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'm trying to see if I can get to 50,000 before I get indef blocked. But that's nothing compared to Iridescent's 123,000 edits.[1] --MalleusFatuorum15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but things like [2], [3], [4] only count as one edit each despite each of them taking the time a Huggler could rack up 30,000 edits in. It all evens out. (That 30,000 figure isn't hyperbole - somewhere in the archives is me doing 1000 edits in two hours on Huggle to demonstrate just how fast it can go.) – iridescent00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My average edit adds about 5k per submission to a page. I also have many pages with submissions of over 15k. Iridescent is an amateur. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would LOVE to see that set of stats. Article space only now, boo-hoo at the admin boards doesn't count. Then we'd see who our real contributors are. I wonder who could, and who would be willing to write that script up? — Ched : ? 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Which stats? If you just want a count of your mainspace edits, Wikichecker will spit one out for you, while this tool will give you a list of mainspace pages sorted by the number of edits you've made to them (the latter only works when the toolserver database is live). The "breakdown by size of edits" tool is a perennial proposal; the reason it's never been implemented is that the figures would be distorted beyond meaning by vandal-reversions. (Reverting the replacement of an article with "obama is a fag lol" will 'add' just as much text, as far as the software's concerned, as writing the article from scratch.) – iridescent09:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the "edit count" tools - soxred, wikicheck etc. I was rather thinking of the folks that actually add content to the pedia. Folks can get a "+1" for actually "deleting" a line for "no reference". It's rather the folks like Mal, Giano, CoM, and you Iridescent that I think get an unfair review. You personally spent an hour of your life, helping me become a better editor - reviewing an article - adding names, correcting spelling and syntax - not deleting- but adding to the "sum of human knowledge". How can I not appreciate that, and how can we find more value in editors who have nothing more to give than a "delete" button? My post was more to say that I so much appreciate those who find a way to "give" and "add" to the project, than those who simply dramamonger and "delete" what others try to offer. — Ched : ? 16:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's unmeasurable by any automated process, for reasons given above. This is why people tend to look at GA/FA as measures of an editor, as WBFAN is one of the few content related processes that is quantifiable. – iridescent17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Question
Have you seen this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2? How do these RfC things work? I loathe bureaucratic type meetings of the minds, but are these hearings important to take part in? I would just like to be able to edit in peace without all the uncivil crazies making problems. Do you weigh in on these things and Arbcom proceedings? It seems like a monumental time and energy suck to me, but I don't want to be negative if it's the only way to get things done. Please advise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You're never going to be able to edit in peace, man. You speak your mind. That is not a quality that is highly revered here, that is, until you pass RfA. Then you are 'free to move about the cabin.' Lawtype!snype?03:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have seen that RfC, yes. It's only important to take part if you want to help purge wikipedia of one of its consistently worst administrators. But of course that won't make you any friends, so unless you're an administrator it can't really be considered a safe thing to do. Law is of course quite right too; the odds are stacked against all of us serfs who refuse to accept that our place is always in the wrong. --MalleusFatuorum14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from my above quote, I consider -every- else the serf. When I finish my time here at Wiki, I plan on giving the above speech as part of my farewell. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you folks talking like it's the "end". Why have a negative attitude? "When I get indef blocked?" .. huh? ... stop that. Stay strong. Continue to work for the better good. — Ched : ? 16:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I like Ottava's poem. Unfortunately it's a copyvio so I'm going to have to report it on ANI.
If enough people express negative sentiments in an RfC then it goes to Arbcom? How many comments does it take and how long is the process? Who decides? It's nice that peeps are taking the time to enforce a little accountability. I'd like to help, but there's only so much I can stomach. Pass the Tums. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much anyone who sticks their heads above the parapet and dares to suggest that there might be problems is liable to be indefblocked. I can even predict with some degree of confidence who my personal indefblocker will be. – iridescent17:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I will be indeffed. I will just be leaving once I finish 20 poets/20 authors. My original purpose here was to fix 20 major authors and poets that were being neglected, and to provide a wiki page for all of the notable works. My goal is to have FAs of those two author pages and then FAs for their major works. At the rate I am going, I expect to be finished by the end of next year. By then, I will have about 30-40 FAs, over 100 GAs, and over 400 DYK. I plan on making a lovely speech over at ANI when the last page is done. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
To ChildofMidnight: the plan is this. As can be seen, Aitias has dropped off the face of the earth since this RFC was opened - which was totally expected (I would have bet my house on it happening). If he makes no response to this RFC for a week, we will make a request that arbcom desysops him. Even if he does respond, there's little he can say that will suddenly make everything ok, so in reality, it will probably be open a week for definite. What I will make sure is that ArbCom are not fooled again by his running off when things get heated. He will be desysopped this time round. Unless ArbCom are more stupid than I thought. Majorlytalk17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As Manstaruk has stated that he intends to edit your user page rather than your talk page until he gets a response, I've protected it for a day. Hope you don't mind. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That's sad. Hopefully he'll come to his senses and read what I actually said in the review, and perhaps take it to heart instead of trying to take it out on the messenger. --MalleusFatuorum00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
With Manstaruk blocked the protection seems a bit pointless so I'll remove them from the user pages I protected. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your comment here after I blocked Manstaruk for disruption and edit warring, and I wanted to let you know that I was in no way ignoring your objection. –Juliancolton | Talk00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries Julian, even I will admit that Manstaruk was clearly a little bit out of control and probably needed to be reined a little bit. --MalleusFatuorum00:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that today, most people have left logic at the door and have decided to go off of "well, it seems like it should be right". I'm dealing with quite a few myself. Thankfully, none have vandalised my user page yet. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If Manstaruk had just made the comment on a talk page it would have been fine. It's disappointing because he clearly knows how to use them but decided not to. Blocking wasn't my choice – I would have preferred to starve his confrontation by protecting user pages – but I can't say it was the wrong thing to do, he had violated 3RR and been asked to stop multiple times. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue underlying this incident is, to be frank, Manstaruk's belief that once GA status has been conferred it should not be taken away should the GA criteria change. Dream on is all I have to say. No amount of trashing my user page will make that stupidity come true. If you read the review you can clearly see what Manstaruk's view is. --MalleusFatuorum00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
What puzzles me is the apparent objection to improving the article, which your suggestions surely would. It smacks of badge-pride. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It happens. Who in their right mind would choose to be a GA Sweeps reviewer anyway? There's no thanks in it, I'll be glad when it's over. --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
GA in Banners
Hi Malleus, when you promote an article to GA status or delist it from it, you never seem to change the rating in the WIkiproject banners. This rating, however, is not dependent on the Wikiprojects when it's about good articles, as the only process by which to get a GA rating is the good article review process. Please rm the GA rating from banners in the future when you delist an article and add it when you promote one. Otherwise people from the project will think nothing has changed when it has. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Article banners are ranked GA via the GA process, obviously, and when they remain even after delisting that's not helpful to the project members. Do you really want to stay inflexible on this so someone else has to always check after you instead of doing about two seconds of extra-typing? Hekerui (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not for me to judge whether a delisted GA should be a B, C, or start according to project standards I have no knowledge of or interest in. If that makes me "inflexible" then so be it. I will not be altering projects assessments. Period. I'm afraid you'll have to live with it. --MalleusFatuorum12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I sumitted this article as a GAC and the asssessor (rightly) felt its scope should be expanded. This I have done, expanding the lead, and the sections on origins and today. I guess the expansions will need a touch of copyediting; if convenient, I should be grateful for your further help. There is no rush because the assessor (Pyrotec) is away until the weekend. Thanks again.
Two reasons really. I don't presently have the energy to even think about FAC, and Deacon of Pndapetzim was kind enough to conominate me at Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick's FAC. Perhaps when that's finished I'll be a bit more motivated, we'll see. I'm not sure if I'll bother though as there's a strong Catholic element to the story, which only seems to result in trouble. --MalleusFatuorum12:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, that word is now a "slur". Heads up so you don't make the same mistake of characterizing an ambiguous individual in an "if then" statement as being gullible if they believe something, because you would now be committing a hate crime on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on the context - many people were gullible enough to believe that spaghetti grew on trees (mmm actually that's my tea tonight sorted), and that aliens invaded North America, or even that astronauts defied the laws of physics by staging the moon landings in a vacuum-sealed studio building. Stating as such isn't offensive to anyone other than the person ignorant enough to believe it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This was the statement. The mysterious "anyone" doesn't meet what WP:CIVIL says, but there seem to be people who want to rewrite CIVIL to have it be any comments. It is funny how the same people have made major personal attacks upon others and not to long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha. But yeah, this isn't even part of the current CIVIL regulations. Why would we have a policy on "Don't insult imaginary people with horrible slurs like 'gullible'." And yes, someone called it a slur. It seems that people's hyperbole levels are through the roof today. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I got blocked for calling an unidentified editor "sycophantic", WebHamster was blocked again earlier for calling an uncivil anonymous IP an "anonymous fuckwit", but the intractable problem is that the place is run by fuckwits who believe that the whole edifice would collapse if they weren't constantly on guard. If they'd just fuck off and leave the place to the adults who're actually interested in writing and improving articles, then things might go a little better around here. --MalleusFatuorum15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you were unblocked for the sycophant comment, if you remember. :P But yeah, sycophant is much different than gullible. One is a negative active identity where the other is passive and based on not knowing. But yeah, an IP is a direct object, so that would be crossing the line. :P Now, watch yourself, saying the "whole place" could be a personal attack on everyone. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh oh! This was a good one that I forgot to mention. According to my accuser, this is an incivil comment: Having a "severe misunderstanding"[16] [5] horribly incivil! It would seem like I made my point while being overly polite. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If people commenting in there spent more time editing articles, and less time being offended, this project would gain far more than it lost. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
But they are putting really bad interpretation of important policies in important areas that, if taken, would destroy our encyclopedic integrity. They can't stand to be told they are wrong even though their actions are highly damaging. It is disturbing to me that people like that roam about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect editors, like figure skaters, are largely marked on reputation. So someone kicks up a stink if Malleus or Ottava says something that would not attract complaints if said by someone else. --Philcha (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right. And of course it's self-reinforcing. Just look at the size of Malleus/Ottava's block log, they're obviously bad people. Well, to be fair Ottava is, but I'm as pure as the driven snow. --MalleusFatuorum23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think I'm going to get the courage to nominate Nicolo Giraud at FAC. It has been stable long enough and I have talked it over with an individual that was involved in the original dispute to co-nom. I would preface the nom by saying that most of the content was based on a compromise and literally covers just about everything written on Giraud. I would also ask that people make sure to keep in mind the delicate consensus basis of choosing the language and to ensure that if there are any necessary corrections that it can accommodate the delicate consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have to even more so for this page. I will be walking very carefully and I hope nothing crazy happens ("such as, why is this given so much weight, this has to be removed before I can support"). But it is not the Catholic Church, so people might not have major issues like that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - In Latin, Poeta is the masculine poet, even though it is declined as female nouns are. It has been the bane of poets since day one. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Only because the Romans were poor at Greek and got the grammatical gender of ποιητης wrong. OTOH the Scots correctly translated ποιητης as "makar". --Philcha (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a handful of masculine words that fall under the feminine case. I think the idea (its been a while since I actually discussed it when taking Latin) was the "creativity" aspect. Poets give birth to something new. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought at first it was an American spelling thing ... anyway, I'm still trying to find "sausage" in the first edition of Johnson's Dictionary. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Controversy
