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.
Any Wikipedians around?
Since I haven't travel(l)ed down Gropecunt Lane or Tickle my Cock Alley recently, I don't know what the notability guidelines are for streets, certainly not in "Greater Manchester". Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Church Lane, Oldham is awaiting the expert opinion of someone with the skills and knowledge of--what was his name again, don't remember--the Fool of Hammers? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Does the street itself have much mention in reliable sources? The proposed article seems to be just a collection of the buildings on Church Lane, and not necessarily about Church Lane itself. Parrotof Doom18:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually - IIRC - she said it to Mally - who without skipping a beat replied "You mean I have a dick of pornstar proportions" ... or something to that effect. Lara and Mally banter was always a good read. — ChedZILLA20:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh - as far as the block or ban ... history has proven that anyone can say anything TO Mally - blocks and bans only happen when he returns favor. — ChedZILLA20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd have been mortified if Jenaveccia had been sanctioned for her heart-felt if inaccurate observation. I was just trying to help her out with what I was certain she must really have meant to say. MalleusFatuorum20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Ched. Quite aware of one of the many double standards that exist here. Still...there was always the chance that some trigger-happy sort might have...uh...fired too soon there...Intothatdarkness21:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:
Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.
[ec]Quite. There was a disturbing lack of vision and inability to appreciate unintended consequences there. Not only does it create a free-fire zone against the person in question, it creates a dangerous precedent to "choke out" any dissent that can be twisted into invcivility (something that seems to be very easy to do here). Intothatdarkness21:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Yes - although Bencherlite's comments/Qs are well considered , imo , they are overly complicate for a committed resolution - Youreallycan21:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So my loose understanding of all this is that it has resulted in the Arbitration Committee (funny, I thought all sides had to consent to arbitration) effectively saying "shut up, go away, we don't want to hear it"? Parrotof Doom11:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration is not mediation ("Requests for arbitration must be presented in the manner designated by the Committee. The Committee may accept or decline any matter at its sole discretion; it will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request and other interested users.") (WP:AP).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think we are using the term (arbitration) incorrectly. If arbitration is to be believed (and yes, I realize it is not a reliable source), mandatory arbitration can only come from a statute or from a contract that is voluntarily entered into, where the parties agree to hold all existing or future disputes to arbitration. I don't recall signing or agreeing to such a contract. This is not intended to be an argument that arbitration results can be ignored, that isn't my point, I am fine with how we handle it. However, if we insist on using an inapt term when someone points out that it is inapt, the better response is yes, we know it isn't quite the right term, but that's what we do. Mediation is typically not binding, so that isn't an answer.--SPhilbrick(Talk)12:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, wikimedia:Terms of use includes this: "You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition." You don't have to sign it; every time you click "Save Page", you agree to the Terms of Use, as it says just above the "Save page" button. BencherliteTalk12:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Too many lawyers (and too many lawyers on Wikipedia) - not directed at you personally Bencherlite and I have no idea whether Sphilbrick is a lawyer. But continuing this little "legal" tangent, let's assume there was no TOU (which may or may not be binding). If ArbCom banned an editor, is the editor going to sue because they didn't agree to the arbitration? If an admin indefs an editor, are they going to sue? I know anyone can file a lawsuit in the good ole USA, but, come on.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, websites are considered private property. The owners of a website or their designees can remove anyone at anytime for any reason they see fit. Because of this, the WMF can't be sued for banning someone. --Guerillero | My Talk16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Mostly my point, although as lawyers might say, "it depends". I haven't looked at the issue, but my guess is the foundation could be sued in some places if it could be shown the ban was discriminatory, e.g., racial discrimination.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably are binding, at least in US. The (US) 9th circuit court upheld enforceability of a click through contract in one case, at least.[1]Nobody Ent17:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Having read this injunction again, it's rather less clear than it was the first time I read it. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. So does that mean that threaded discussions in an RfA are OK, but threaded discussions in an RfA about RfA aren't? If this were a rational environment I might be tempted to ask ArbCom for clarification on the matter, but as recent history shows that would undoubtedly lead to a lynching. MalleusFatuorum01:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I'd see it as a vote&run situation. Would you be comfortable with me making a clarification request to a) allow threaded discussion on your vote, b) have a personal subpage explaining your views on the RFA process which you may or may not link to from your vote and c) add another exception of a statement and a vote to any future RFC about the process? Agathoclea (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help, but the very last thing I want is another request for clarification; I barely survived the last one you may recall, and it would undoubtedly turn into another bloodbath. Vote and run or not bothering to vote at all seem like the only viable options in the present environment. MalleusFatuorum17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have not always agreed with you and your (at times) lack of civility. However, in the last few years I have increasingly found myself in agreement regarding your outspoken views of admin abuse and Rfa. I only recently became aware of the ArbCom decision regarding you and Jclemens' absurd comments regarding you being a Wikipedian. ArbCom is so clearly out of line with my own definition of standards of fairness and reasonable judgment that I am deeply discouraged, to say the least. I thank you for the work you have done for the project to date and salute you for speaking your mind. You are very much a Wikipedian to me. Jusdafax19:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
DYK
I see that you (and another editor) just put considerable work into Altes Stadthaus, Bonn. Thanks for that! I found your response to me at WT:DYK. However, I have been considering for some time e-mailing you to discuss the Did You Know project, but there's never a good time. And I prefer not to talk in detail on-wiki about Altes Stadthaus and the points you raised. So how about you e-mail me at your leisure? Or if you would prefer to keep it on-wiki, I will do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I know we have not been very kind to each other in the past [although I have never talked to you directly apart from the RFA, I guess], some wikifriends I have told me that you are an amazing copyeditor and I recognize a good content creator from miles away. That's why i need your help. The article above has been twice at FAC and failed both because of prose issues I am not able to solve because english is not my native language. I'd like to ask you [or beg you, whichever of both works better XD] to help me copyedit the article so that it meets the FA standards of proffessional writing. [As a side note, I found very distasteful and aggressive the ban that ArbCom was planning to enact on you, and I feel kind of bad because my comment on te RFA may have been one of the turning points of it. Sorry.] — ΛΧΣ21™22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I told the scheduler that I wasn't enthusiastic about the timing, too many bishops, too many males anyway, - nothing against the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Whaddya mean "for some reason"? Are you suggesting that I'm not to be trusted with a right I've never used? ;-) I think it got added as a package when I asked for rollback a little while ago, so I could deal with article feedback. (I don't think I've used rollback since then either as it happens, I much prefer Twinkle.) But if you or anyone else wants to remove it I'm fine with that. MalleusFatuorum19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that V for Vendetta had reared its ugly head again. Probably going to be an annual event until one day neither you nor I are here to notice, and it'll stick. MalleusFatuorum18:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just something along the lines of "Do not add any material on V for Vendetta or Guy Fawkes Masks without first discussing the matter on this article's talk page" would be fine Nikkimaria. Or if there's some kind of computer virus that automatically destroys the computer of anyone making such an addition, that would be good too. Parrotof Doom22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been wondering what else I can do that I don't know about. On Wikipedia I mean. Which reminds me of when my brother was recovering from a bout of meningitis that almost killed him. He asked the doctor whether when he was fully recovered he'd still be able to play the piano:
"Oh yes," said the doctor "you'll be able to play just fine."
