing things? Why? What would be my motivation to do something like that? You think I have so much faith in this place that I simply don't want to believe there's anything wrong with it? That's far from true -- it's just the easiest response; it covers anything. Throwing around "You're just looking to be an admin" is another easy response with no real base. For the record I haven't attempted an RfA in the 5.5 years I've been here (aside from once when someone nominated me without asking first and I CSD'd it), and you have my further assurance that I won't be attempting it this year or next year either. Equazcion(talk)03:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be struggling to express yourself in any way that makes sense, as in "whitewashing is just a generic way to argue", and so much more above. Please don't try to waste any more of my time with this kind of nonsense. MalleusFatuorum03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"The accusation of whitewashing" is what I meant, though I thought that would be obvious. It might occur to you, at some point, that rather than drawing a battle line between you and those who disagree with you so you can satisfy yourself by getting shots in, everyone might benefit if you actually debated your issues at some point (outside of the tension and constraints of some Wikipedia process that's been started against you). Of course that's your call. Equazcion(talk)03:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You attack discussions like this as if they were a battle, rather than engaging in debate. Debating instead might benefit everyone. Is that clear enough? If you're still having trouble, tell me which phrase has you befuddled and I'll try to clarify. Equazcion(talk)04:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In real life, one of the hats I wear is dealing with miscarriages of justice. Trouble is, when you've been hit so often for things which didn't deserve a hit, various things can happen. This is one of them, in real life. And when you've been attacked regularly for things which other people don't get attacked for, everything looks like a battle. MF, dear heart, I'm not trying to impinge on your psyche in any way, or psychoanalyse you, I'm just pointing out that this is what happens in real life, and it's worth other people bearing in mind for the editors who get consistently zapped and treated like shite in here, too. Pesky (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
How extraordinary! Is all that true? "Through the 1960s and 1970s, students would streak during the day as well as flag pole at night." The way that sentence is written makes it look like "flag pole" is a verb. MalleusFatuorum23:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's one for you (and your talk page stalkers) that I am struggling to get me head round. Example sentence:
Whilst in London, Clarke met Chruchill.
Is the comma needed? The first fragment doesn't seem to be a complete portion, which implies a comma is incorrect. But "Whilst in London Clarke met Churchill" doesn't scan right to me (with the names stuck together). I can't find anything equivocal via Google. Any advice? --Errant(chat!)12:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Whilst in London" is being used as a prepositional phrase. Might be easier to understand the need for the comma if you consider "Clarke met Chruchill whilst in London" which is more straighforward, so the comma isn't required. You're presenting it kind of backwards, which isn't incorrect, but needs the break. Equazcion(talk)12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate thoughts from you and/or your stalkers regarding linking to a category in the body of an article. I've never seen it done previously but it happens in a sentence that reads, "The assembly members from the provinces that would comprise Pakistan formed the new state's constituent assembly, and the Military of British India was divided between Muslim and non-Muslim units and officers." I can sort of see why it is done but it seems odd to me, nonetheless, and there probably is or should be an article on the subject. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not all that fond of the idea of linking to categories, or indeed care much about categories at all, but the MoS does seem to allow for linking to them.[2]MalleusFatuorum04:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a great believer in categories & think they should be used more in "see also" and notes, but I wouldn't link to a huge category like that in text. It might make sense to link to a more specific category like say Category:Pupils of Antoine-Jean Gros in text, since there is no equivalent article. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see some kind of logic in linking to a category in a "see also" hat note, and I certainly much prefer that to a hyperlink, but if that category also appears at the end of the article wouldn't that be overlinking? After all, we don't include links in the See also section if they're already linked in the text. But I also wonder about the utility of many of the categories, such as 1851 deaths, for instance. (Which is surprisingly small, must have been a particularly healthy year.) MalleusFatuorum04:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