Isn't there a rule/guideline/policy somewhere that an article on a work (or even a person) should not have a major section called "Controversy"? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing formally stated anywhere that I'm aware of, but there is a body of opinion (which I share) that any controversy ought to be included in the relevant places in the article, not kept as a glug towards the end. In the worst case I've seen the controversy section was even followed by a reply to controversy section. --MalleusFatuorum23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this PC gone overboard, or legitimate to frame things in this way? There was a tremendous amount of editing in the few months after it passed FAC. The actual content of the section now called "Controvery" has not changed that much though. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting it up for FAR. The plot section has opinion and analysis in it, among other problems. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is something about Robert A. Heinlein that brings out a wierd side of some people. I must be missing a gene or something, because I don't quite get it. I mean, yeah, but he's a science fiction writer. He is very controversial. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm perhaps missing the same gene you are. There are some writers I find it very hard to relate to; Heinlein is one and another that springs to mind is Ray Bradbury, with the exception of his excellent Fahrenheit 451. --MalleusFatuorum00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Malleus) He was very opinionated and vocal about his opinions, which were a little out of step with most things being written at the time. Most of it stems from Stranger in a Strange Land, which was pretty ground breaking for the time. You either like him or you hate him, and it's not unusual to not "get" him. (I've always been a fan, but that's because I read SiSL early in high school and found it a pretty damning indictment of organized religion, which appealed to me then (and still does now). But a lot of what he wrote is just pure space opera, including Starship Troopers.) I agree the article is a likely candidate for FAR. Ealdgyth - Talk00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Space opera. I can's see getting worked up about it. One of the references goes to a nostalgia piece by a person who remembers reading him in the sixth grade. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Is sixth grade like 11 or 12-years old? I was reading proper SciFi then, H. G. Wells (my favourite then and still my favourite), and Jules Verne. Admittedly though I did devour Superman comics as well. --MalleusFatuorum00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I read SiSL many years ago, I don't recall being too impressed by it. If you want truly epic sci-fi, it has to be Ian Banks' Culture universe, or Peter F. Hamilton's 'Reality Dysfunction' series. Mind you, I'm still moved to tears by Greg Bear's Forge of God, and sequel Anvil of Stars. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And were you a "young boy" in the sixth grade? That seems to be the crucial window for imprinting Heinlein into the hippocampus. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "sixth grade" means, I live in England remember. So far as Hoyle's book is concerned I came across it when I was at university, so still pretty young I guess. --MalleusFatuorum00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Theres a moving part in the final (IIRC) Reality Dysfunction book that did make me think about life, death, etc. The entire series deals with life, afterlife, and has interesting characters like Fletcher Christian, and Al Capone. Banks' culture novels always make one think - the ideas are so grand it sometimes made me ache wishing I could exist there. Forge of God is very sad, but Anvil of Stars - that really does give the reader an idea of the vastness and loneliness of space, the breakdown of society and personal relationships, and a heightened sense of paranoia that exists across the galaxy. I'd say however the author that has made me 'think' more than any other would be Stephen R. Donaldson and his 2 "Mordaunt" books. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The book that made the deepest impression on me as a child was Mystery at Witchend, a juvenile adventure story which threw me into a fit of depression for about a week, closely followed by The Coral Island. The authors who made me think most though were probably Macchiavelli, Nietzsche, and Popper.
My opinion is that the sections seem to be heavy handed undue weight. There are probably many, if not more, people that approved of the novel/book. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I would support a FAR on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. There is nothing on positive critical responses, which is very disturbing. Hell, there are video games, miniature figure games, role playing games, etc, based on the series, so it had to be popular. However, the page is presented as if everyone was critical of the book. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
RFA
I'd just like you to understand that I have no hard feelings towards you. At first I thought that you were being a jerk, but once you explained everything, I realized where you were coming from. I appreciate your insight for the RFA and my pre-RFA actions. Thanks for the information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I know that you're well-meaning, so I fully am supportive of your tone. Tdrss said that I even might've come across as a jerk in my RFA. I agree with you that Wikipedia is slowly going down hill, but that always is a consequence when a new generation takes over the reigns from the founders of something, not fully appreciating the powers that they have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, you did come across as a jerk in your RfA, and so did quite a few of your supporters. Water under the bridge now though. Can't say that I agree with your analysis of a "new generation" taking over either. --MalleusFatuorum02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I need to definitely work on that part. I usually apply the new generation thing to masses of people. As I was writing it, I thought about the fact that most of the original people are here. I think it's more the newer people bringing drama into this whole thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I've been working on Rudolf Caracciola for about a month now. My aim is to get him on the main page on September 28, the 50th anniversary of his death, and I want to get it to FAC quite soon. Is there any chance you could work your grammatical magic on the article? I think the prose is pretty solid as is but it's always good to get more eyes onto it. Any talk page watchers are more than welcome (in fact, they are encouraged) to pitch in. Thanks for anything you can do, Apterygial09:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit disappointed at the attitude displayed by some of the administrators there ... well one administrator actually. I look forward to seeing Moni's alt text for the images in Anal sex. :-) --MalleusFatuorum15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at that article until just now, and I was amazed to see a request for citation right at the start, for this: "Anal sex is an alternative form of intercourse between men and women. It creates a very low risk of unwanted pregnancy when not followed by vaginal intercourse." Hello, anybody home? Breaking news: most human beings have five fingers. --MalleusFatuorum15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I always had this thought - Alt text are for the blind. Why are the blind on Wiki? We should have a braille reader Wiki instead which translates the various texts so that someone who can't read would have something more effective. We have wiki links and complex charts that are absolutely impossible to truly translate into text. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Not all visually impaired people will be "blind", and many will not be able to read braille. The essence for me is to focus our efforts on what would really help them, not just adding any old alt text like "man in a wig" to satisfy some ill-considered FA criterion. The fact of the matter as well is that most images in most articles are decorative, and so stricly don't "need" alt text anyway. --MalleusFatuorum15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Cough. You know there are electronic braille readers that speak the code, right? They've been around since the early 90s. :P And if someone is too visually impaired to make out the image, then the wiki devoted to the blind would easily do what they need (as it would -all- be catered to people with visual problems). See simple wiki as an example of a wiki devoted to people who are unable to read the Wiki in a standard manner because of different reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Bah, I think I need to explain it to you. A braille reader is two fold - 1. it reads plain English text and produces it in the form of braille through a device that you place your hand on. 2. It can be followed with vocal language. I do not mean for Wiki to actually be written in braille. It would be written in a manner that would make sense to someone reading it with a braille reader. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that the Forth travels furthe E-W than the Clyde: Carrick appears to be entirely due S of much of the Clyde, but not of the Forth; I know the firths much better than the inland parts of these rivers, and I'm a Scot. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, we all know how that's going to end up. Administrators will once again close ranks to excuse behaviour they would have no compunction in blocking a regular editor for. --MalleusFatuorum17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I take it back. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. How come nobody's noticed that you've got two FACs on the go simultaneously? --MalleusFatuorum17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
One is being run by Mrathel (I only made the edits to fix it through GA, he wrote the page) and the other is part mine part Haiduc). None of them are really mine, I was just around and I got upset looking at the votes at the CU/OS election, so, I decided to focus on something else. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
See? How long was that open for before the saintly Jechochman decided that "we don't block for incivility". What he meant though was that "we don't block for incivility from administrators". The place is hopelessly corrupt. --MalleusFatuorum18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The tide has remained exactly where it was. Incivility from administrators is shrugged off, incivility from non-administrators results in a block. --MalleusFatuorum18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The curve needs to be bent the other way. I agree that everyone should be held to the same standards. However, I'd rather discourage silly blocks for stern discourse than encourage blocks all around. --Andy Walsh(talk)18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's only a credible position if administrators are prepared to stand up against these "silly blocks", which they patently are not. --MalleusFatuorum18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not holding you responsible for the inequalities inherent in the present administrator system, but it's plain that administrators are largely above "the law". You and I could probably easily name several administrators, not just the one involved yesterday or the one recently desysopped who seem to prowl around looking for reasons to issue blocks. Well, I could anyway. --MalleusFatuorum19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that use as appropriate on this summary of dictionaries. Wiktionary is just getting less and less reliable everyday apparently. I also notice that the original use was passive, which would be inappropriate with such a word. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Um. Please reread. I was referring to the "ed" after "moot". Wiktionary adds it where the others do not. It does not appear that "moot" is conjugated in that manner, if conjugated at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The OED does list "mooted" as US English usage, first seen in 1982 in a Washington Post article: "As the day wore on the matter seemed likely to be mooted by the cleverness of the crows that wheeled and cawed over the farm." It's still not "proper" English though, just another of those 50 cent invented words Americans seem to have a fascination for. --MalleusFatuorum19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it really that incomprehensible to say "has been mooted" as opposed to "has been rendered moot by"? At least he didn't say it was muted =) –xenotalk20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone claiming that it was incomprehensible, just incorrect. Besides, when have you ever seen anyone outside of wikipedia use the word "moot", never mind "mooted"? It's just a shiny bauble to attract those over-eager to impress with their erudition, except of course when used in its strict legal sense. Doesn't really make sense either if you take the time to think about. Rendered hypothetical? Would you really ever say that? --MalleusFatuorum20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I realized this after I posted it. Still I think it was a bit of a cheap shot. It's a discussion page after all - holding people to perfect grammar seems a bit pedantic. (To answer your question, I've heard moot used outside legal use, but not often. Mooted - I think never) –xenotalk20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be you that's taking a "cheap shot" xeno, as you have agreed with me that the word "mooted" is rather unusual.here. The important point that both you and Axl have quite understandably chosen to ignore is that I was being critical of the hypocrisy evident in making vexatious allegations of incivility against another editor. But that doesn't matter, let's just have another bash at Malleus instead. Perhaps one day he'll just go away and leave us to our nice cosy little delusional world. Well, one day I will, but not today. --MalleusFatuorum21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The cheap shot was not the grammar but the characterization as a child which seems unnecessary (and escalatory) if you wanted to highlight other issues with the WQA. –xenotalk21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (This makes less sense after your tweak, anyhow, I'm not trying to bash you or make you go away, I just think the whole 'child' thing didn't help advance your position. I realize I didn't make this clear before. I'll go away now.)