"That's fantastic," said my brother "as I couldn't play the piano before."
Glad that's sorted. I must admit to being rather confused as to why an account creator needs the ability to make editnotices while other usergroups (or ordinary editors for that matter) don't. Isn't the point of that flag to, y'know, create accounts? (Actually, looking a little closer: account creators are also meant to give the WMF their ID (again, for reasons unknown), which I expect you've never done...). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You're quite right; I've never done that and I've never been asked to. And why I should be expected to do so when administrators aren't is yet another mystery. MalleusFatuorum04:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I spotted this thread yesterday and idly looked at WP:Account creator. It seems that it bundles the 'tboverride' right, which allows us to circumvent the title blacklist as well. That's the bit that allows editing editnotices as well. You should be pleased to note that there are only 106 editors with the 'account creator' privilege, thus making us a much more exclusive club than mere admins :D - Giano would be really jealous if he found out.
Interestingly, I also spotted the part about identifying to the Foundation, so I immediately emailed off a scan of my passport to WMF, fearful of being ejected from such an exclusive club, only to have Philippe Beaudette email me back to tell me I'm "actually not required to identify for that permission". Oh well. That's one less thing for us to worry about. See you and Parrot at a meetup soon? maybe Nev1 as well? --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to identify to get on the account creator toolserver site where people can request accounts. (You can allegedly see people's IP addresses and emails if they request an account) --Guerillero | My Talk16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) Yes, you need to identify for access to interface, I think. And account creators have the ability to override the title blacklist, which allows them to create accounts with names that the software thinks are too similar to existing usernames or usernames on the blacklist. The ability to edit editnotices is actually an unintended side effect because the blacklist is (hackishly) used to restrict editing of them. There have been various attempts to explicitly allow or to ban the creation of editnotices by account creators in the past, but none have them have succeeded as far as I can remember. In case anyone was wondering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I suggested that the guy read the archives and at least try to come up with a new argument, and also try to understand that you all are tired of old arguments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll venture to speak for PoD as well as myself and state quite categorically that it'll be a cold day in Hell before the film and the mask make their way into the Guy Fawkes article, for reasons that have already been discussed to death elsewhere. This is symptomatic of a deeper malaise among too many Wikipedia editors, who struggle under the illusion that links must be symmetrical. Sure, a link to Guy Fawkes from the V for Vendetta article will help to give readers some useful background and throw light on some of the film's themes, but the film was fuck all to do with Fawkes's or his legacy. There was an even more striking example I recall in the Moors murders article, which at one time listed every pop song that had ever even tangentially referred to the murders. No. Time some people grew up and realised this isn't a project to produce a Children's Encyclopedia of Popular Trivia, or at least that it ought not to be. MalleusFatuorum22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The mask has nothing to do with V for Vendetta either. Look up the meme "epic fail guy", from 4chan. Protesters angry at the Church of Scientology took the meme as their own protest symbol and started wearing the mask to indicate that scientology is an "epic fail". But yes, it'll be a cold day in hell before I let that nonsense into that article. We both worked too hard on that subject to let it be debased by pop culture. Parrotof Doom22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
And the sad thing is that there is an article Guy Fawkes mask that covers the very points you mention. So even the readers of the Children's Encyclopedia of Popular Trivia are catered for, just not in the serious biography of an important 16/17th century figure. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Meh. None of these armchair anarchists would want to wear the mask if it had been portrayed as originally intended (Alan Moore - "...complete with one of those papier-mâché masks in a cape and conical hat..."): the ill-fitting, cheap, red efforts we used to get from the rag-and-bone man in the late 60s/early 70s. The elastic always snapped or ripped through the mask where it was attached, and the eye-openings were about two inches above your forehead. Bloody poseurs. Keristrasza (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes thanks for your suggestion as you say matches the tone of the article, and addresses the concerns of the..concerned.
Yeah I got a 3R ban, but it sounds like I am in good company. Frankly, for being on here for more than 7 years, I don't know how I have got by without one so far! :-)
I agree with those long lists of references in songs and movies mentioning minutae being a bit ridiculous - however, I was dubious that the social phenomena of protesters wearing masks belongs in a *traditional* popular culture section (which I see as long lists of movie and media references, rather than discussions of related social phenomena). Philosophically, I actually would not separate the mask, the protests, and the movie like people have done, as they are integral to each other. So I think the way you expressed it is fitting in that regard.
Yes, and good you broke the impasse, was heading no where fast, really.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Table
Thanks for the improvements you made to my table. I'll start using {{Dts}} so the dates can be sortable as well. I'm also considering combining the two tables and making a column for the mine the death occurred in. I've found a few other sources that mention a death without specifying the mine. RyanVesey22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just one sentence....1st sentence, 2nd para of this...a Reviewer and I can't think of a better tweak though we both agree there should be something better out there.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
My mind boggled at the idea of three points making anything other than a perfect triangle: I take it "rough" refers to the binary star not being a single point? I found the whole paragraph rather confusing, not least because IMHO the "rough" aspect needs to be made explicit, while (as I understand it) the relevance of the triangle is only in recognition of the constellation. I know this is the lead so one might not want too much detail, but as it is I think the information suffers from being too condensed, and needs breaking out. I'd also drop the bit about rapid rotation, as I'm not sure it's needed in the lead. FWIW, this is how I'd reorganise the paragraph:
The constellation comprises 37 stars, all of which are brighter than apparent magnitude 6.5. Three are brighter than apparent magnitude 4.5, and form a recognisable triangle: 46 Leonis Minoris, an orange giant of apparent magnitude 3.8; Beta Leonis Minoris of apparent magnitude 4.4, the only star in the constellation with a Bayer designation; and 21 Leonis Minoris, a white main sequence star of average apparent magnitude 4.5. Beta Leonis Minoris is a binary star, of which the brighter component is an orange giant and the fainter a yellow-white main sequence star. Other notable features of Leo Minor include two stars with planetary systems, two pairs of interacting galaxies, and the unique deep-sky object Hanny's Voorwerp. The constellation's brightest star, 46 Leonis Minoris, is about 95 light years from earth.