But often the article won't be in the category itself. We have a lot of well-underfilled categories from people starting them and not following through. I used to watch Category:Places listed in the Domesday Book - current total 11, 135, 178, 312 actual number 13,418 - at the bottom of my talk page, but now it's split by county - actually a quick totting-up suggests it's now gone down to 283; odd. Of course not all can now be identified, but several thousand can. Nonethless categories are highly useful, though I doubt most readers are aware they exist. Johnbod (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't asked you to change anything, only to consider the morality of a list that consists only of those who, in your own words, wouldn't push to recall him, whereas after I voiced my concerns about his behaviour on his talk page and suggested the possibility of a recall if it continued, he removed my name from the list. I can live with my conscience, but you have to live with yours. MalleusFatuorum17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
HighBeam: Email needed
Good news, you were approved for a free account. Bad news, your email is not set up to receive the code. Two options: 1) Go to Special:Preferences, scroll down, add your email and enable receiving messages; 2) email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I'll respond with your code. Cheers! Ocaasit | c15:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Eric Corbett/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've been called more names here on Wikipedia than I ever have in real life. Strange that, for a site so Puritan about civility. MalleusFatuorum14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was doing up Byronic hero last week: "a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection", according to Lord Macaulay. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
But let's hope not too much! "Byron was celebrated in life for aristocratic excesses including huge debts, numerous love affairs, rumours of a scandalous incestuous liaison with his half-sister, and self-imposed exile. It has been speculated that he suffered from bipolar I disorder, or manic depression." =:-O Montanabw(talk)19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
A decent poem, but it doesn't really remind me of me as much as the Byronic quote does, especially the "moody, cynical ... implacable in revenge" bit. MalleusFatuorum20:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You can, of course; I know your heart's in the right place even though we may not always agree. ;-) But one of the many ways in which I don't fit in here is precisely to do with the "implacable in revenge" bit. I have never valued apologies, they're just words, and until I see some real evidence of change I hold to the idea that "revenge is a dish best served cold". And as for forgiveness, well, all I can say is that I leave that to God. MalleusFatuorum20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
God helps those who help themselves [says Pesky, helping herself to hugz from anyone willing to be hugged]. Malleus, I like the way we can disagree without going for the jugular! Pesky (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh. Lovely as always. And the perfect definition of "collection" and "on the bit" (not bent at C3, which a lot of people THINK is it). And happy. And the riders without stirrups! Montanabw(talk)02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, actual decent riding! Note the significant absence of obtrusive aids; legs hardly move, hands hardly move, horses in perfect self-carriage, no battles, just perfect communicative partnership. And then compare with what the modernists think of as "advanced dressage" – riders all over the place, horses overbent (which would fall on their noses if the riders weren't hauling so hard on the reins), lack of engagement, zero lossgelassenheit, riders hurling themselves from left to right to get god-awful tempi changes, no real elevation of the hind legs in piaffe ... ugh! Pesky (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just happy to see horses carrying their necks at a natural level, not the god-awful peanut roller crap... Ealdgyth - Talk16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Me, too! Rollkür should be outlawed, IM(nv)HO :o( Barbaric. When I start working on my pretty gelding again this year, I'll upload some videos for y'all on the teaching of natural engagement and self-carriage. And Spanish walk ... ;P Pesky (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Malleus, I've got a question on Aaron Rodgers for you about a Youtube Source in this case it's one from ESPN E60 an official ESPN Channel. Is that source allowed for GA or does it need replacement? Regards and thanks for the help--SKATERIs Back03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
As that appears to be an official ESPN channel I'm sure it would be fine. Not sure what "Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!", which according to Google translate means "sign in or register to post a comment", is doing there though. MalleusFatuorum12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Where did you that? I'm expanding the backup seasons and then I'm going to start cleaning out the dead links which should be a blast.--SKATERIs Back13:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Reflinks must of screwed up. That is really weird though, thanks for the help. Chances are I'll be bugging you with more questions soon.--SKATERIs Back15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be "Punishment" Well if you insist... On an actualy note, Malleus or any of the other fine talk page stalkers he has if you wouldn't mind looking at the "Backup" section of Aaron Rodgers and tell me what you think of my expansion and source fixing before I move on to the next on the failed GA list I'd appreciate it.--SKATERIs Back05:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You have a few dead links in there which need to be fixed. Aaaand ... this one: who is/are sportsvide0s on YouTube, and what's the copyright status here? Pesky (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I havent gotten around to fixing that yet. Only the backup seasons section, the youtube source on that one will be replaced.--SKATERIs Back13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Without a cut