Let me try and make it crystal clear. I don't give a flying fuck what you or Axl think about this, or indeed even if you've taken the trouble to think about it at all. The discussion has become boring and tedious, and your continuation of it only seems inflammatory. Why not go and poke sticks at someone else? --MalleusFatuorum22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. It does appear to be a relatively new addition to the US vocabulary. This usage is not incorrect, though arguably non-standard. Axl¤[Talk]20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Americans abuse the English language on a daily basis? ... I'll have you know that I resemble that remark! ;) — Ched : ? 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's becoming very clear to me that wikipedia is run by vindictive children. I obviously upset Wehwalt elsewhere and he felt obliged to try and get his own back in whatever little way he could. There is no place for adults in this project. --MalleusFatuorum02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The farce that is RfA makes itself known with aplomb once again. Sometimes I think I'd feel more comfortable if the support and oppose sections were just segregated from one another : ) Wisdom89(T / C)02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
At ANI, the movie and caption "An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed." were hilarious. Ah, humor. It is always best when it is about that which is most depressing. :) You need to laugh more, Malleus. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that two isn't enough for you. I guess I spend too much time working on articles and not enough time hanging out on the drama boards looking for dust ups. Apologies.--Fabrictramp | talk to me14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The wiki drama above is boring and pointless. Here is some real drama to get you going on a more fun topic. Explain this. The first one is a quote of a cuss word. I can see that. Now, which words caused the filter to hit on the other three? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Prodego is playing with filter1 looking for "fuck", as you say, but also "cunt". What's triggering the filter is that "cunt" appears in this page in the discussion about "Gropecunt Lane". --MalleusFatuorum18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. The filter doesn't seem to be looking at your posting, but at the old and new versions of this page after your posting. So I expect I must have triggered that filter a lot more times than you. Hmmm, only five times.[9] --MalleusFatuorum18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked for the filter. I was intrigued by the arguments over Giano, "he gets special treatment" vs "he is under more intense scrutiny." I picked the word fvck as a general proxy for incivility and as a word that has very little routine use, and Cas Liber suggested adding "cvnt". I'm tracking the number of times one user uses the word against another in anger, to see what the outcome is. I'm hoping to keep it low key, but my analysis in progress is at User:Thatcher/Sandbox4. When I have a reasonable number of samples for analysis, I'll have the filter turned off. Thatcher19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and for the first few hours, the filter was picking up edits where the editor did not really add the word, but where it was nearby, having been previously added by someone else. (Wikimedia has a hard time determining diffs some times.) That was fixed so it will only trigger now when someone adds it. Thatcher19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, filter 1 is one of my personal ones to play around with (de facto anyway :)). In this case, I did what Thatcher requested, and upgraded it a bit when he determined that was needed. Prodegotalk06:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As a kid I had a fascination with Peter Pan, and my mother says that I mithered her so much about it that she had to take me to see it three times in one week. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Salford is Greater Manchester's second city (although it is the wider district which has city status), but for most of its history it was larger and more important than Manchester. The Salford Quays area will become the home of CBBC and BBC Sport in 2011.
The Peak District was the first national park in Britain and spans Cheshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and West Yorkshire. It was used by the Dam Busters and used as a location for the film based on the story.
Other news:
There's been a lot of article activity in the last month, especially in Wigan-related pages. Wigan is the only borough in Greater Manchester without a GA or FA to its name, and it would be great if this could change. A lot of work has been put into Tyldesley, any and help to get it to GA would be great. There's also been a high-profile new article created: media in Manchester. Pitch in on the talk page if you're interested!
Just remember that the project watchlist can help us catch vandalism and is worth checking from time to time.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Last month, we achieved our long-standing aim of bringing Salford up to GA status. It's been a fine effort and perhaps we can concentrate on our other objectives, especially getting Stockport, the largest settlement article not to be at least B-class, to GA.
Member News
There are now 47 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 20 members inactive since 1 January 2009) as two new members have joined the project since the start of March:
J3Mrs has done some fine work on Wigan-related articles, especially Tyldesley so hopefully we can help him with his efforts. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
The project compared
In July, WP:LON almost doubled in scope and now has over 12,000 articles – far more than any other UK county WikiProject. Last month, the Peak District was promoted to GA; the area is mainly in Derbyshire but covers several other counties and is a massive achievement for all involved. WP:CHES continues to perform strongly considering it has few active editors, with one FL promoted in July and another in the pipeline. WP:GM is still the leading UK county project in terms of FAs and by proportion of audited content (ie: GAs and FAs). A lot of effort has gone into producing this project's articles, so let's make sure we keep tags on them and that they don't degrade.
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Hi Malleus. Per WT:GAN, I'm interested to know what is considered "good enough" and what isn't, and why. The current GAR plate is where I am looking right now. In addition to the Mathematics controversy, we have the recent addition of Glengoyne Distillery. At one level, this is obviously not good enough in terms of lead and referencing failings, but at another level, the author believes it is good enough, and with some minor fixes, it would be a fairly decent article. In an ideal Wikipedia, what would a benchmark for "good enough" be? Geometry guy23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm maybe not the best one to ask this question of, but as I used the phrase "good enough" then I'm duty-bound to try and give an answer.
For me, "good enough" is an article without glaring grammatical or spelling mistakes, a reasonable structure, no major gaps in coverage, and citations to support "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements". The GA criteria in fact. My comment was really addressed at what I perceive to be an increasing number of GA reviewers applying a higher standard than is required by the GA criteria. To be clear, I'm not bothered about whether the author believes it to be "good enough" or not, it's whether the reviewer does that matters. --MalleusFatuorum23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm interested in general comments (not necessarily in the GA context) about what is "good enough". I think you and I agree that the GA criteria, interpreted rightly, do capture the notion, but can we do better, or are their other views? Geometry guy23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
My view is that many reviewers don't refer to the GA criteria when reviewing. Instead they apply some personal standard, which is often either too low or too high, so nothing would be gained by fine-tuning the GA criteria. Perthaps others who watch this page will offer their own views. --MalleusFatuorum23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:V says, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed ...", so I think that just meeting the GA criterion for citations to support "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" is below what is already demanded of all articles. It would be silly pass an article as GA if it is at risk of having statements tagged or removed. --Philcha (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What makes you equate "lacking a reliable source" with "lacking an inline citation"? These are totally different concepts. Geometry guy00:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Why would it be silly? People tag all sorts of things as requiring citation, like the example I keep using that pisses Mattisse off: "most human beings have five fingers". Good articles are required to meet the GA criteria, not your own personal standard. If you want to argue for a change in the GA criteria, then do so, but until then articles ought to be assessed against the criteria as currently framed. --MalleusFatuorum00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see GAN (ideally) as a one sided thorough FAC review. A single flashlight can shine in a room and you could make out words of a book. However, 5 or 6 can produce enough light to truly read by. In my metaphor, flashlight = review. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is that one reviewer is capable of discovering what is good enough to read, but multiple reviewers are capable of really illuminating a work. Regardless, Ode to a Nightingale. I just did some rewriting. It is not perfect and it is in a GA review. I have to expand the criticism section. But yeah, soon I will have all of Keats's major odes up there. These were stubs or redlinks when I came here. How sad is that? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my corner happens to be the size of the Pacific Ocean. Have you seen how many poems I had to write for Coleridge? I still have a 12 part set about to go, and there is another 12 part for his poems. Then there are about 15 or so scattered poems left. Those are just the -notable- poems. I haven't even gotten to his essays or the rest. Thankfully, I have someone I will be working with this fall for next year's WikiCup. We are going to create about 200 pages for these various things and then really come out swinging. Right now, I'm going to lag behind in the cup because someone is putting forth cheap huggle edits instead of actually building content. It takes a lot of effort to put forth DYKs, GAs, and FAs, especially when you are someone like me who is heavily scrutinized and in an area that has clear academic standards and rigor (unlike, say, anime where I could just completely make things up). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to say sorry about our heated engagement in Chocolate Hills GAR. I just got pissed off when you acted as both reviewer AND contributor on the article. Anyways, I want to tie loose ends before I go and I think you're the only editor I haven't made peace with. Should you feel like retiring, I suggest that you end it with goodwill for Wikipedia. Remember, those guys you have butted heads with are merely a tiny fraction of the editors. There are a lot of good editors out there.
Anyways, my time is up. The river of irl is waiting for me to float away to parts unknown. Good luck on your journeys through wikipedia.--Lenticel(talk)01:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no interest in apologies. I was not a contributor to the article, and for you to suggest that I was simply shows just how far off base you were. --MalleusFatuorum02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at talk:22_June_1897. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I just read your comment about Flagged revisions and perused the article. Blah blah levels levels. How would this affect you and me, if at all? Some pages can only be edited after the prior edit has been authorized or reviewed? What would us lowly "just editors" experience? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure Mattisse, but at least for the initial trial period it looks like what we see or can do will depend on whether an article is semi- or full-flagged protected, and whether or not we've been granted the new "reviewer" right. Assuming you have, then I think what you'll see is much like now, plus you'll have the option to accept or reject any unpatrolled edits I may have made to the article, as I won't have the reviewer flag. If the article isn't flagged then we'll all see what we see now, at least for the configuration that's being trialled anyway. --MalleusFatuorum19:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making your presence known!
Thanks for stepping in. It felt reassuring that I knew you were watching. So I am very appreciative, especially since lately I have been stepping out of my "zone" and expressing opinions, but trying not to perseverate. (I don't think that links to Wikipedia articles should look like external links when they are in the references. It gives a false impression. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You're doing just fine Mattisse, Nothing wrong with expressing opinions, especially when you're right. I often think that I owe it to great unwashed to give them the benefit of my great wisdom, as I'm sure you've noticed. :lol:--MalleusFatuorum00:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. Can you remind me how long ArbCom thought that this advisory thing should last for? I know I could check for myself, but I'm feeling v-e-r-y lazy. --MalleusFatuorum00:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You meant the Council of selected members thing? I believe the whole issue has just withered away for lack of comment. Now that I have paid attention to the behavior of who those were selected, I very much wonder about ArbCom. Especially since they apparently did not all agree on the issue. I am becoming politically aware in a way that I did not bother to before. (Hope this is not saying too much in a public place. If so, I apologize.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just say what you see Mattisse, what's the worst they can do to you? Stop your salary? I think to survive here at least a modicum of "political awareness" is sadly necessary. --MalleusFatuorum01:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternative text
Hi, Malleus! I was wondering why you had a strong tone in your messages toward me at Moni3's talk page? I'm not trying to convey any kind of attitude, and I'm not trying to profess in-depth knowledge of how alternative text works. It is a tough question to determine the degree of detail for images, and discussions on WT:ALT show that people have similar questions. WP:ALT says that alternative text should not repeat the caption, though, and stating a name like "Justin Theroux" does not offer anything for a reader to imagine other than a man. That's why I described their appearances, though there's obviously a cut-off somewhere. (I did wonder how alternative text could describe an elephant, though! Elephant does not have any text at this point.) If I came off as condescending in any way, I apologize. I just stated what I thought was clear, and I hope it's not an issue to implement my example. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I Lol'd. MF, sometimes you crack me up. Are alt texts supposed to add description? I thought it was just an extension of the old HTML days, where you have a picture of a dingo, and when you hover over the image, it says, "dingo." Lawtype!snype?04:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we're at different points in our cycles, because my patience with the shitty way this place is run is just about exhausted. --MalleusFatuorum19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm startign to get fired up again because the stalkers and harassers and their admin assistants are continuing to go after me today. They didn't like that they were wrong on the policies that applied, so now they're trying to change them. When will it end? Anyway, have a great weekend. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
!votes
Thank you for your involvement in the RFA process. I may not always agree with your point of view, but I respect your opinion. As you well know, any closing 'crat can choose what weight to assign to each !vote. Best regards. Plastikspork (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus. You kindly gave your 2 pence on an under-review article recently. I was hoping I could impose on you again. I came across a rather sorry looking article not long ago: "Louisdale, Nova Scotia".