One thing I'm not quite comfortable with is giving the distance from Earth for only one feature: might it be better to say something like "Elements of the constellation range from N to N light years from Earth"? Obviously you can use or ignore all of this at your pleasure! I just hope I haven't messed up anything obvious... Nortonius (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting - I like the reorganisation - there are actually oodles more than 37 stars, it's just that 37 of them are brighter than magnitude 6.5 (which is the threshold for visibility to the naked eye, but that is an easy fix. The objects for the most part are utterly unrelated to each other so having a range of distance per se makes no sense. Still musing on the rest...need to sleep on it which is what I will do now. I think I will be borrowing parts of this reorganisation.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, glad you like! Yes, the "utterly unrelated" aspect is why I wondered if it might be better to give a range of distances, to illustrate the point; it was the inconsistency that bothered me, leaving it out entirely might indeed be best. I took the "37 stars" to be "visible stars in the constellation", which, in my ignorance, I equated with "stars which make up the constellation" – an easy fix as you say. One other thing just occurred to me though: the three brightest stars aren't all "brighter than apparent magnitude 4.5". Maybe the sentence should read something like "The three brightest stars form a recognisable triangle, these being..." HTH. Nortonius (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings again
I previously started this thread[2] and I just noticed it in its entirety. FWIW, 1) thank you for producing content like Chat Moss and 2) I'm willing to pay for copy editing. I paid my friend that I mentioned. (Maybe you're potentially interested in compensation, or maybe you're offended by the idea.) I told my friend that other Wikipedians might be interested in that service. Paid copy editing seems like it should be devoid of the issues that arise with paid editing, since it is just polishing, no? Maybe we could get an essay/guideline/policy on paid copy editing with links in the external links section for people who want to offer these services. Anyhow. Just thought I'd reply and bounce those ideas off of you or whoever is watching. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Chat Moss was my first FA, and I've learned a lot since then. I keep going back to stuff I wrote years ago and shaking my head at how unpolished it sometimes seems. But if we didn't keep learning life would be a dull and brutish affair. I actually wrote Chat Moss for much the same reason that Hampson and Priestnall produced their art work, to see if an article about a peat bog could be made even remotely interesting. Luckily I came across shit dumping and a Romano-British sacrificial victim, so it wasn't so hard in the end.
As to your question, I don't have a problem with anyone getting paid for writing or copyediting so long as the end product isn't compromised. And as a half-Scot I find the concept of being offended by an offer of money to be completely contrary to my nature. MalleusFatuorum19:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In the lead, I was left wondering if "the moss" meant the Moss or moss or maybe both. I had to go to bog to see what it was composed of. Maybe we could capitalize/clarify? I like the idea that you tackled a natural area. I think it would be great if we could get more natural areas in specific U.S. states up to FA status then engage with state grade school teachers/curricula since they just seem to harp on about how you should never cite Wikipedia. But I digress. How does $20 US dollars sound for you to look over/copy edit DVT? That's what I paid my friend. I have a paypal account but I've never paid someone internationally with it for anything. Biosthmors (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the moss and see if I can clarify. "Moss" is a word generally used to describe a peat bog 'oop north here in England, of which we have many in the northwest, but maybe it doesn't travel so well. I'll have a think. So far as your offer is concerned I couldn't possibly accept unless you yourself were being paid, and it was a small part of your fee. But I see that you're obviously serious about trying to make DVT the best it can be, and it's equally obviously an important topic, so I'll see what I can do, although I may not get there until the weekend. MalleusFatuorum00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if I were getting paid, but I'm not. Although, I might benefit in a way from it being published, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaborative publication (see here for an initial example). So when I apply next year for admission into to schools that start in 2014, it could "pay off" for me in a way when admissions committees look at my application. That said, I started on the article this year with the intent to get it up to the highest quality possible before I heard about the collaborative publication idea. So, I think $20 is reasonable because you'll be able to enjoy something with the money because I might also benefit from it being polished. But whatever you decide. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You always have the option of buying Malleus a pint or two by proxy at one of the Manchester meetups - there is already a precedent for that! I'd be quite happy to buy him some Stella on your behalf, and you can buy me a few drinks the next time I'm in the USA (perhaps for meta:Wikimedia Medicine?). It saves on currency exchange fees and somehow seems a friendlier way of doing things. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Imo, it's going really well, but there's a good deal more that can be done, per the review comments by JFW et al. Personally, I think your highly "educated layman's" perspective and intervention are invaluable. In time, maybe it'll be good to ask Bios to email some pdfs for detailed consultation (eg to understand the prevalence figures I queried here). I'd like to see fewer abbreviations and acronyms scattered around, and a less dense thicket of (sub)sections. Will try to take a further look tomorrow. Let me know anytime I get in the way. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to help, but I find I can't. I'm a net negative to the project don't cha know, not even a proper Wikipedian, and ought to have been banned long ago. MalleusFatuorum00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's now in the past. Why not ask Jclemens or one of the other arbitrators to help? I'm completely incapable of working collaboratively in any case, allegedly. MalleusFatuorum01:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, I'd be more than happy to work on a project with you. I can offer sourcing help and I'm fairly good at structuring pages. For sure, you're the better writer. I considered asking for a review when I saw you were doing lots of reviews but honestly thought it intrusive. At this point, just hang out and do what you want. If nothing, that's fine. But know this, you're welcome to any article I'm working on, and not only as someone digging out bad prose, but as a lovely man who collaborates well. So there. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this must be a case of mistaken identity Truthkeeper. I'm the one who drives away hordes of new editors, women and children especially. Allegedly. MalleusFatuorum01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well if you're a net negative, can you apply your negativity to anyone who spoils Guy Fawkes Night this year? It received over 250,000 views on 5 November last year, and looking at the viewing figures, it'll probably receive the same this year. Parrotof Doom10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify- you did say you would be out at a bonfire- not that you would be on top of a bonfire, didn't you? I think that Alice Nutter would feel you had something in common. I have been watching this unfold- and it all follows a familiar pattern once triggered- whether here- or in court - or politics. Ask Tony Benn, and yes I have been there. No trite advice- but there's a beer in the pump when we meet. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll be going in disguise. Just in case there are any of those Wikipedians about, I'll be wearing my Jimbo Wales mask, so I should be safe. Things are starting to get back to normal after my wife's health scare this year, so I may try and make the next meetup. Alice Nutter is interesting, and she might warrant an article in her own right, as the Nutter family crops up repeatedly in the story of the witches. Look at what we managed to do with Malkin Tower for instance, a house that's quite probably never going to be found. I'm reminded as well of what PoD managed to do with the Gunpowder Plot conspirators. MalleusFatuorum22:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"Things are starting to get back to normal after my wife's health scare this year, so I may try and make the next meetup" - both of those sound good! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear things are well at home. I only managed to fix up the conspirators' articles because I had good source material. That's half the battle really, once you get 2-3 good books on an interesting subject, you're almost home. Parrotof Doom23:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be yet another of these faux new editors, offering advice to those whose boots you aren't even fit to lick. So here's my advice to you: fuck off and do some proper editing yourself, if you can. MalleusFatuorum12:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's a bit difficult to do "proper editing" after being community banned. But, it appears the sockhunters are too busy eating their Halloween candy today to do their "rabbit-hunting". Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Malleus. You are no net negative to the project. If you don't edit here anymore, I will report you to ANI for clear disruption. :P I suggest you take some time off and let the idiots at ArbCom get slammed by the community. You have my full support, and although you are somewhat uncivil, you are no doubt a net positive.—cyberpowerOnlineTrick or Treat13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I think most of us regular editors feel discouraged about wikipedia a considerable percentage of the time we're on here. Me, I'm well aware of the problems the site has with double standards and attempts at some sort of bureacratic top-down system of control which rewards civility over content. I personally try to ignore it but its pretty impossible to at times, particularly if content and content producers are threatened. But what actually annoys me the most about wikipedia is that you can put hours upon hours of work into a core article or you can drill a bunch of short almost pointless stubs and nobody seems to give a shit; most people are engrossed in their own articles and issues. Marrakech (landmarks needs a major cut but had to be this length to meet DYKs silly rules), History of Marrakech, Varanasi etc, not heard a single compliment about the expansions yet and its difficult to maintain focus and enthusiasm to working on core articles when nobody really seems to careless. The occasional barnstar doesn't really do much to indicate you are truly appreciated on wikipedia, and you're more likely to see critical comments about your work than anything which remotely resembles praise. But I think more people notice our work than it might seem and they really do appreciate seeing an improvement in content but unless somebody is there to constantly tell you you're valuable and doing a great job its easy to assume that people are not bothered whether you are here or not.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld15:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hell, I consider Malleus to be the most abrasive person on the project (that's not necessarily a criticism...), and I don't think he's a net negative. And despite my feelings that everyone on the project should be able to contribute in a manner that does not involve personal attacks, it is important to note that there ARE editors that have turned Malleus-baiting into a recreational hobby. In a lot of cases they are the same people that use ArbCom as some kind of drama magnification device that is far more disruptive than whatever quibbling issue it was meant to resolve. I know Wikipedia isn't necessarily the real world, but where I come from, you don't react to someone painting their house a color that bothers you by blowing up the entire city they live in. That would be seen as a slight overreaction. Trusilver17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You know you have succeeded on wiki when someone accuses the article you spent hours on of being a copyvio, citing a newer source that obviously just copied "your" article. This is doubly entertaining when it's obviously a mirror site with many wiki articles. Also proof that viewing Uranus in a telescope proves that light travels in circles. Montanabw(talk)23:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
One of the first pages I created on WP received a talk comment about a month or so later saying "The main text is identical to the article here [link blah blah] but it's not clear which was written first." Apart from the blindingly obvious date of creation in the edit history. Fucking idiots. I guess from that day onwards I was destined to despise the vast majority of Wikipedians I am supposed to Love And Cherish (I think that is one of the trippy hippy mumbo jimbo pillars, anyway.) Didn't help that I upset Malleus and Parrot shortly afterwards, but I took my criticism on the chin and have looked up to them as REAL content editors ever since. Keristrasza (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who upsets Parrot upsets me.;-) I don't remember any disagreement between us though, although I do have a notoriously short memory for stuff like that. MalleusFatuorum21:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely up your alley
Hello, Malleus, oh great god of form and grammar. (grin) I invite you to review and comment, as an uninvolved third party, the situation that is going on here: User talk:Montanabw#Impulsion The core issue is a difference of opinion I've been having with this other user now for the last couple of months, and the tendentiousness involved is starting to drive me crazy. (see [6] and [7] for the longer tale) It isn't so much that this user's edits are not, on occasion, helpful and have cleaned up some unneeded verbosity, it's that sometimes they went too far and altered nuance, but the crazy part that I'm coming to you about is that this user has what appears to be (JMO) an obsession with removing the phrase "term used to describe" and many instances of the word "describe" from every article in wikipedia. I'm willing to consider the degree to which I am in the wrong grammatically, but the other user's arguments have not convinced me and appear filled with form and not content. I think this other use may also benefit from the delicate touch only you can provide. Feel free to pop over to my talk page; I know that you'll also tell me if I'm full of shit, but you can do so in a manner that all can understand, and clear understanding of the issue appears to be the only way to solve it. (And if any of Malleus' TPSers think this is their idea of a good time, they are also invited to review and comment) Montanabw(talk)19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking for a "delicate touch" then I'm afraid you've come to the wrong shop Montanabw. But I'll try and remember to pop along later and see what it's all about. MalleusFatuorum19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You didn't click the link, did you? ;-) I'm asking you precisely because you are you. But anyway, now this idiot has filed a dispute resolution case. I hate the damn drahmahz boards, seriously, I'd rather someone I respect just tell me to eff off than deal with this stuff for the next two weeks. [8]. Montanabw(talk)20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As we Pilgrims sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy "Bob's 'yer Uncle day" or what ever your next Holiday is in Jolly Old England. May your turkey or venison or goose or ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA!Buster Seven Talk17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}
Gotta agree with Dennis. Thanksgiving is truly a terrific holiday...if nothing else there's 3 football games in one day and I don't have to get up early the next morning so I get to watch the last one in its entirety (unless I inevitably fall asleep early). GoPhightins!00:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Funny story - one year, while living in Manchester, I tried to cook a Thanksgiving dinner. The girl at the Tesco checkout thought I'd lost my mind or something - buying very expensive and hard to find items such as cranberries, squash, etc. She kept asking whether I really wanted to spend so much. With much embarrassment and an American accent I explained why I was buying those particular items. You can imagine the look I got in return. I think I cooked duck instead of turkey. It's a very American tradition that I've decided to forgo this year. Too much cooking. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hard to find squash over there? That seems hard to believe. But you know what, over here I've yet to see anyone cook up some of that stargazy pie that the Brits find so tasty, or so it says on Wikipedia... :) Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