I noticed this edit where you said: "I've often "got the shovel out and directly helped to fix FACs", but if I had reason to believe that the nominator was being paid I most certainly would not have done so without a cut." Are you sure that is the right approach? I've seen others say they would just walk away, and that (or just helping out regardless) seems a better approach than asking to get a share of any payments being made. Once someone starts taking money for stuff like this, previously done altruistically and as a volunteer effort, there is no going back, really, is there? I suppose it might be possible to take a cut and then donate that to charity or something, but the whole thing is tricky. Don't get me wrong, if I won the lottery, or if someone paid me to give up my current employment and edit Wikipedia (with no constraints on what I worked on or how often), I'd seriously consider editing Wikipedia more than I do. Though even then, it might become a chore, rather than something to be done as and when I felt in the mood for it (and if I won the lottery, I'd probably pay someone to edit topics I'd like to see better articles on!).
I think Fifelfoo said it best there (using stronger language), this sort of things really messes up the volunteer ethos. If anything, working with an openly disclosed paid editor shouldn't make any difference, as long as they openly declare who is paying the bills (and hopefully the money is used for books and digitising images and things like that). The only sort of paid editing I think will really work is a grant-based system where there is an intermediary shielding editors from undue influence exerted by the sources of funding (which should still be openly declared). The other thing is that volunteers donate their time and that is precious enough, sometimes more precious than money. Though sleep is probably more precious still, so I'll stop there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it's the right approach for me; Wikipedia must decide for itself whether it's the right approach for it. After all, if you were commissioned to write a book and you asked me to collaborate with you on it, would you be expecting me to do it for nothing? You'd be disappointed if you were. MalleusFatuorum15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I trust that offering you a small refreshment at my expense should you be passing by does not infringe upon this wise and honourable stance. Many thanks again. BenMacDui19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A glass of uisge beatha always goes down well, especially if it's one of those generous Scottish measures; nice job on the Kingdom of the Isles btw. I've been watching a rerun of that BBC series on the history of Scotland, which ended last night with the Battle of Brunanburh. The impression given was very much that the outcome of the battle effectively forged the kingdoms of Scotland and England, even though the English achieved a decisive victory. The article we have on it isn't bad I suppose, but it really doesn't seem to do justice to the impact of the event. Heck, I've seen more developed articles on a minor Second World War skirmish between the Americans and Japanese on some remote Pacific island that probably wasn't worth fighting over anyway. MalleusFatuorum21:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. I think I misunderstood part of what you were saying. You seem to be saying (or demonstrating by reviewing that Cracker Barrel thingymy FAC) that you don't object to reviewing articles where there is (or was) a disclosed paid interest, but you object to actually mucking in and doing editing and/or copyediting? Me, I'd not make that distinction, but I may have misunderstood what you meant. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a bit of a terse response, which makes me reluctant to carry on this conversation, but still. :-( I had another look at the FAC. One of the nominators was "paid in the past to improve this article" (that is effectively being commissioned to improve the article), and you've been helping out with some comments at the FAC (I was wrong to say 'reviewing' in my comment above). How does that square with "if you were commissioned to write a book and you asked me to collaborate with you on it, would you be expecting me to do it for nothing?"