After some research I tried whipping it into shape, and somebody suggested taking the result to GAN. It's a small place so little information was available, which often meant approaching it in context of the municipal region it's in, perhaps even including facts that otherwise may've been discarded. Do you think the article is GA material? –Whitehorse123:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's got the makings of a GA, but it still needs a bit of work. It's pretty short for one thing, so the very short sections don't work; if they can't be expanded then I'd suggest that they need to be merged in some sensible way. The Location section is rather puzzling, and surely it's possible to say more about the schools? Isn't there some kind of school inspection service in Canada that publishes reports on schools? In short, I think what's there is good, but needs to be reorganised a bit, but I'd be hesitant about going to GAN without beefing the article up a bit, as I don't think it would make it as it stands. I could be wrong though. --MalleusFatuorum23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to ask User:Steve Smith (aka Sarcasticidealist) to take a look at this one. He's shepherded a lot of Canadian articles through assorted Wikipedia processes (all on Alberta, but presumably the issues are much the same), so probably knows what the people with an interest in these articles will be looking for. – iridescent00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
By coincidence, I was just looking out the window and saw the Sarc-symbol shining against the clouds. I'll have a look at the article tonight or tomorrow. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hugely helpful Malleus, thank you. There probably isn't much available for expansion, so your merging suggestion makes sense. The lack of material contributed to the, uhm, beetle find being included. Beyond that, a Lexis-Nexis search noted they've a fire hall & parish hall there, plus a camouflage wear clothing manufacturer, that the most common Acadian name there is Sampson, and that broadband arrived through a 2004 rural development program, which seemed minor trivia really. The Location section is something of a leftover from the original. The original had some of it, though inaccurate, and claimed the place had an official motto. The only verifiable part related to the motto was that the town welcome sign carried the slogan. Good call on the school inspection thing. I hadn't found much on the schools, but that's something specific I can look for. A big concern was whether people'd look, then wonder "why the frequent focus on the surrounding area?" –Whitehorse100:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
See Whitehorse? The trick is to ask your question in the right place. I know jack about Canada except that it's big and cold. :-) --MalleusFatuorum00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
did you notice?
Have you noticed my new signature? (to lower my profile)
I am thinking of doing a Signpost interview with Graham87, mostly because I am really curious about how he thinks. But I thought it would be a good opportunity to make some points about accessibility. Would you be interested in helping? If we agreed (you and me) that alt text should focus on the blind from birth or near birth, then we could, with Graham87's insights, come up with some alt text pointers. If you do not agree, we could focus on other aspects. He is a really interesting guy. He has been pushing accessibility issues all over Wikipedia. He is very sophisticated technically and also very articulate and expressive. What do you think? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed your new signature; is it the lower-case "M"?
Anyway, I think your idea of a Signpost interview with Graham—and perhaps the other blind editors he mentioned—is a sure-fire winner. I'll happily help where you think I can. --MalleusFatuorum01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. I ought also to have said that in my view captions ought to help those who have lost their sight, and alt text is for those who who have never seen. --MalleusFatuorum01:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
That is a good distinction. I think the other editors he mentioned are also blind from birth. One is a microbiologist, if I remember correctly, and very active professionally. None of them are very active on Wikipedia compared to Graham, but it is an interesting idea to think of asking them to join. (Actually, I think that Graham is more than one interview's worth anyway.) If we received the cooperation from others, we could focus on the issues of the alt text, perhaps, and try to elicit useful guidelines from them. (I guess the lower-case "M" wasn't much of a move toward lowering my profile. I wonder if I should change my name completely, like some others have. GraceNote ("formerly Mattisse") or Ann Jones ("formerly Mattisse") —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right that an interview with Graham alone would be a good starting point, and it would be be fascinating as well, perhaps even give us a glimpse into his world. On which note I'd probably suggest broadening the scope of the interview to cover the other accessibility issues that Graham's mentioned, like spaced lists and right-aligned TOCs. --MalleusFatuorum01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a Signpost dispatch over alt text (including an interview) would be a good one. We haven't had one in a while since Sandy stopped coordinating them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) On the renaming question, I've often thought that even I could rise to power in wikipedia by abandoning my username, one that every dickhead on wikipedia seems determined to drive away. I've considered ManchesterPansy, or YourVeryBestFriend amongst others, but in the end I just thought fuck it ... actually I realise that I'm beginning to sound like Liam Gallagher of Oasis ... --MalleusFatuorum02:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I went through a formal name change, in an attempt to become un-female, but I was immediately "outed" unintentionally by my best friend at the time Salix alba. So, all in all, I don't see the point of bothering. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I unwarely revealed my real name here, before I realised what a nest of vipers it was. For myself, I feel more comfortable knowing whether editors are male or female, but I also respect the privacy of those who choose not to say. --MalleusFatuorum02:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I do wonder in general if usernames significantly colour the way that other editors react. I know that there are some usernames I see—Chillum is one that immediately springs to mind—that just set my hackles on edge every time I see them. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Does my name colour me? I have looked and looked for the place where Graham87 mentioned the other blind users' names and can't find it. I am having a bad day and can't seem to focus on the usability issue. I think you are right though, and the alt text should be for the always blind. Things like colours are a problem, in that Graham said that the meaning of certain colours had been explained to him e.g. black sky meant it was going to rain hard. I noticed somewhere that an alt text described a "submarine in flat water" meaning calm water. But I guess, "flat" conveys the same thing. Lets start thinking about this as I feel I need motivation right now. (Maybe it's because of my name.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Graham mentioned them here, on your talk page mattise. ;-) I think your username is quite neutral, certainly doesn't have any connotations for me anyway. --MalleusFatuorum23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. A describing an image as containing a "submarine" seem no better than saying it contains an "elephant" to me. What is a reader who has never seen either to make of that? --MalleusFatuorum23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the one place I never look. Thanks. Re: colours. When I was in grad school I was taught never to use colours in describing appearances because they may connote certain judgements to people. To remember a specific example, do not describe a woman as wearing a red dress. Do you think this way of thinking applies to alt text? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Mattisse)
(ec) No I don't, and neither do I agree with advice you were given. I guess what lay behind it was that in certain cultures, for instance, black is the colour of mourning, whereas in others it's white. My basic position is that I think the whole alt text thing has been ill-considered and rushed, and that FAC was hi-jacked by a single-purpose pressure group that has no clear idea of what it's trying to do. --MalleusFatuorum00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Re submarine. I don't know how far one has to go in describing things. Presumably blind people have some idea what certain common words mean. I asked Graham if he had ever touched an elephant and he said, once when he was eight in a petting zoo. To me, I remember the smells, sounds, and feeling of "presence" in being near an elephant. But I guess having seen an elephant trumps all. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The "elephant problem" has been widely discussed. If I wasnt feeling so lazy right now I'd try and look out references to the cases I've read of where people have had their sight restored later in life, and found the experience so alien because nothing looked the way they imagined it did, and wished to be blind again. --MalleusFatuorum00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have heard that also. That the visual vocabulary we build up over time isn't available to someone who suddenly gains vision for the first time at age 35. That is what I mean when I say Graham87 uses his brain differently. It seems to me we have to somehow take this into account in thinking about alt text. This is why the "white man's reasoning" ala the current alt text rules may not apply in many instances. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is something for you
Malleus, you know how you like to say that there is a double standard, and how certain people get blocked and others don't. Well, there seems to be a bloodbath against a few candidates at the OS/CU elections. Check out this little bit of sheer delightfulness - bad faith, accusations of lying, insinuations of other problems, etc. Apparently, what sparked the vitriol was edits from May 2007 (this is apparently the "clean up" of the copyrighted material, the pages no longer exist so they can't be compared). Lots of admin and yet no one seems to care. Read it through really carefully, you will see a lot of personal attacks in it. And the wonderful thing? That isn't the only attack. There are some really nasty things said there and about those up for election. It seems that the civility police are so busy harassing people working on content pages that they are unwilling to defend quite a few people that actually do quite a bit of good with their tools. But yeah, my point is the backwardness that even such a well known individual can be hit rather hard and below the belt and nothing (the individual isn't an admin). Perhaps it is because the topic is political and no one wants to be seen as favoring another? That would probably be even worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that my time here is almost up; the corruption is intolerable. If I'm allowed enough time before the civility police beat my door down again I have one article that I'd at least like to try and do credit to, but after that I'm gone. Let the administrators guard the rest of wikipedia's crap. --MalleusFatuorum02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but don't you see - the administrators -aren't- guarding the Wiki, as this is a very big case. It seems we are falling prey to anarchy, and a very petty kind at that. I just find it all rather sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, the administrators couldn't guard a piss pot, firstly because they wouldn't recognise one, and even if they did they'd need a consenus on how best to guard it. Nothing's changing except for the worse, so I'm really not prepared to waste much more of my time here. And I really do think that I've been wasting my time here. --MalleusFatuorum03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You and I both struggle with feelings that our work here is a foray into futility... but... maybe not? ... I'd like to see your reply to my comments on G-Guy's talk. Thanks. <insert smiley face icon> Ling.Nut (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen you be threatened by anyone or anything seriously lately, so was there some incident in particular that I missed? And I will be working on Ainsworth next week (the ones I have prep for, then working on the next set after that is done). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
re "threatened", are you talking to me, or Malleus? Besides, threats are not at all the only conditions that engender feelings of futility. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to Malleus. And Malleus knows not to admit that he feels futile or without hope without any blatant situation. There are too many people that would taunt and tease him for being wimpy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite a series of very negative experiences I don't entirely agree with your assessment. I see signs that the calls for accountability are in fact being heeded. A push for article content work at AfDs and the No Drama Dayz festival seem positive. There have been some recent desysops, and in fact although abuse from admins is a problem they do a great deal of often thankless work as well. There has been discussion and pushes for reform. Jimbo was responsive to criticisms of his block. A movement towards getting more input and oversight into Arbcom is developing. Hopefully their decisions can be streamlines and the committee made more responsive.