@Gandydancer - according to the Stargazy article, the pie originated in Cornwall. Beware of calling Cornish people you Brits ;) I'd never heard of it until last week when it featured in a BBC documentary; Food in England: The Lost World of Dorothy Hartley. As for yams, squash and pecans, yeuk, although the rest of a Thanksgiving dinner is similar to a moderately decent British Christmas dinner (except, perhaps, in Cornwall!). - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As the patriach I get to be "all-time" quarterback for both sides. I can still throw a nice Jr. football spiral to the adults and a soft lob to the kids. We usually play until the first sight of blood. 1/2 dozen homemade pies to follow. Is there a similar type holiday (families gathering to say thanks) in England? ```Buster Seven Talk16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You are joking, aren't you Buster? We're hard-nosed, stiff upper-lipped, steely-eyed, lantern-jawed bastards over here. None of that wishy-washy emotion (aside from Diana fans, whose numbers can be approximated to the readership of The Daily Express). - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yep, I'll bet that 90% of Brits wouldn't know what stargazy pie was. I'd never heard until there was something about it on the TV a few months ago - I think it was on The One Show. It's one of those odd dishes specific to one village (Mousehole), like the Bakewell pudding (not to be confused with the Bakewell tart that everyone knows about). As for squash - we had some from Tesco only last week. Fresh cranberries are now widely available at Christmas and dried ones are available most of the time When I was a kid we had redcurrant jelly with turkey at Christmas, now we have freshly made cranberry sauce - how British cuisine has moved on! BTW, just to confuse our pilgrim cousins even more, the name of the village of Mousehole isn't pronounced as it's spelt, it's "mowsal". And it's true - I've met Sitush and he is a hard-nosed, stiff upper-lipped, steely-eyed, lantern-jawed bastard. I bet he played rugby at school. Oh, and he's about 2 feet taller than me, so I'd just like to say how good looking he is too. Richerman(talk)16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
They certainly were, but I've done what I can with them. Gardner's "theory" deserves a better article than that, so if you're planning to work on it I wish you luck. MalleusFatuorum01:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It probably needs a complete rewrite, but I've done what I can in the meantime. Maybe in the future we could have another hack at it? For now, thanks a lot for your invaluable help. I learned a lot about referencing from watching you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
So many of the psychology articles are poor, as interestingly are the overwhelming majority of the computing articles, and almost all of the ... I just tend to close my eyes and look away. I keep thinking that what I ought to do is to concentrate on a little niche, like Ealdgyth's medieval English bishops, and leave everything else to rot. That way there might be at least a few small corners of Wikipedia that weren't an embarrassment. MalleusFatuorum00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Your Margaret Thatcher Revert
Rubbish?
Perhaps you might be interested in reading this quotation from DeBrett's:
Married Women
Traditionally, it is considered incorrect for a married woman or a widow to be addressed by her own forename or initials, as this implies that her marriage has been dissolved. However, it is becoming increasingly customary for married women and widows to use their own forenames and initials, and many people consider it acceptable.
To presume that your original research based on historical rules of etiquette was enough to change it was in fact rubbish. I feel like you've had enough warnings about original research to know better. RyanVesey04:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Since when has the arcane and twisted stylisms of DeBrett over-ruled Wikipedia norms and common sense? And how the heck did MT even fall under the purview of DeBrett in the 1950s? Is this a suitable moment to revive her "You turn if you want to; the lady is not for turning"? Or however it went? - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's OR, but I've been married for over 30 years and have refused to give up my first name, it was enough I gave up my last name, I'll be goddamned if I lose my entire identity just for saying " I do." Montanabw(talk)21:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My wife had published quite a few academic papers by the time we got married, so it was years before she changed her surname to mine. MalleusFatuorum23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Person I'm still technically married to kept her own surname, then shortly after went from Ms Hersurname to Dr Hersurname. The home phone was in her name. As a result, when telemarketers called, I could in complete good faith say that there was neither Mrs Hersurname nor Mr Hersurname at this address. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a rule that prevents a banned user from being nominated, however based on this thread, I saw the nomination as editing via proxy, so I reverted them. If you want to reinstate the edit though, thats fine with me. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to nominate Thekohser where's the harm? I doubt he'll gather much support, but so what? And why assume that the nominator was acting as a proxy rather than in good faith? MalleusFatuorum01:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious I'm very, very much against turning an initiative to thank editors for their contributions into some kind of editor review or RfA bear pit. Which is why I was so against accepting a T shirt myself, because I knew that's how it would turn out. Surely it's not too much to ask people to admit that even editors they loathe have made good contributions to Wikipedia? Or at the very least to keep their fucking mouths shut for once if they've got nothing good to say. MalleusFatuorum01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that it is a rather stupid exercise and will end up merely confirming existing positions etc + be liable to the sort of crap that appears at RfA. I'll even admit to some mischievousness in nominating you with that point in mind, although there was also the genuine point that "well, if they are worthy then so is Malleus". Personally, I'd be happy to take any offer of clothing, such is my present state. I'd even take some Wikipedia-logo'd Andrex etc. Despite all of this, if they are worthy then surely you are worthy. Sometimes one has to play the game and, yes, this is a game. It is a long one, and someimes it is worth bearing the potential longevity in mind, Regardless, you and I will share a pint or two if we should meet again and hopefully that will count for more than a t-shirt. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the Americans suffer from a peculiar condition that deludes them into believing that any word describing a body part below the waist and above the knee is a "profanity". There ought to be a Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law: "As a Wikipedia talk thread grows longer, the probability of being called uncivil approaches 1." MalleusFatuorum14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes re: Godwin! But, in this instance, no with regard to nationality. Yogesh Khandke is from India. He's one of those who organised a protest at last year's Mumbai WikiConference, seeking arrests in relation to our displaying maps of India that are generally recognised to be correct rather than maps of India as seen through the eyes of that country's government (think Kashmir and the various other disputed territories). There were quite a few arrests but those affected were the protestors rather than the organising committee or Jimbo etc. A rather spectacular misfire, even by the standards of YK's many misfires. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
How strange, getting so het up about a map. I spent a few weeks working in Pakistan a few years ago, and I was not infrequently reminded that all the border disputes with India, and in particular Kashmir, were my fault as a Brit. It's a strange part of the world. And the endemic corruption is quite simply incredible, even by Italian standards. MalleusFatuorum14:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Pleased to read that someone else has been blamed for something in the region. Where we are now, it is always my fault :) Apparently, I am a pro- and anti-Pakistan, pro- and anti-India, and ditto for every caste and religion you can think of. I suppose that if so many people make so many varied and opposing claims regarding what they consider to be my allegiance, well, I must be doing something right. Sitush (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of most Indian demonstrations was to get a number of the demonstrators arrested, and attendant publicity; it worked for Gandhi. We used to get that in the late 60s and 70s. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there's something in that Puritan analysis Dennis. The American obsession with religion, for instance, looks very peculiar to us Europeans, and perhaps especially to us Brits. The religion, or lack of religion, of our political leaders is a matter of complete indifference to almost everyone. We've had at least one Jewish prime minister for instance, and nobody would bat an eyelid at an atheist taking on the job, but that just seems inconceivable in the States. MalleusFatuorum15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." This was the first time a United States President acknowledged American non-believers in an inaugural address.[1]
Christopher Hitchens is not alone in claiming that Obama is agnostic. His first inaugural address mentioned "Christians and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, and non-believers"!