? I'm really not being facetious here. I'm trying to understand what is going on here. Just having it confirmed that I've misunderstood something doesn't really help. I've been thinking of commenting on that FAC myself, but am still rather ambivalent about the whole issue (having just read the most recent Signpost article on it, this time on PR representatives). Some of the discussion on that Signpost talk page shows how strongly some people feel about this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Had I reason to believe that one of the nominators was being paid to shepherd the article through FAC I would have ignored it, on the basis that paying reviewers introduces a very obvious conflict of interest, and I see no reason why my work should be exploited for the financial benefit of others. On the other hand, had I been asked to help with the article without being a reviewer I would not have done so without a cut of the proceeds if I had reason to believe that another editor was being paid for their work. The fact that someone may have been paid to write an article in the past is of no interest to me, all I care about is if they're being paid now. MalleusFatuorum03:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that does make it clearer to me where you are coming from on this. For my part, what makes me wary about any monetary aspect is the question mark it leaves over motivation. I'm uncomfortable enough with anything other than a simple 'improve the articles because that's what needs doing' work ethic. Even the seemingly simple 'reward' concept of barnstars feels too much like artificial motivation. The real satisfaction comes from knowing that an article has been improved, and this is in large part I suppose due to the intellectual satisfaction produced when a piece of writing turns out well and you know you've accurately summarised or presented something for others to read (the converse being those times when the writing doesn't quite work out). It's the difference, I suppose, between communicating (by writing) as a means to an end (generating income) and communicating (by writing) because someone genuinely enjoys communicating concepts and ideas to others. It's possible to do both, but it is easy to just churn out stuff if it is being done for pay with little in the way of checks and balances and with the pressure of a deadline to meet. Those doing something voluntarily, with no deadline to meet, and taking pride in their work, probably on average produce higher quality. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Just for the sake of transparency, I've never been paid to write anything on Wikipedia, but I'd be quite prepared to consider doing so. I frankly don't care why anyone claims to have done something, only about what they do. But if they're being paid for their work then I wouldn't be prepared to help without a cut. It's not at all complicated for me, nothing philosophical. MalleusFatuorum05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hi! I know we haven't worked together before, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide a peer review for Andromeda (constellation). Feel free to say no - I know you're busy and have other priorities. Regardless, thanks for your consideration. Keilana|Parlez ici18:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you've had trouble attracting reviewers; I think Brianboulton pretty much ran that place my himself. I'll take a look once I finish giving Pesky a hard time with her New Forest pony article. MalleusFatuorum20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, the only thing you have to do in return is to promise not to block me, even if I should call another editor a "fucking cunt". ;-) MalleusFatuorum22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't need any encouragement! As a matter of fact though, in my five years here I've only ever once called another editor a cunt. And he was. MalleusFatuorum22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Woah watch out there Malleus, you don't want to end up at an ANI for a personal attack. (I kid, if you can't detect sarcasm.)--SKATERIs Back01:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I used to hang out with an aristocratic set (decades ago), and a genuine princess (no less) regularly called various members of her set cunts! All good-naturedly, and no offence intended or taken. Adding: ... and was once responded to with a "Cunt yourself!" reply .. to which she in turn replied: "Oh? How does one do that, then?" Pesky (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Admin stuff does seem pretty tedious, I agree. But then reviewing is often pretty tedious as well. Why should one be granted a privileged status over the other? MalleusFatuorum06:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
That's true. I don't think either one should have a privileged status, and I really don't like the hierarchy that's evolved in the past few years. Keilana|Parlez ici15:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Well... heck. I just did a google scholar search and turned up nothing I don't have already on this guy... think he's ready for FAC? Or is there something else lurking on User:Ealdgyth#GAs that you think should go up next? Middle Ages ain't ready yet... still need some more stuff on military things and more social history, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk01:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Hugh's ready for FAC, as I said to you a few days ago. You ought to be seriously worried about your home library, but having said that I met a guy some years ago now who had become so interested in early English Christianity that he'd actually built a library in his garden to hold his collection. Apparently it was one of the largest such specialist libraries in the country. MalleusFatuorum01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
We lived in London for many years, and were invited to a water skiing club at Ringwood by someone we met while on holiday in Corfu, which I think isn't too far from you. Ringwood I mean, not Corfu. I never really got the hang of water skiing though, hated it really, but my wife was quite good at it. MalleusFatuorum05:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Heads-up :o)