I think the next major reform needs to be a mandatory requirement for warnings and discussion by admins before issuing blocks to content editors working in good faith on the encyclopedia. Those who violate this protocol will be required to get consensus for future blocks of content contributors of be desysoped. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but I've seen some good efforts and reforms. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty is defining "content contributors", because POV-pushers and spammers would argue that they are content contributors. I prefer MF's proposal to scrap WP:CIV but enforce WP:NPA. -Philcha (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Would the phrasing "Editors working in good faith" be better? The pov pusher issue gets cloudy. There are those pushing notable minority viewpoints. And there are those pushing to exclude notable minority viewpoints. I see problems with both. I think that's an issue that has to get worked out according to exisiting policies and guidelines. People have different viewpoints and that's what collaborating is all about. If an editor has a pattern of abusive or misleading edits that don't reflect sources, that would be something that required sanction or arbitration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I'm sad to see that you have become increasingly frustrated. I (and many other editors) know that you provide valuable contributions. I think that minority viewpoints are important because they help to maintain a neutral viewpoint and a sensible consensus. Axl¤[Talk]12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I'm rather discouraged by the ongoing hostility and vindictiveness I feel towards me, my opinions, and any suggestions I may make, which are automatically ignored because they're mine. My intention now is simply to finish those few things I've started and then sit back and watch all of the articles I've worked on decay because very few really give a fuck about wikipedia's content. "Civility" in the rather idiosyncratic way it's defined here is all that matters. I just don't fit in, so I'll find somewhere else where I do. --MalleusFatuorum19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't have another place to go.
ec: that wasn't me :-) Malleus, you have one of the most active talk pages on Wikipedia despite the fact that you have no administrative role for editors to comment on here (cf. e.g. FAC directors, whose talk pages are bound to be active). Why is that? I submit it is because multiple editors (including myself) value your opinion, for multiple reasons. You say it how you see it, you think outside the box, you are not constrained by allegiance to any particular cause, and you believe in the ideal of Wikipedia even if the reality pisses you off for failing to live up to that ideal (it does for me too). I'm surprised you perceive ongoing hostility and vindictiveness. Instead you are rather a cause celebre. Such a position of course generates jealousy and that is likely a major reason for some editors to be hostile. Another reason may be that some of Wikipedia's conduct guidelines are somewhat simplistic, being crafted to help its youngest contributors play nice. You and I are bound not to fit in entirely in such a context.
Hmmm, a "navel-gazing fuckwit" eh? You've probably got a point though; I'm still not quite over a bout of flu, so perhaps it's just some kind of post-viral depression I'm suffering from, time will tell. As for your "thinking outside the box" comment, the truth is that I don't even know where the box is. Thanks for sharing your opinion anyway. --MalleusFatuorum20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to know the origin of that quote, as it has informed my life greatly - can someone pin it down? As for the box, the easiest way to think outside it is surely to be unaware what it is! Geometry guy21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. Malleus, sorry to hear you've been unwell, and I wish you a speedy return to form.
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." - Elie Wiesel, U.S. News and World Report, 27 October 1986. You're welcome. – iridescent21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys! So how many user talk pages are there where you can post an unrelated question and get an answer within 5 minutes? Not many, methinks. Geometry guy21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Very good! And how many times will I misspell "navel" before the difference gets drummed into my tiny head. Many methinks. :-) Geometry guy21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to chime in that your opinion is indeed appreciated. Your encouragement and support for other editors is also very helpful. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I only encourage the sensible adults CoM; I haven't got a good word to say about the too many pubescent/pre-pubescent administrators. --MalleusFatuorum23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember changing it all Sandy. Maybe the template changed at about the same time as my edit elsewhere in the article? --MalleusFatuorum00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think so, I've not reverted it and it's still lower case in raw code. There have been a lot of changes to the template recently and I don't remember it doing that before. Thanks for finding that Majorly, I had no idea. Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it have to be someone from here in the UK? TV often hosts live interviews with interviewees in different countries. Why do they want someone from wikipedia other than Jimbo anyway? --MalleusFatuorum18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the BBC would be too interested in Jimbo's rose-tinted views alone, and someone who recites the party line wouldn't be interesting. By including someone from the UK, it would show that Wikipedia isn't an exclusively American endeavour, and I think a British audience would be more interested in a British person's perspective. Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It would mean I'd have to shave though, and admit to my real-life identity. :-( I'm sure someone more suitable could be found pretty easily. Besides, never having been an administrator there are swathes of wikipedia I've just never seen and have no experience of ... I'm not sure it's for me. Heck, I'm not even sure wikipedia's for me. --MalleusFatuorum18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Do yourself a favour - ask what format they'll be shooting on - Digi, XDCAM, DVCAM (on a DSR), or HDCAM. If they reply "DVCAM on a Sony Z1", run a mile, because it'll be cheap shit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the BBC themselves (not an indie company) and they've got Jimmy Wales, Larry Page, Tim Berners-Lee, Shawn Fanning et al on board, so it'll be a bona fide production. – iridescent19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Abusive sockpuppetry? (Which does remind me, there's one person who'd make a very interesting interview subject if he/she/they agreed. Which is not very likely.) – iridescent20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"It would be good to have some online sources, simply to be able to verify some things"
"In articles on works of literature, the information on themes and meanings needs to be so well sources."
"If you take the "poem" section for example, it is full of stuff on themes etc., but it contains only one inline citation."
"5 seems a bit few for a decent chunk of writing."
I use the top sources on the Four Quartets in Eliot criticism. That "one source" in the poems section is 3 page summary in one of the most important Eliot biographies. It is descriptive and doesn't even need a summary. The rest is equally bs. I can't believe people like that are allowed to even be on Wikipedia. He accuses me of original research, I will wait for his response before posting on ANI demanding for a topic ban. I will not take these accusations lately and this person clearly doesn't understand any of our policies let alone how processes work. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The 'online' complaint is very common and particularly annoying. Having to explain the worth of dead trees over and over. Ug. Also this notion the there should be a ratio of cites to para's, or even text, is well....dunno what to say. Just be calm and roll out what I presume are by now stock defences. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ceoil. It's getting to the point where one almost feels embarrassed at providing book references instead of "proper" urls that any Tom, Dick, or Harriet can check, and then claim that they're insufficiently reliable sources. I too have noticed this increasing trend to demand citations on a ratio to text basis, which is just plain dumb. But then there's no policy against dumbness on wikipedia, sadly. --MalleusFatuorum13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at the review, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, piss poor. I haven't looked at the article, but in your position I'd take it straight to GAR for a wider input. --MalleusFatuorum14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read through the article now and it seems to me that the quickfail decision was ridiculous, so I've opened a community resaaessment here. --MalleusFatuorum14:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
there's no policy against dumbness on wikipedia, sadly. In fact, many interpret policy so strictly, as if it was scripture, that actually dumbness is encouraged. I find myseld arguing against trivia and against infoboxes, and while I always present my case on the merits of inclusion in a particular page, I'm generally met with policy misinterepration wonk. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind people hating offline sources. Sure, have that view. But then using that view to justify claiming I broke a policy that deals with encyclopedic and academic standards? Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just a matter of being patient now Ottava. It usually takes an hour or so before a bot adds the reassessment to the main list and others are likely to notice it. I've also (successfully) appealed against a fail at GAN, for Manchester Mark I, so I'll say that the most important thing is not to make the process acrimonious by focusing on the reviewer. Focus instead on the article, emphasise where necessary that it meets the GA criteria, address any reasonable issues that crop up, and I've every confidence you'll end up with the right result. --MalleusFatuorum14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm always willing to accommodate reviewers if they ask for more information in one area or another. It is hard to tell what people want more of, especially when I write conservatively from sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It's human nature Ottava, no reviewer wants to appear a push-over by passing an article without comment. I'm coming around to the idea of deliberately leaving a small and easily spotted error or inconsistency (much like Islamic artists and craftmen are alleged to do), so as to make the rewiever's job easier. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum15:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if something is technically all correct, I can only assume that a reviewer would want a little more in one section or a little more in another. I normally submit GAs about 70-80% through. Rarely do I exhaust my resources on the matter. However, something like an FA I go through everything I can get a hold of. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW - I posted some of the ISBNs on the talk page if that will help. Formating them can be found at WP:ISBN. Good luck. (Looks like some fine writing to me Ottava). — Ched : ? 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
k-thanks for your help Ched ... hey no problem, I like to help out if I can .... well, it's appreciated ... don't worry about it... Don't mind me folks .... I always talk to myself. ;) — Ched : ? 15:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been closing most of them these days, and am therefore fairly conservative about it: I am happy for other uninvolved editors to interpret the consensus sooner. Community GARs are generally open for at least a week, and two weeks is common. Concerning Burnt Norton, though, if no one else comments, or all comments contribute further to the consensus, I would close as list sometime this weekend or early next week, especially if one or two regulars (who comment on many GARs) are supportive. Some minor contended points could add a few days delay, just to make sure that everyone who has a view has had the opportunity to express it. Substantial and reasonable new objections could result in a GAR lasting 2-3 weeks, but that doesn't look likely at present. In my view, community endorsement at GAR should be provided with care, since it often means that the article's GA status is unlikely to be challenged in the near future. Geometry guy21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rizal
Thanks for the critique.I've been making edits on and off, and every time I check, there will be someone else making his contribution. It's hard to keep up. I'll do my best to help. Your detailed assessment will be very helpful. KaElin
"lest the ferrets escape." Oh gesh. The use of "lest" makes me feel that this could be a copyright violation or a joke article. No one uses that term. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It certainly exists (or existed), as anyone who's visited a village fete in the North of England or ever watched That's Life! can testify. (I'd thoroughly recommend reruns of TL!, for the amazing "ten million people used to watch this?" awfulness of it.) – iridescent20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Proving once again, as in the Aitias case, that all you have to do when the pressure starts to mount is to "resign" your bits, keep your head down for a while, and then just ask for them back when it's all blown over. --MalleusFatuorum22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to return to the way things are supposed to be run according to how everything was founded - only uncontroversial cases without anything happening in terms of violations are allowed to be resysopped/recrat without a problem. It is a disgrace that people are trying to sweep this through and pretend that he was innocent. These positions are about trust, and if trust means massive edit warring while in a position of power, then I wonder who rewrote the dictionary. 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
From the looks of things - trust is a word that means "I am friends with them and they are politically useful for me to have around", as now people are trying to quietly sweep it all under the rug. I think this will call for a policy proposal to put forth that any admin caught breaking any policy is under a cloud regardless if they are directly punished or not for that breaking of rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(<-)I don't think anyone is claiming TRM is pure as the driven snow here, but that the circumstances around the relinquishment did not reach the level of the PhilWelch case. -- Avi (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava's point, which I am somewhat sympathetic to, is that TRM avoided sanction by voluntarily resigning, and now, having been successful in that ruse, is free to carry on as before. --MalleusFatuorum03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
According to the arbitrators, it appears that the sanctions could not be assumed to have extended so far as to desysopping, so the resysopping was the proper technical response. Although goodness knows more clarity would be helpful, and there is nothing stopping someone from reopening an RfAR. -- Avi (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There are "technical responses", and there are "morally correct" responses. The perception is growing that all administrators/bureaucrats have to do to avoid sanctions is to voluntarily resign before all of the shit hits the fan, lie low for a while, and then "unresign". That's not a healthy state of affairs. --MalleusFatuorum04:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentences. With the first; it gets a bit more complicated. As I said elsewhere, Jayjg was accused of worse and yet kept his bit; also, the policy allows arbcom to sanction admins without resorting to indefinite desysopping, so is there a moral case here that TRM was going to lose the bit? I don't know; I admit I don't know; I'm not certain anyone other than the arbs on that case even COULD know, so the status quo would be that his bits were not removed under controversy. It's not pretty; I agree, and I understand Ottava's and your responses. Sometimes, there is no good answer, even if there is a correct one. -- Avi (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I believe that the sanctions could have come from more than just ArbCom - he rightfully deserved to be blocked. From the level of edit warring, nothing short of a week would be just to prevent future disruption. The shrugging of shoulders, ignoring of blatant disruption, and the rest is reprehensible. I supported the dates being delinked. I believe that those like Tony got the worse of it. However, this individual gets off without having even the least bit happen to him when he did some of the worse stuff around. And he gets to be placed back in a position given only to those that are trusted the most? That is downright offensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for the nice cleanup work and improvements you made during your GA Sweeep of Judith Quiney. Since it was my first GA I am particularly fond of that article, and am always happy to see it receive some TLC. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --Xover (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it's a nice little article. GA Sweeps for me are just as much an opportunity to do a bit of tidying up as they are to assess whether articles still meet the GA criteria. If Judith was your first review then I think you can feel pretty pleased with yourself, as it did still meet the criteria in my opinion, even two years later. --MalleusFatuorum13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
A courtesy call
Hi Malleus. I noticed the declaration at the top of your talkpage. I can certainly understand the feelings you express. I too have deep reservations about the whole project and its governance. I will not say "please don't leave", because I might easily find myself with the same feelings myself. Whatever you do next, you have been a hero of the project. You should be an admin (as if that really mattered – but you know what I mean). The mechanics of elevation to adminship are ever more skewed and arduous, along with so many other unnavigable processes at this sprawling MetroBabylon of a site.