Also, plain-speaking was characteristic of Puritans. It is more likely the Great Awakening and Methodist ferment that is responsible for "puritanism" in the USA, not the true Puritans. Indeed, Milton celebrated sexual love. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Whenever I taught early American literature and history I always got a kick out of how they went to Holland first but left because the Dutch didn't keep the sabbath and their kids were a bad influence. Damn straight. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting. So far as I can tell I've made an observation about the undoubted American puritanism we see all too often here, and made a couple of uncomplimentary but perfectly true remarks about Pakistan and Italy. I'm not "bigotted", but neither am I blinkered, like so many of the American kids here who seem to believe themselves to be guardians of the world's morality and defenders of the one true faith. MalleusFatuorum19:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
A dick is a dick, regardless of national origin. It may interest you, Malleus, to note that the "American obsession with religion" is often quite regional. For example, it tends to bear much less in the Western states (with the exception of Utah and Idaho...for obvious reasons) than it does in the Midwest and Deep South. I grew up in a region where religion and politics were considered your business and no one else's, and was disturbed when I moved to the Midwest and discovered that the second question people asked was usually "So, where do you go to church?" Intothatdarkness19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Into, though you left out parts of rural northeast Nevada (the weirdest state in the USA) and the religious right is expanding everywhere. I do remember one of my first trips down south when someone recommended I patronize a particular restaurant because the owners were "good Christians." I was floored! I mean, out west, we sort of have the "church people" and the "bar people" but if the bar serves the best burgers in town, then it's a "family bar" where EVERYONE goes, and the kids can play pool until 8:00pm so long as they don't touch the gambling machines! LOL! Montanabw(talk)22:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There are worse places than the States for religious stupidity. Scotland for instance, or Pakistan. When I was there the second question pretty much everyone asked was "Are you a Christian?" Although having been brought up a Catholic (in Scotland, hence why I now hate the fucking place) I don't consider myself to be a Christian, but to make things easy I became accustomed to saying that I was a Christian. But then you get the supplementary questions such as "Can you give me some money to help me and my family relocate to the West?", or "Can you get me a couple of bottles of whisky?" The common misconception that Muslims don't drink alcohol is a joke; they simply don't do it in public. MalleusFatuorum04:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Another place where near mind-boggling religious view are practiced is Mexico. The Catholic Church there practically runs everything, and the entire populace (besides some cartel members) are brainwashed by the church. Hell, I've seen several "New Jerusalem's" during my time there. God awful place to be. Buggie111 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Malleus et al., I could do with a hand. I need a verb for this sentence: "DYK ... that the Eurythmics' discography, which includes eight studio albums released between 1981 and 1999, resulted in sales of 75 million records?" It's the "resulted in" part that isn't right, but I don't know how to make it righter. Your help is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to to make it righter? - surely you mean righterer, Drmies. What you writ couldn't be more wronger (or is that wrongerer?) :-) Richerman(talk)18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You're a dear, thanks! Malleus, Tony seems swamped right now, and I'm not sure if this is covered in one of his tutorials, which have grown-- do you have any guidance on the correct use (aka overuse) of the word "however"? Hey, eat a turkey on Thursday in honor of your friends across the pond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I do; avoid it when there's no contradiction and when there is, never start a sentence with it. Curiously I just came across one I fixed earlier.[10] I wasn't going to help, but Biosthmors seemed so keen, so ... MalleusFatuorum02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
SG, on "however" this may help. But given the extreme overuse of "however" (and "subsequently", and "is currently" on Wikipedia) Mally's rule is as good as any. Kablammo (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I simply paraphrased and simplified what Fowler had to say. But I think a good candidate for the most overused and abused word in Wikipedia is "located", as in "Dumbville is a town located in Dumbass county". (BTW, I'm pleased to see that neither of us is afraid to start a sentence with a conjunction.) MalleusFatuorum03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've lit the blue touchpaper. Have a t-shirt. And if you don't ge one by right then I'll bloody well buy you one (I think one of my USAF mates is still at Mildenhall, so the dreaded P&P + duty will be exempted!) - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, that's a very eloquent nomination statement Sitush. I could hardly have written a better one myself, and that's high praise indeed as far as I'm concerned. MalleusFatuorum01:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just because one dick person says you are not a Wikipedian doesn't make it so. If I believed what people tell me in the Eagle & Child, at the end of the night when they give up trying to finish the crossword and ask me to fill in the remaining blanks, I'd consider myself rather clever. I'm not. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll just make one serious point before bed if I may. The comments Jclemens made during that recent ArbCom fiasco, and the piling on of other ArbCom members to support an absurd site ban proposed by SirFozzie during the same case have left a very bad taste in my mouth. The only reason I'd accept a Wikipedia T-shirt would be to make a film of me burning it in the street. MalleusFatuorum02:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm off to bed also. Sleep on it. I understand your POV but think that you may be confusing the opinions of a few among a few (who just happen to hold office via an election process in which the vast majority do not participate) with the opinions of the wider community who, in the case you refer to, were generally vociferous in their condemnation of those few among the few. If you can follow my logic ... - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There's one other reason to accept the tshirt, Malleus. Because it would make Sitush feel good (he seems like a good egg). And, since I'm about to head over to that simultaneously-horrible-and-wonderful-idea-of-a-page and support, it would make me feel good too. In fact, it would probably drive some of your haters nuts knowing you got one, which is yet another good reason to accept it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Better that these precious resources are reserved for proper Wikipedians, not the hoi poloi like me who merely write the fucking articles. MalleusFatuorum23:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And what's worse, this kind of insulting behaviour is precisely what was always inevitable. Whenever you give people a chance to vote there will be some determined to use it as an opportunity to abuse those they don't like. I didn't put myself forward for this fucking T-shirt, I don't want the fucking T-shirt, and I don't want any more of the sort of fucking crap that Demiurge1000 and his friends specialise in. MalleusFatuorum01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey Malleus, I can ask for my nomination to be withdrawn and perhaps I should have sounded-out your opinion beforehand. Please accept my apologies for not asking first. However, I'd rather not withdraw: the t-shirt concept seems somewhat flawed to me but it is how it is and, regardless of your understandable disdain, there are times when it is better to be - a poor choice of word - humble. Accept whatever appreciation emerges for exactly what it is. Those who think that they know you well will probably feel your frustration and, to a lesser degree, may also feel mine. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the concept, there is a serious point regarding recognition that can be made here and being a curmudgeon about it seems to me to be taking things one step too far. What you do with the shirt, should you get one, is entirely your business but the physical object is symbolic and the thing that it signifies is of greater import. If I am honest, it hurts me slightly that you - a gentleman and, yes, a scholar - are in a place so dark that you are objecting even to a well-intentioned proposal. Obviously, it will not have even the remotest impact on our future meetings, both online and (hopefully) in person, but I do feel that sometimes people can take a principle just a bit too far.