I think I've done everything required by The Reviewer From Hell for New Forest pony ;P Let me know if it needs anything else for GA; please also let me know what it needs to go to FAC. And could you take a look at History of the horse in Britain for me, to let me know how far off going to FAC is for that one, too? MegaHugz'n'stuff. I've thoroughly enjoyed working with you on the NF pony one. You're good! Pesky (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I think of myself rather as The Reviewer From Heaven, because sure as Hell an article that goes though my hands is closer to FA at the end of the process than it was at the start. MalleusFatuorum03:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You are wonderful to work with – it's been a real privilege. And anyway it was you who self-identified as The Reviewer From Hell ;P Hugz. Pesky (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right it was, and I'm sure that's how many see me. I'm off to bed now, so I'll take a final look through the ponies tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You did well. My advice is always not to jump too quickly to FAC, take some breathing space, but I think the article would stand a pretty good chance. MalleusFatuorum04:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the waiting time for a review count as a breathing space? ;P How about History of the horse in Britain? I'd love to get that one there, as it would mean I could get one of those dinky four-award wossnames for it :D It got over 9000 hits as a DYK, which was cool Pesky (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, awards. We may have to part company there. That four thing is a waste of reviewer's time, and I'll have nothing to do with it. I've promised to look at a constellation article, so I'll look at the horse article when I've done that. There are also articles I want to look at myself, such Prospero; so much to do, so little time. MalleusFatuorum04:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not actually that motivated by the award itself, though it's quite pretty. I just like the idea of one of my "babies" going from scratch to FA. Pesky (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Considering I'm struggling to make all the changes to Aaron Rodgers that were suggested in the last GA review, I can't imagine how tough FA would be. --SKATERIs Back05:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, well I nommed NF pony anyways ... part of the masochists' creed being "Why put off 'til tomorrow the angst you could suffer today?" Not that I'm generally a masochist. The True Story™ is that I find stuff like that a refreshing and soothing break from Real Life. Pesky (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Somebody ought to take that damn "Canvass" guideline and nuke it from orbit. Well, now that I've started - somebody ought to take 99% of the so called "policies" and "guidelines" and burn them with fire. There should be 1 rule. "Act like an adult." Everything else is superfluous essay material. Don't get me wrong - I love the AGF, FOC, and all the kumbaya stuff; but the bureaucratic BS that had good intentions in the beginning is now being used by children and vindictive twits to choke out honest hard working people trying to add content to the project. OK .. I'm done. How ya doin' Mal? — Ched : ? 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you misspell "twits", shouldn't that be "twats"? I entirely agree with you about the canvassing bullshit, which could basically be summarised as "everything should be discussed in private". MalleusFatuorum22:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I was the person to tell Oda Mari she was canvassing - I didn't mean in regards to the FAC reviewers, but I do think that selectively choosing to post on one wikiproject and ignoring four others is wrong fwiw. And trying to get people to overturn a FAC decision after the fact is also wrong. But I've never been involved in something like this, so I'm sure I said something wrong myself to have Ched react like that. Oh well, as I'm finding out, I don't seem to be making many friends or pleasing many people these days. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - I am sorry if you took my comments to have anything to do with any of your posts. To be honest, I had no idea that you had made a comment to Oda. I think the world of your work ... you do absolutely wonderful work. My post was simply my view that the "canvass" idea is total bullshit. If I see an issue on the quality of a featured article .. then I am going to ask Malleus for his opinion. If I see an issue on the formats of citations, then I'll ask Sandy for her opinion. I think it's wrong to find fault with people because they to talk to other people. To be totally honest, I have to admit that I'm a bit fed up and disgusted with Wikipedia right now. There are children who have gotten the "zOMG adminz" status and play little games blocking adults. Totally unacceptable in my opinion. Now - Beyond that ... the culture here is now many years old. There are people who have butted heads, and developed a "I don't like you" mentality. ... There are folks playing some sort of underlying "power" game, and they are using "friends" to manipulate others. Personally? .. I don't much care for that. I would much rather deal with Malleus telling me to "pull my head out of my ass" than some snide edit summary of "are all your friends here now" type of thing. Short version: .. I was not finding fault with any "canvass" comment you made personally. — Ched : ? 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Ched,
It could be worse. If you want to read the future of Wikipedia, consider the halfwits who are whining on IRC....