If you do finally decide to leave, drop me an email first, will you? Or now if you like! I'd not want to lose touch with a person of your skill, insight, and integrity.
Thanks for your kind words Noetica. I'm still just about hanging in here, at least until the next time I get completely pissed off, say something that some child administrator thinks is uncivil, and decides to punish me with another block. --MalleusFatuorum13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah, if you get pissed off send me a message. I don't have your skills with article text, but I can brush nuisances off without coming close to violating WP:CIV. WP needs your sense of humour as well as your content skills. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Me and my big mouth, eh? I'd recommend to all of the kiddies who scream so loudly about "civility" that they read that book, missing out any of the difficult polysyllabic words if necessary, and reflect on its message. The way to deal with "incivility" isn't to go crying to mommy/daddy/teacher. --MalleusFatuorum04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The internet brings out the best and the worst in everyone, if for no other reason than that we don't have to look anyone in the eye. --Andy Walsh(talk)04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I could submit a shortlist. My wiki-stalking skills aren't up to par with say... <name redacted>. I mostly just drink Newcastle and edit. --Andy Walsh(talk)04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for randomness) An old friend and I wrote a ton of code at another online venue over the years. We had a lot of ferocious public arguments that got really personal. We also made fun of our propensity to argue with each other by indulging in savage mock fights at times. No one could distinguish between the two. The busybodies here would have us both blocked over it; in reality, we probably should've just given in and gotten married :) Maralia (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a curious thing, but one of my oldest friends I met when he became a neighbour. For whatever reason we took an instant dislike to each other, but because we were neighbours in the same block of flats and couldn't easily avoid each other we worked through it, and became the best of mates. My wife and I argue constantly as well ... I'm beginning to see a pattern here. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... I'd have to check, but I don't think I ever voted in any of yours. But now that I know how much you care, I guess I'll have to support if you do run again. ;-) — Ched : ? 13:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd post it here instead of the article's talk page, but the filming I did of Winnie Johnson and Kilbride's father was for this programme in 2006, for Yorkshire Television (I did sound on this one). The sight of Winnie in her home, crying her eyes out and just wanting her son back, was something that I will never forget. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, I was moved to tears myself when I first read Winnie's letter to Myra Hindley, that she said had taken her five weeks to write, begging for Hindley's help to find her son's body. And of course the determination of her family not to give up the search all this time later. I feel a bit with this article like I did with the Peterloo Massacre; it's about showing proper respect for the victims. I'm hoping that the structure's getting there now, and with the citations tightened up it'll be ready for GAN soon. Thanks for the help you've offered so far, I really do appreciate it. --MalleusFatuorum20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
My motives are not philanthropic in nature - I fully intend to demand that you run your fingers over Grub Street at some point :) Seriously though the Moors murders is an extremely important article, and I'm happy to put other things aside to get it up to scratch, and for me that means FAC. I will make it a priority to get an image of the infamous house now demolished, as I travel down the M67 a few times a year. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thinking so far ahead as FAC just yet, and as Majorly pointed out elsewhere Ian Brady needs to be brought up to spec as well once this one's done, as his death is obviously going to widely reported and probably spark a whole new interest in these murders.
I'll be happy to return the favour with Grub Street once this is done, and then perhaps I can settle down with something nice and uncontroversial, as I often promise myself, like gong farmer. I fancy a 19th-century spiritualism article as well, haven't decided which one yet ... perhaps the later 17th-century Lancashire witch trials ... so much to do. --MalleusFatuorum21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, is it just me or are many FAC reviewers these days more interested in technical details than they are prose or content? DSotM is being pecked at by criticisms regarding images, alt text, tables, etc, with contradictory advice compared to other FACs I've nominated. There have been some valuable contributions about the use of quotations that I've garnered, but compared to the MB&B Canal or Radcliffe hardly anyone is commenting on the content. Either that's a good thing, and reflects an improvement in ability (I think I'm a better writer than I once was), or people aren't reading it - which is disappointing, as I feel that engaging the reader is more important than having a neat row of sharpened pencils. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not just you, I've noticed the same thing, reveiwers jumping on details that really aren't that important in the scheme of things. I was really disappointed with this recent FAC, for instance, which failed because of an argument about what the article ought to be called. Having said that I've just jumped into the lion's den myself with Samlesbury witches. --MalleusFatuorum21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
One thing you might want to change is the source for the 'wonderfull discoverie' image, since it no longer comes from the scan, but an Amazon book preview snapshot. I'll try and remember where I took it from. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I can always revert to the earlier version if you can't find it. If that's the only objection raised I'll be feeling pretty relieved. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Peter, but very little seems to "walk through" at FAC, or even GAN these days. I've already had to write a new article to satisfy one comment. :-) I didn't really mind that though, because I think it tightened things up—I'd just been too lazy to do it until pushed. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work on the article, and thank you for correcting my mistakes! :) Let me know if you want to nominate it for DYK. Theleftorium15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You've been doing a pretty good job yourself, so you can take a bow as well. I think we've done enough to save the article from the "hoax" crowd anyway, and avoid a fourth AfD. I hadn't given any thought to DYK, but if you want to nominate it then please go ahead. --MalleusFatuorum16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly make a more interesting hook than you'd usually find at DYK. Using Dr Pda's text reader, it's currently a 4.3 expansion (from 1173) and would need at least another 400 characters. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Easy. It's now at 5,906 readable characters, about 5.03. There's a surprising amount to say about this alleged hoax, which obviously isn't a hoax at all. I wish I'd looked at it earlier. --MalleusFatuorum17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) "... to take part in the sport of ferret legging, competitors must not be drunk or drugged before stuffing ferrets down their trousers?" Something like that has the "wait, what?" factor that would get readers to look at the article, although I came up with that pretty quickly and I'm sure there's better :-) Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's just a reprint of the Katz article, nothing new in there. I'd like to get hold of a copy of the Alternative Records book though, might some additional stuff in there. --MalleusFatuorum19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think maybe the bit about "Yorkshire and Scotland both claim the sport came from their parts" is worth a mention. The claim about ferret legging being illegal is not strictly true though as there's no law against ferret legging. Any prosecutions would have to be under the Animal Welfare Act, and would have to demonstrate that the ferrets suffered in some way. Which, as they love getting into tight dark spaces might be hard to prove. :-) --Malleus
On a related note, one thing that strikes me about Mellor's record of almost five and a half hours is that ferrets, being in many ways rather primitive mammals, have a very short mouth-to-floor (gut transit) time of something like three hours. So during a six-hour ferret legging session you could expect each ferret to wee and poo in your pants at least once. This sport sounds less and less enticing. --MalleusFatuorum23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Domineering? While watching a DVD (Echoes or something) about Pink Floyd I was very disappointed by the interview with Waters. He seemed like a bit of an arrogant jerk. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That'll do. I've started doing WYWH in my sandbox, and struggled over the correct word to use. I can forgive Waters a lot of things, because generally his lyrics are superb (I even like The Final Cut). Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I like Radio KAOS, although I think it was poorly produced...it sounds so...digital. The basic idea is good though. Amused to Death is miles better, superb production, dogs barking through the window, fantastic lyrics, and a nice story about a man in the trenches trying to drag another man away. I like them both. I don't care for Hitchhiking though. Roger Waters is a superb writer, but I do think hes best when he isn't bossing other musicians around (Meddle and DSotM for instance) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added some more text to the article. Can you check it out (and feel free to remove parts you think are unnecessary)? Also, do you think this should be incorporated into the article somehow (the government part)? Cheers, Theleftorium19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Stalybridge Band
Hi Malleus. Just wondering why you removed the reference to the band fleeing the Peterloo Massacre on the Stalybridge page. Thought it was a nice bit of colour myself. Can't get out of my head the image of a guy lugging a tuba being run down by a dragoon! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Put it back in if you like, I'm easy. I took it out because it appears that although the band was booked to play that day, they never actually got out of the pub before the yeomanry charged. --MalleusFatuorum17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you happen to know what the Wikipedia standard is on British system logical punctuation compared to American conventional punctuation? I saw your minor edits to Anole (comics) and figured you might know.Luminum (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should clue these individuals in on the fact that a lot of those early pages added were stubs and were mass added. Right now, a lot of people are busy trying to write complete pages. The Wiki does not grow by new pages, but the overall growth expansion. Even if we had stubs for every single topic, there will always be new expansions of those articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this increasing concern that the number of new articles being added has fallen over the last year or so, but I don't share it because, as you say, most new articles are rubbish. (Well, you didn't exactly that, I put words in you mouth.) Improving what's already here is far harder work, and much less appreciated. I've been made to feel that I'm in some way a second-class editor because I've only created 20 or so articles, for instance. --MalleusFatuorum20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
So you don't feel bad - most new articles -are- rubbish. :) Anyway, I create new articles simply because my field has some attention but it is all cluttered in one area with over protective fan-boys. It is easier, for instance, to work on all of the Blake poems that are redlinked than to try and change the Blake biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