Anyway, if you want me to withdraw the nomination then I will ask for that to be enacted. And I will apologise for putting you in such an awkward situation. Your friend, past, present and hopefully always - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for appearing to be ungrateful Sitush, but you have to understand that I'm not a forgiving person, although I do sometimes forget, and that recent ArbCom case has fundamentally hardened my attitude to Wikipedia. It's not easy being roundly abused for two weeks and faced with an indefinite block simply for moving a thread from talk back to the project page. That's not something easily forgotten. Even the bear pit of RfA only lasts for one week. I know that the Demiurge100s and MONGOs of this world would do whatever it takes to get rid of me, and so for me events like this one simply give them yet another soap box to jump on to deliver their diatribes about what a bad person I am. But it's happened now, so might as well leave it. MalleusFatuorum02:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the block of him does deprive us watching one of the most interesting personalities on Wikipedia, a real artist.
On the bright side, the ANI thread had none of the "MF is notorious! Look at his block-log. He deserves any abuse he gets!" from previous ones. A bit of principle and evenness in civility enforcement (ugh) is refreshing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Dammit, I plow through ANI regularly just to see if you got in trouble again, and here I missed the entire show. Couldn't drop a single witty remark, in regular or tiny font. Bollocks. Listen, some time tomorrow we're off to the country, where there's no wireless. However, I trust that you, however, with one of your secret admin accounts, nonetheless, can keep things in check notwithstanding. Also, I agree re:however, above. Please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus, Drmies (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
How the Hell would I have got hold of a secret admin account? And why the fuck if I had wouldn't I have been using it to make Wikipedia a better place, not just for me? The only encouraging thing I can take from this episode is the singular lack of "well, it's only Malleus, he deserves whatever he gets" comments. MalleusFatuorum23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There are only something like 600–700 active administrators on Wikipedia right now I think. I defy anyone to find any link between me and any of them. It's just a lie, that some will nevertheless choose to believe. MalleusFatuorum23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a very uncivil comment against yourself, I mean myself, so I (I mean you) might just have to block yourself (myself? himself? I'm confused) for it. Malleus Bencherlorum23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is seriously looking for my alleged secret admin account they should start by looking at the admins who've never used the block button, because that would have been me. MalleusFatuorum23:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
... apparently there was some objection to this statement by me during a recent RfA. I apologize if that was seen as offensive or inflammatory, that was not the intent. I'm sure that you have no plan to ever submit an RfA again, and I don't blame you for not wanting to go through the process, but I do believe that every non-admin that wants to be involved in RfA should try once in a while. I think it would make the process more peaceful because everyone would have his or her own experiences to draw on and would remember how they felt during their RfA. But anyway, carry on and have Happy Thanksgiving! v/r AutomaticStrikeout17:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout, please avoid typing "Malleus" (or otherwise referring to him) in connection with RFA in general or any particular RFA, even if (perhaps especially if) it's an attempt to be funny. I'm sure you meant well, but MF is topic-banned by Arbcom "from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia" and "engag[ing] in any threaded discussions relating to RFA" - whatever all that means. MF would risk being in a difficult position, to put it mildly, if he were to reply to comments such as yours during an RFA or to raise the issue with you later, in case he was seen as violating the topic ban. I suggest everyone leaves the matter here. BencherliteTalk18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Some may even see this discussion as being in breach of the topic ban, so the situation is impossible really. Someone ought to ask ArbCom for clarification, and give them another chance to force through the indefinite ban they're clearly so desperate to impose without further delay. MalleusFatuorum18:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait - that's a movie? They're meant to be "zombies"?? Shit, I thought it was a documentary about everyday folk and life oop north. Keristrasza (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In the words of the Beatles, "it's getting better all the time" (note: that's "the Beatles" not "The Beatles" - although perhaps I should have avoided the use of their title in mid prose). Richerman(talk)13:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure the digital radio boffins are working on it. However, in the meantime, if you turn the volume right up and mute the bullshit filter on your hearing aid (it is Radio4 after all) you will probably be OK. One day there will be subtitled radios, braille television and Billy Connolly's prescription windscreens for drivers who keep losing their glasses. Oh, and everyone will be slim and good looking and we'll all wear zip-up jump suits :) Richerman(talk)10:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, knock me over with a feather. Now, if they convert that into a HUD I'd be able to use a radio in my car. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If you install one in your car (HUD or not) please give me plenty of warning so I can stay indoors. It's bad enough already with drivers talking on their mobile phones. That's one reason I hope they never invent flying cars - just imagine some idiot boy racer crashing through your bedroom wall while you're asleep :) Richerman(talk)12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting Richerman, thanks. Irritating that they got some of the details wrong though: the Pendle witches weren't all women – two were male – and one of those accused was found not guilty. I'd have to say as well that some of the phrasing seemed rather familiar. MalleusFatuorum17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I've not had time to listen to it myself yet but I thought you would probably find a bit of your work creeping in. Of course, when she researched it she would have googled 'Pendle witches' and the WP article would have come up as the second hit. Just a pity she didn't read it properly.Richerman(talk)20:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Now I've listened to it the programme was interesting but I found it annoying that one of the contributors kept calling pronouncing Device as 'Davis'. There's an different take on the trials in an article in the Lancashire Magazine here. It would be intersting to know where they got the information about Nowell. Richerman(talk)16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"One of the most commonly held beliefs in the Pendle Witch legend is that Alice Nutter found herself being prosecuted because she had been in an acrimonious boundary dispute over Roger Nowell's neighbouring lands .... Unfortunately this piece of folklore does not appear to hold water", from The Lancashire Witch Conspiracy (2007) by John A. Clayton, page 8. MalleusFatuorum18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Tom Johnson
Hm, I've just revisited Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer). I can vaguely recall being unhappy way back when with this sentence in the lead: But Johnson was less prudent outside the ring; he was a gambler and considered by many of his acquaintances to be an easy mark. It is the slang-ish "easy mark" that troubles me but I am not sure that "gullible" really works as a substitute. Any thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
DICDEF is not a problem. Were you not aware that the word gullible is absent from all dictionaries? Check it out.;) - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The best synonym would be "credulous" I think, so here's my suggestion:"he was a gambler whose credulity was taken advantage of by many of his acquaintances". MalleusFatuorum17:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? To me that looks like: New statue gives Pendle 'witch' the respect she deserves, , Lancashire Telegraph, 30 July 2012, retrieved 3 August 2012, which isn't right; my version looked like the other newspaper refs. Can you double-check? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, you're right. Sorry. I didn't notice you'd also changed the |publisher parameter to |newspaper, which alters the formatting of the output from the {{citation}} template. I promise I'll look more carefully in the future before reverting you. ;-) MalleusFatuorum23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That's caused by the lack of a title when there's a |url and a |contribution. Providing properly formatted citations really ought to be easier than it is. MalleusFatuorum23:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
In fact, if I was an administrator I could have fixed that, but what are the chances? (That was a rhetorical question, no smart arse answers needed.) I could have done so many useful technical things, but all I'm trusted to do is to toil away thanklessly in the unimportant corners that very few care about, such as writing content. MalleusFatuorum01:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The DRV has reopened, a mixed blessing. The DRV reached consensus that Scottywong's snow close was improper (deja vu with the former Snottywong SW). That should have been the end of DRV.