By a strange coincidence I was watching a documentary on animal survivors last week that had some footage of this fungus shooting out the head of an ant after having persuaded it to climb up a tree. MalleusFatuorum19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Was your wife watching with you? Did she ask you if you thought Wikipedia might be a tree favored by another fungus? Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Malleus, I've finished my changes to the Aaron Rodgers Article, and was wondering if you could be the one to put me through hell and review it for GA? Or if that's not possible, if you could at least peer review it if you're not to busy. Thanks. I'll wait for your response before I renom it got GA.--SKATERIs Back03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked a few bits and pieces in the prose, but I wouldn't say I'd gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. Pesky (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that American football is right up there with professional wrestling in terms of those articles I don't review, particularly as the game is an almost complete mystery to me. But I'll take a look through the article later this evening and let you know what I think in terms of a GA nomination. MalleusFatuorum19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, do you think it'd be good to put it up for peer review to? Or just a GA NOM?
Per WP:CITEVAR, as an uninvolved administrator I would like to ask you to avoid changing citations that do not use citation templates into ones that do, as you did recently on the article Sean Combs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Malleus! have you been tenditiously improving articles again? Don't you know that when you find a complete mess you should "wait for consensus to emerge" before clearing it up? Richerman(talk)23:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
As my mother is fond of saying, "life's too short to bugger about". You could grow very old waiting for consensus to emerge on anything much here. MalleusFatuorum23:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Just so we know who actually contributes content. Bencherlite, I don't know: it was neither ArbCom nor representative admins who made this mess. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I entirely agree; I rarely comment on MF's troubles outside his talk page because I am so obviously in his debt for all his assistance with my work here that anything I say would be immediately discounted on that account. I know MF knows that not every admin ought to be damned to high heaven (I know he's prepared to make exceptions from his general rule, particularly as he admitted to me once that he had forgotten that I was an admin!); but after my third whisky of the evening, I fancied a spot of mildly vandalistic copyediting in a safe environment. BencherliteTalk00:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You're an admin? I'm shocked. Maybe you should block me for incivility; apparently I overstepped my boundaries today. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't do civility (un)blocks because I have better things to do than spend hours justifying myself to an ad-hoc Board of Inquiry minded to shoot first and ask questions later. I'd rather get on with my day job, if truth be told... Yes, admins can block, and unblock, themselves, although I've never tried it because I gather that server kitties die every time an admin tries it. BencherliteTalk01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Drmies, you weren't the only one expressing uncharacteristically forthright views yesterday - there is seriously something wrong when such calm, collected, and obviously reasonable folks feel moved to comment so bluntly about the excrement-blenders. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
One thing I've found interesting is how people react to MF. I guess in a way I've used him as something of an asshole detector, which for a Wikinewbie has been both interesting and instructive. From everything I've seen he was always friendly and welcoming to those who approached him in a civilized manner, and I never really thought his outbursts were that bad. Abrasive in some cases, sure. But not as horrific as some seem to think. But I must admit that I've formed some opinions about admins (and others) based on their reactions to him. And often when I've taken a look at how those folks interact with people other than MF, it's confirmed my initial estimation. As a casual editor, I'd be very reluctant to approach SW, for example, based on his example here and some other places. And there are others that I feel the same way about. But YMMV, of course. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought that SW handled himself well at his RfA; from what I remember he'd been much more approachable the months before. No one will argue that early on in his career he was a pleasure to work with (his name then was appropriate) but he did useful work. Maybe this is one of those cases where someone makes friendly before running for admin, I don't know. Malleus is an acquired taste, of course, but one of the things that I loathe about this persistent MF-hounding is that we all get divvied up into camps again. Apparently I'm in his harem, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. From what I can tell, there is more cohesion on the other side, the side of his detractors, than on this side. Who's the sheik on the detractors' side? Who are the bitches? (eh, "harem girls") Never mind--don't answer that. I just came by, really, to say "Hey Malleus, what's up? I just finished Ultramarine and was a bit disappointed." Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
So. Farewell then
Malleus Fatuorum.