While I've got your attention Ottava, I've been pondering a comment that's come up at the Samlesbury witches FAC, which is that the section on Potts' Wonderfull of Witches is almost exactly the same in that article and in Pendle witch trials. I'm wondering if the material could be spun out into a stand-alone article just about the book, which both existing articles could briefly summarise and refer to that main article. What do you think? --MalleusFatuorum20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It could work. Later tonight after I finish writing up an analysis of major critics studying the Romantics (a commission for some students), I plan on working on Ainsworth some and continuing the articles. I should be able to finish the 9 part set over the weekend and we can go over those and then go over the rest of them, including the one that would definitely be on the above topic. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I plan on reviewing Samlesbury witches but at the rate I am going, I don't think I will be able to get through the source checks until next Tuesday. I've been alternating with some small GAN to give my mind a chance to relax - many of these FACs are insanely technical and their sources are even more so or hard to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I left you a partial review. Make what you will of it. I can't read more than 15k or so at a time right now or my brain will melt. So far, I think I've reviewed about 25 pages in the past 36 hours, so, if I miss something then it could be from the intellectual blurring of items together. I wont be arguing over the grammar concerns so you can take or leave them (I wont be arguing over any concerns at FAC right now, to be honest, as it would allow me to review everything without getting bogged down). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confident that this is the best online article on the subject, perhaps even the best article to be found on the subject anywhere, so bring it on. --MalleusFatuorum02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look, and I noticed a few "(in current dollars}" conversions. That really needs to be "(as of {{CURRENTYEAR}})". I'll take a closer look once I've dealt with all the points Ottava's raised here. --MalleusFatuorum19:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is being reassessed to see if it still meets the GA criteria, along with every other GA listed before 26 August 2007. You can find further details here. I've posted the reassessment on the article's talk page, and the article is now on hold for a week. --MalleusFatuorum14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your promise to remove it after 1 week is very disheartening. Talk about a de-motivator! Is there not another way to approach the issue? REmember, we're all in it to improve wikipedia. It's not a test. I have spent a lot of time improving this article, and there is no way I am going to have the time to review it within the week you demand. Further, I don't know that I even agree with your assessment - while you have highlighted some points I do agree with, it seems that it only really applies to 1 of the GA criteria. THe level at which you have assessed the criteria is akin to FA quality. regards --Merbabu (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't promised anything. If the article is being actively worked on then I'm quite happy to extend the deadline. The article's problems are two-fold though; lack of citations and poor prose. That's criteria 1 and 2. Articles that do not meet the GA criteria cannot be listed as GAs, and in my view this article does nor presently meet the criteria. Some of those requests for citation have been in the article for over 18 months; that's not acceptable in a GA. --MalleusFatuorum14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't mean to prick your balloon, but there is absolutely no way that Suharto is even close to FA standard. Try it at FAC and see for yourself if you don't believe me. --MalleusFatuorum15:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry to prick your balloon but what makes you think I believe it's FA standard, or that I wouldn't believe your response? --Merbabu (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you feel that this discussion has been productive? I don't. Let me know when you've finished with Suharto and I'll look at it again. Alternatively we could simply take it straight to a community reassessment for more opinions if you feel that it already meets the GA criteria. --MalleusFatuorum15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
A certain spat
It might be a good idea to stay away. Someone I thought better of might be baiting, and may not care who takes the hook. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's becoming clear that no good will come of the discussion surrounding MBI's GAN and the next steps in that article's development, so I tend to agree that staying away is the best thing to do now. --MalleusFatuorum18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a rather amazing statement. Malleus, I hate to fork discussions, but re, "Frankly I think that your and Moni's behaviour has been at least bad as Mattisse's", please do let me know what you think I might do differently, since nothing seems to be working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find "MATTISSE'S ARBCOM MENTORS ARE INCOMPETENT" to be a particularly helpful approach to resolving anything, and I've found much of Moni's tone on the MBI talk page to be little more than a childish tantrum, which you apparently approve of. --MalleusFatuorum18:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've not said I approve of it; I've encouraged her not to go there. But I do see that nothing else was working, which is a shame for all involved. Thanks for clearing that up, Malleus. Also, I've not read the MBI talk page, as I know that I must stay away from Mattisse's GA affairs, after she has misinterpreted everything I've typed on past GA reviews. Perhaps you have some influence over some of the other mentors? The best resolution of the current spat would be for them to realize that Mattisse is not being served, and to do something about that. Certainly, Philcha's post above is quite a concern. When her own mentors are breaching WP:AGF, what chance does she have of learning appropriate behavior on Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no influence over anyone Sandy, not even Mattisse. I have done all I can with this present spat, which as I said earlier, I don't think anyone really comes out of squeaky clean.--MalleusFatuorum18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know a lot about the GA process, but is there a recommendation anywhere that people consult with the primary editors of an article before nominating it? I ask because some random person just nominated an article I've been working on for a year but it's not ready. It might appear to meet the criteria from a layperson's perspective, but it is missing huge chunks of information and I would be embarrassed to see it scrutinized by a reviewer at this time. --Andy Walsh(talk)01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Andy, that happened to me three times, and I just removed the nominations. Most irritating it was; it was a person looking for rewards. But that was years ago ... not sure if things have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no recommendation that I know of, though I'd have thought it courteous to ask first. I'd remove it and leave them a polite message explaining why. Perhaps you could ask them to help improve it to GA standards? Majorlytalk01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember one time in which some random jerk nominated Sandy's article on Samuel Johnson. Who the hell did he think he was! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... that is NOT my article ! But someone put TS through before it was ready, and then tried to FAC it, and then submitted all the daughter articles to GAN. They all looked great, but only I knew they weren't ready, so I just pulled 'em! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Another threadjack but this shares the same title as the one I was going to create. Is this a suitable review? If that were me reviewing, I'd explain in detail my thoughts and I certainly wouldn't pass with any cite requests outstanding. I see the GAN process as a helpful step to FAC, but this review doesn't give me much to go on. I was hoping for better tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I also think Talk:Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/GA1 is an inadequate review. Like Parrot of Doom, I would not pass an article with a "citation needed" tag. I found most of the prose acceptable but a few sentences had some grating phrases - most of which could have been fixed in seconds. Did the reviewer make any attempt to check that any of the citations supported the points that ref'd to them? --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if he did or not, although I've completely re-written the article in the last week and I know for certain that every sentence is supported - the cite reqs are where they are not, and there's a hell of a lot of material I removed that I couldn't cite. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with Philcha that the review was "inadequate". The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether or not an article meets the GA criteria, and to point out areas where it does not, so that they can be addressed. It's not intended to be a peer review, just a confirmation of meeting the criteria. For some reviewers GAN has become almost a one man FA-lite, and I think that's a mistake; GAzs are not FAs. I tend as is usual to fall somewhere between the two extremes of "does it meet the criteria, yes or no?" and FA-lite, and so I wouldn't, for instance have passed the article with an outstanding request for citation tag. I can't criticise the reviewer for doing "exactly what it [GAN] says on the tin though". --MalleusFatuorum13:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I tend to put up criticism as if it is an FAC but not to require all of the changes to be made. That way, individuals can work on what they are comfortable with at the time and also know the things they may have missed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a matter of balance, as with everything else. GAN is supposed to be a lightweight process, but increasingly it's becoming almost as tough as FAC, which isn't a move in the right direction. --MalleusFatuorum14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
... compounded that our ideas of what's "perfect" may not be the same anyway. Too many reviewers, in my opinion, forget that they're reviewing the article to see whether or not it meets the relevant criteria, not whether they'd have written it differently, or want the title changed as in recent outbreak of stupidity. --MalleusFatuorum15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I can only really go on what I've experienced, both with the articles that I've reviewed, and the articles I've nominated for review. It just seemed odd to mention albeit, minor, problems with the prose, and citation requests, and still pass it without further comment. Oh well. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The GA criteria make it quite plain that the word "good" means "decent" or "satisfactory" in the context of GA. The question is, what is satisfactory? My answer would be that the article is readable, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and free. I would like to encourage the process to move towards a more consistent standard, through a common understanding of what these six things mean in practice, but definitely not a higher standard. For instance a "citation needed" tag is not necessarily a GA issue if a citation is not actually needed to meet the criteria: the issue is whether the information is sourced and the reader can check it. I could add a cn tag to every sentence of an article if I was feeling like ignoring WP:POINT for a day (that would be fun!): that doesn't mean that I would make a valid challenge per WP:V. In contrast, one of the main weaknesses in GA reviews that I have seen at GAR is a failure to check that the sources are reliable, that the material in the article reflects what is in the sources, and that sources have not been plagiarized. To me this is fundamental and basic to what is satisfactory. Even the redundant prose issues which I'm partial to complain about are trivial in comparison. Geometry guy21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. While I did not check the sources for "Wish you were here", they give the impression of being high quality, and the entire article shines with similar workmanship. Hopefully I have not been misled by a crazy diamond and closer scrutiny would confirm this impression. Jclemens is not a pushover reviewer, so I imagine he did some checks before reaching this conclusion. Geometry guy21:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I broadly agree with that. I think any experienced reviewer develops a nose for when things don't seem quite right—perhaps the phrasing seems a little odd in places—and will choose to look deeper. "Wish you were here" though was clearly a nod through, as it's well on the way to FAC and the sourcing is excellent.