So I'm the subject of an ArbCom leak once again? How curious. I won't waste time by sharing my opinion of Jclemens, which apart from anything else would likely be contorted into justifying a block based on ArbCom's latest cock-up: criticism of an administrator = criticism of the process by which (s)he was chosen = breach of topic ban.
I think it's quite within the realms of possibility that I might even still be here long after Jclemens has moved on, no matter what his position is on having me banned. But as Dennis Brown says, Jclemens has chosen the hill on which to make his last stand, so presumably he believes that he knows what he's doing. Suffice to say that I won't be voting for him. MalleusFatuorum15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again, Malleus, you've performed your role of asshole detector to perfection. I'm not saying that to be snide, but as I've mentioned before I've found how people react to you to be very instructive. Often those who explode against you have a pattern of doing the same thing (on perhaps a lesser scale) to others. Intothatdarkness15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Malleus is like a mirror; a user might not like what he gets back. (I think there is something simple & profound here too ... Want incivilities to cease at WP? Of course! But how?? Answer: Don't initiate any!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep, Malleus is a mirror AND a bad influence, I'll say it here: Jclemens is a utter and complete jerk. (I'd be like Malleus and use stronger wording, but I can't fall back on the "British English" defense because I'm a Yank). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well said Ihardlythinkso, it really is that simple. Don't behave like a dishonest jerk and I won't treat you like one. If you do behave like a dishonest jerk then you must expect what you get. MalleusFatuorum21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's an idea that admins could switch to *now*. (Their current expenditure of effort in stomping on uncivil dialogue, could be instead invested on the initiator. If a responder to incivility(s) didn't respond equally, but jacked it up a notch or two in intensity or repetition, well, that would be considered another form of initiating.) There's no method to the madness here, no analysis given who initiated (perhaps it's too much "work"), what an admin does is subjective and unpredictable, stomping on both disputants, or the one who annoys him more, or the one he likes the least. (But I know you know all this already.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Update, on second thought I must be dreaming. (I realize Admins like to hold onto their precious little buttons; asking them to devote to more work & responsible action is nothing they'd be much interested in.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Theobald (c. 1090 – 1161) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1139 to 1161. He became a monk at the Abbey of Bec in Normandy some time in the late 11th or early 12th century, becoming abbot in 1137. King Stephen of England chose him to be Archbishop of Canterbury in 1138. During Theobald's term of office, Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was resolved by Pope Eugene III in Canterbury's favour. Theobald faced challenges to his authority from a subordinate bishop, Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, and his relationship with King Stephen was turbulent. On one occasion Stephen forbade him to attend a papal council, but Theobald defied the king, which resulted in the confiscation of his property and temporary exile. Serving during the disorders of Stephen's reign, Theobald succeeded in forcing peace on the king by refusing to consecrate Stephen's son and heir, Eustace. After Eustace's death in 1153 Stephen recognised his rival Henry of Anjou as his heir, and later Theobald was named regent of the kingdom after Stephen's death. After a long illness, Theobald died in 1161, following which unsuccessful efforts were made to have him canonised as a saint. (Full article...)
In a better world, persons discussing "Wikipedian" as a category of persons should be ineligible for anything that requires walking on their hind-legs and chewing bubble-gum. Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
PS. Bear in mind that Jclemens is an administrator, and to criticise an administrator is a criticism of the process by which they were chosen, so I don't think it would be prudent for me to comment further on the piece of primordial slime that is Jclemens. MalleusFatuorum01:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
If I could, I probably would. I'm saddened it looks like Elen may have to fall on her sword at least temporarily over this latest leaking issue – too many here see things in black and white for it to be otherwise – but hopefully the election may be an indicator as to which way the wind is blowing. MalleusFatuorum01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
SirFozzie's ride
I don't know--she's made some friends as well. I'm glad I didn't run for office though at least one misguided soul suggested I should: what ArbCom utters is not usually in an English I speak. I suffer from serious cognitive dissonance--my brain usually shuts down after the first sentence, though I managed to understand the motion against Elen. I would, though, like to be elected so I can read those juicy emails. Elen, can you send me a couple? Feel free to redact some of the names. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The scale of last year's ArbCom leaks makes this look very small beer indeed, and none of them admitted to being responsible for that, although one of them must have been. I tend to switch off as soon as I see the WikiSpeak "recuse" and "redact". When have you ever heard anyone in a pub answering the question "When was the last time that Manchester United lost a game when they scored first?" by saying "I recuse". Or if they get the answer wrong by saying "I redact"? It's all pseudo-legal bollocks. MalleusFatuorum03:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what, if I ever get elected to that fine body, I'll shoot first and recuse later. Or, better yet, I'll recuse before it starts and forward you the emails while I collect my pay check. I wanna be the ArbPimp, and have admins work Mobile Highway for me. (Also, I've never discussed that team in a pub or a bar--after Heisel, English clubs weren't much talked about for a couple of years). Drmies (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, English clubs were banned from playing in the various Europa Cups, and in those days the English league was not as strong as it came to be a couple of years later. In NL, we followed the Spanish and Italian leagues; I don't think many foreign players were active on your island(s) at all back then. I still don't know how "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" got to be a hit in my country in 1978. Didn't Liverpool, or Manchester United, have a hit song too? Drmies (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That was just institutional racism and corruption at European level. And the authorities are still not able to handle it when it really matters: English teams were banned but the crap that goes on today results in a measly £32,000 or whatever[citation needed] fine. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember why Ealdgyth included me as a co-nominator for that article, but I probably didn't deserve it. My usual contributions to her articles are to move a few commas around and to change "-ize" to "-ise". But I know she's busy, so I'll be looking out for the inevitable vandalism come the day. MalleusFatuorum00:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