Admin fighter. R.I.P.
"F*** off you stupid c***" that
was your catchphrase
along with
"How old are you, you moronic elitist admin scum, 17½ ?! .. I think we should be told."
so, Rant In Peace, or not
if that's more radical
and bloody annoying.
Robert Heinlein, despite having died in 1988 described/predicted the themes that are playing out here. You are a WIki pioneer who exemplifies Heinlein's themes of "the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance." In an early adoption 'content is king' pioneer society rough edges were overlooked. However Wikipedia has grown into a settlement society with its "tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought." In Heinlein's novels the protagonist tended to get pissed off and move on when the settlers came in and starting passing stupid laws and rules.
It's now pretty much an 'adapt or die' situation. With each passing month there are more and more settlers and fewer and fewer pioneers. You know what the expectations are and, unless pounding your (metaphorical) head against the wall gives you joy -- what's the point? Nobody Ent10:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, Eric Corbett. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Br'er Rabbit has given you a "kitteh", who will bite folks shrewdly on the ass on your behalf. Hopefully this will make your days better. Kittehs are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittehs by giving someone else a bitey kitteh, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm fucking pissed off with this fucking place ...
... so please don't anyone ask me to look at another article until I feel a little more sanguine about the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy on display here every single day. Get one of those fucking administrators to help you with your GAN or FAC, if you can find one able to string more than two sentences together without licking his pencil. MalleusFatuorum18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In the end the administrators always win, because they're an organised and official body whereas I'm just a lone Joe. So I'm off to join Giano and Hans Adler in a better place. Anywhere but here basically. MalleusFatuorum20:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
So am I; there's much fucked-up here. I'll go ask Scott to cut some slack. He's not a bad guy. But the drama-whores are (and they're mostly guys;).
It's at FAC, now, and is very interesting. The postcard was cut for some reason. It's not the pictures that are bothersome, it's the culture that drove it all. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully the postcard will be back in soon, NM pointed out that the date it was originally published is unknown so I took it out while I did some more investigation. But yeah, the pictures of Washington's burnt body are disturbing, but the smiles on the faces of the spectators are perhaps even more troubling. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm off out shortly; I may be gone some time, but I won't be coming back here. Anyone who wants to get in touch can email me. Over and out. MalleusFatuorum21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
And guess what; even the admin clique are pissed off too. And since I can (unbelievably) string more than one sentence together, if you're at a loose end in the West Midlands (until the end of August) or North Yorkshire (after that) then chuck me an email, because even for someone who works in education I suspect a few beers might be enlightening; take care in the meantime, Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(Damn, can't find my pencil...) As another contributor what 'appens to think that his content contributions will be a damn sight more useful in the long run than the odd vandalblock he performs, but that your contributions are more valuable still, let me add geographically to Black Kite's offer of beers: I can cover London and / or Anglesey. Anyone else? BencherliteTalk22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear, and let's have it right (hot beer indeed!). We don't drink traditional English beer warm - it just shouldn't be drunk ice cold. A good full-flavoured ale, like Bombardier or Abbot Ale, should be drunk at cellar temperature, which is few degrees below room temperature. If you chill it you kill the flavour completely. Chillers are ok for lagers but not good English ale. And as for that cold fizzy stuff in cans like Budweiser, well - words fail me! Having said that Malleus doesn't like bitter - he drinks lager. Richerman(talk)19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, I would be sorry to see you go. I have often not agreed with you although, if memory serves in my advancing years (68), I have infrequently felt the need to say so. And sometimes I have agreed with you. But I do feel that this organisation needs a goad,or at least an opposition position, which you among others have for a long time succeeded in being. The project will be worse without you. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Anthony,
Too little, too late, given your too much, too soon actions yesterday.
An honorable thing would be to apologize for behaving like a 16 year-old little shit yesterday and strike your comment at the RfA.
Kiefer, lets not continue this issue with more personal attacks. Would you be willing to strike the attack from your comment? I am aware of Anothony's comment at the RfA and I do believe it was unnecessary, but you should realize that his most recent comment was made in good faith. Why attack him over it?RyanVeseyReview me!22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Ryan (and others): people are hurting about this. People snap when they hurt. I don't even know how to respond (I lost my mother yesterday, and what with all the end-of-life stuff going on, I was totally unaware of the dramahz until way too late). I feel guilty about having supported SW at his RfA. I made a grave error of judgment there. Pesky (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer, you are wholly entitled to your opinion, as are we all. But it is preferable to express it without insult. And Malleus is well able to defend himself, should he choose to.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Anthony,
You behaved obnoxiously, and you need to deal with your mistake.
Kiefer, your first sentence is fine (a strongly worded opinion). Can you not see that your second sentence (the one referring to a bucket of warm spit) can itself be seen as obnoxious and insulting by some (maybe many)? As Anthony said, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is possible to express it without insult. You might think you are commenting on the comment, but you are doing so in an idiosyncratic way, with unnecessary (and frankly bizarre) imagery. Having said that, the whole conversation is best continued (if at all) at either your talk page or Anthony's talk page. There is no need to drag out a disagreement between you and Anthony on this talk page, especially when the section started with Anthony trying to say something to Malleus, but instead he ended up talking to you (and Ryan, and Pesky, and now me). There really needs to be a template around for use on user talk pages that says something like "if you want to comment on what I've just said, before the user I left the message for has had a chance to reply, please feel free to do so, but please do so in a new section or subsection, or on my talk page, and not directly in response to what I've said here, as this message is really for the user whose talk page this is, not for others watching". Though it shouldn't really be necessary to say that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth!
I am responding to Anthony's mistreatment of Malleus at the RfA, which (depending on its timing) could have been the mistreatment that caused him to leave. Have you responded to this public demeaning mistreatment there? Why do you care more about my comment than about Anthony's mistreatment of Malleus?
You're just beating up on Anthony. Your disagreement with Anthony's conduct doesn't permit you to attack him. Indeed, it undermines your credibility as you come off as a hot head who thinks that just because he (apparently) lacks respect for another editor means he's entitled to scream at him. I can't imagine you would apologize, but at least you could just drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. I sometimes wonder why Malleus didn't get annoyed with the long conversations others have about subjects not necessarily related to him, on his talk page. Parrotof Doom08:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Parrot, come on now. The world revolves around MF, that much is clear: all subjects are related to him, if only because he had the nerve to improve articles on just about every subject in the world. Since he's omnipresent, he is immaterial. Dr "Just a settler" Mies (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I am very sorry to see you so p*ssed off and talking, indeed, about p*ssing off. I have thought your contributions here very useful and would be sad to see you go. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar
For an exceptional Wikipedia and one of the best copyeditors around. I've learn so much from you, sadly so much more to learn. Have fun on your none Wikipedia travels! Regards, SunCreator(talk)23:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg)