In the context of GA Sweeps, where this issue of requests for citation and dead links comes up all the time, my view is rather similar to yours G-guy. It depends on how important I perceive whatever it is that a citation is requested for to be to the overall article. So the odd one or two I'll let go, but if there are dozens of the buggers, as sometimes happens, and most of the links are dead, then obviously no, that's not a GA. As ever though, it's a matter of good judgement, not a numbers game. --MalleusFatuorum21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Many congratulations on FA status for Samlesbury witches IMO a masterly piece of work; I said it would walk it (sort of) - but you had to work hard. Also thanks for your support for the Douglas list, which also made it (thought you weren't into lists!). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Pleased to hear about the Douglas list getting through at last. I'm not much into lists normally, but that was just too good not to get through. --MalleusFatuorum14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I was made to work pretty hard for it Ceranthor, and I think the subject helped as well as the article not being too long. Thanks anyway. --MalleusFatuorum14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you get the chance can you have a skim of Postman's Park? I realise that it's an affront to the Sacred Name of the MOS, but I think the forced image widths, pseudogalleries, six-inch-long pull-quotes and multiply nested subsections are the only way to make sense of a topic that relies on the legibility of detailed text on images and lengthy quotations to provide context, and that features two initially totally separate but converging narratives. Writing coherent alt-text for this made my brain start drizzling out of my ears, too. What is it about Anglo-Saxons that they can never draw borders in neat straight lines? BTW, I know that the section on Closer veers dangerously close to the dreaded "in popular culture", but given that it's the reason 90% will ever have heard of the place I think it's justified in this case. – iridescent00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"... gravediggers throughout London were obliged to shred bodies in order to cram the remains into available grave space." Looks like my kind of article. :-) --MalleusFatuorum00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, most of our articles on the history of the postal service are sadly lacking the phrase "the heaps of rotting corpses caused great public concern". – iridescent00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really, but I can tell you from experience that:
"The street no longer exists" is incorrect - it may have had a name change but it's very much still there;
There's no need for the "may" in "An early use of the land surrounding Grub Street may have been Archery" - Finsbury Fields was and still is a military facility since at least the 15th century, and is currently the Royal Artillery's cricket pitch (see this image, and once you've seen it then tag it {{db-f9}} as it's a blatant copyright infringement);
Something you don't mention which at least warrants a side note is the significance of Bedlam, located nearby from 1675-1815, and the role it played both as a source for stories and ideas, and as an instrument of coercion against radical thinkers;
The general tone of the article gives the impression that the Grub Street press was far more important than it was; for all the period in question, London's publishing industry was centred on Fleet Street and Paternoster Row, while the Grub Street press was for the most part the 17th-century equivalent of today's bloggers and YouTube posters;
I'm extremely unconvinced by "in Elizabethan times archery became unfashionable, and Grub Street is described as largely deserted", unless you have an absolutely cast-iron source for it. This was a military base during a period of near-constant warfare, and would surely have been in constant use regardless of fashion. The area also borders on Goswell Road, which was (and is) part of the Great North Road (aka the A1), the main (in this period the only) road connecting London to Yorkshire and Edinburgh, so would have had constant traffic;
In the section beginning "The local population was known for its nonconformist views", you mention Foxe, who may have had a vague association with the area, and Milton, who lived nearby but wasn't really "nonconformist", except in the broadest sense (and in the context of a religious war, "nonconformist" doesn't really mean much) - however, you don't mention John Wesley and Charles Wesley, arguably the most important nonconformists of them all, who have cast-iron associations with the area (Wesley's Chapel, opposite Bunhill Fields, is still in use today);
The Star Chamber was a court to judge cases in which, despite the letter of statute law not being broken, it was felt that a breach of natural justice had occurred (notably conspiracy, libel and sedition). It was not "a court which controlled the press", other than in the sense that modern libel and copyright laws "control" the press. The growth of the anti-government press in the second half of the 17th century wasn't anything to do with a relaxation of censorship laws - the only change was from the common-law regime of the Star Chamber to the statute-law regime of Cromwell's Licensing Order of 1643 - but the inability/unwillingness of the government, distracted by the civil war, to enforce the laws;
A {{citation needed}} in bright flashing lights for "in a literary context, 'hack' is derived from Hackney—a person whose services may be for hire, especially a literary drudge", and I'd go as far as to say the OED is wrong if that's what they're saying - "hack" in this context (and in its other use as a synonym for "taxi") is patently derived from Hackney (horse), a horse bred for obedience and stamina;
Robert Walpole never used the title "Prime Minister"; his title was First Lord of the Treasury. The first British leader to use the title was Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 - the "Walpole was the Prime Minister" idea is a modern-day back-formation to make "most prominent minister in the cabinet" into a neat succession that will fit into lists and navboxes;
I'm less than convinced by "Christopher Smart's The Hilliad (a pun on Pope's Dunciad)". Surely it's a pun on The Iliad?
"[Grub Street] has since been replaced by the Barbican Centre" is incorrect, although it's an easy mistake to make. The Barbican Centre is further west; the southern end of Grub/Milton Street is the site of Brandon Mews, part of the Barbican Estate housing estate.
I did indeed ask :) The above just demonstrates my lack of knowledge when it comes to these things. Oh well, its a better article than it once was.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferret legging, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Check out the newest compromise on the whole speed rating thing. Maybe I've explained it better now... I think we're getting close to the end. If four different non-horsey editors can't find all the glitches, they won't ever be found. Ealdgyth - Talk16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you've probably had a mini-FAC already. I'll visit again shortly, to see if this "city boy" understands now wtf that fastest ... fastest stuff was all about. --MalleusFatuorum20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My ideal is the FAC that goes there and does nothing but gather supports and gets promoted within a week. I really don't like surprises at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, calling someone a bitch isn't necessarily a problem, and I can show you at least one example of an editor who would agree that she's a bitch. The problem is that in a statement like "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" the use of the word "bitch is almost incidental, and certainly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is the "Never come back you stinking nasty little ..." bit. It really wouldn't matter what word ended that sentence, it would still be unnacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 5:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Ed has also questioned the use of "said to be". My source says this - "This was Nicolas Giraud, supposedly the brother of Lusieri's 'wife'. He was about fifteen or sixteen and very comely. Since, according to Demetrius, Lusieri was not married to either of the women with whom he was living, we might conjecture that he was Lusieri's son. Whatever the relationship, it was close enough that it could account for the fact that Byron continued to cultivate Lusieri despite the fact that he secretly despised him." If you can think of a suitable way to present the "said to be", please suggest it. The "supposed" would have the same problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't an X has conjectured it, in this case. The critics either state that he was claimed as a brother in law without attributing a source or they state that he was without attributing a source and then point out holes. The problem with "Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusieri" is that people want to know who "said to be" the information. But none of the sources provide that information as you can see from the above quote. I can quote the other biographies but they mostly say the above and don't provide a source of information. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case I don't understand who the "we" is in "we might conjecture". Sounds like a royal we to me, and so attributable to whoever it was that said it. Perhaps soften it a little to something like "X has remarked on the possibility that ..."? --MalleusFatuorum
I assume that when she says "we", she means anyone looking at Giraud's life and trying to identify who he is. The "we" is a personalized and inclusive version of "one". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, to be clear - the quote above is the -source- for the statement in the Nicolo Giraud page that reads: "Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusieri...". I don't use "we" in the article. I need to figure out how to address the "said to be" in the article, because it is not critics who originated the claim and there is no direct source mentioned in any of the sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still not getting it Ottava. Whoever it was that wrote the words "we might conjecture that he was Lusieri's son" is the one to whom it can be attributed. How about simply making a direct quote in the article of "we might conjecture ..."? --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That was Grosskurth in the source for the lines. I would rather not put heavy direct quotes in the biography section because that section is supposed to be the critically -agreed- on aspects. I could easily throw in multiple references along with Grosskurth on that line, but hers was the cleanest source and you know how I hate ref clutter when the references are redundant. Anyway, the "son" part hasn't been questioned by anyone. It was use of "said to be" when referring to Giraud being said to be the brother in law. People question who "said" it. There is no one source of who said it - everyone has said it and yet no one attributes it to a source. I can't put "He is the brother in law" because the lines that follow offer a second possibility. I have to establish that there are only claims that he is a brother in law without any proof that he is a brother in law. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the line is the problem with the page - every thing discussed is pieced together by biographers and critics in order to create an individual who would be one of three possible people that would "prove" that Byron was gay, bisexual, straight, etc. Their sources are rumors, fourth hand accounts, stray comments in letters that are decoded and the rest. I don't think the issue can be fixed, and the only other concern I see is the use of the Grebanier - Hamiltonstone says he doesn't think it makes sense but it reads clear to me. I don't know. Perhaps I should just withdraw it in order to protect the structural integrity. No one seems like they are interested in the page regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a way to denote that there is no proof that he is a "brother in law". People obviously have a problem with the use of "said to be". The reference to memoirs was also challenged as being vague and needing a direct quote from the memoir, yet there is no memoir that I can find. I wonder if people realize that I spent three months at the LoC digging through every book connected to Byron that I could find for information on the matter and that this is just about everything that exists, primary or secondary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
People don't care what efforts you went through Ottava, and neither should they. It's just a bit of phrasing we're talking about anyway, nothing that can't be patched up pretty quickly into an acceptable form of words. --MalleusFatuorum21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, my point with looking into the matter is this - there is no answer to the question. There is no answer of who "said" that - there are only sources that said that he was said to be something. There is no proof, nor is there a source of proof. There is also no memoir so it would be impossible to quote. I spent a lot of time looking through all of the possible sources. They are exhausted. People want information that does not exist. Changing the phrase to mean anything besides "said to be" would be a breach of original research. The use of "supposed" by Grosskurth is the equivalent of "said to be" and would have the same questioning by people - "supposed by whom?" There is no answer. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't you just summarise the above discussion and put it in a note at the foot of the article? If anyone asks you to reference that note, just direct them to the list of sources used and tell them to get their reading specs on. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
.... Why the hell didn't I just do that to begin with and not have to do all of this work? WTF. Why did you hold back on me with a perfectly good word change that would have fixed this whole thing? Bah!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you revering to the Article about the school if so that was my bad I only took a quick look at it before rollbacking it. It has been fixed and is no longer an issue. I know what rollback is used for and all my edits using it have been to revert Vandalism. If you think that i have used it in the wrong please fill free to point it out to me so as to not have that happen any more. Have a nice day.--Dcheagle (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You obviously know what I'm referring to. Don't unleash your new weapon after just a "quick look". Try and think about what you're doing first. It's not a race. --MalleusFatuorum23:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter? If Dcheagle is going to be more careful in the future, as he suggests, then good luck to him in wielding his new weapon. --MalleusFatuorum00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
My view has always been that you never really know someone until you've fallen out with them. An unpopular view in the wikidreamworld where everyone is perfect and always agrees with everyone else, I know. --MalleusFatuorum00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
words
I agree with you on pretty much all you're saying on Pedro's page Mal. The only part I'm hesitant about is the whole wp:civ thing. I think the general idea is good. Do I think there are some real problems with it? ... sure! I don't know how to fix it. I know that when I see things that I think are out of line - I try to ask that folks just tone it down a bit. I never want(ed) to just start handing out blocks simply because someone said a "naughty word". Heavens, I've been in enough bars, attended enough biker parties, and seen enough of the "criminal element" in real life, that half the time I won't even notice some of the things. I'm honestly not some prissy, thin-skinned, little goodie-two-shoes that gets offended by few cuss words. The only thing that I don't want is: I don't want to see Wikipedia drift down into some USENET type of site. I try to treat all editors with respect, and I think that you and most of the editors here do likewise.
I'd like to see things at a point where new users are not chased away from WP before they've had a chance to get acclimated. When people start telling editors who've only been here a short time to "fuck off", or get called "dickheads", simply because they don't know about a policy or guideline, or even an unwritten practice - then I think that's where we need to be a bit of a buffer. That's all. I know that at one time you thought I was going to be on some sort of "Civility Crusade", but I really don't think I have been. Two months Mal, and I can still count the blocks I've made on my fingers. All I ever wanted was to be a part of something I thought was a good idea (WP), and to interact with people who treated others with a modicum of respect. I guess that's all I wanted to say - since Pedro headed off to bed, thought I'd post it here. Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It became obvious to me that wikipedia's civility policy is a pile of poo when I was blocked for suggesting that another (unnamed) editir was a "sycophantic wannabee", by which I meant that (s)he wanted to become an administrator. Sure, the block was reluctantly overturned a few hours later, but that's enough evidence of the cancer for me, that a long-standing administrator felt that was a blockable offence. Particularly after another administrator had launched about the most insulting attack against me that I've ever seen on wikipedia, completely without any resulting sanction, just the usual temporary retirement thing that administrators do when they're caught out. The present system is corrupt and corrupting. Having said that though, despite my reservations at your RfA Ched, I'd have to admit that you've done well so far, so keep it up. :-) --MalleusFatuorum00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that blocking for "sycophantic wannabee" is way over the top. Flat out ... bad block. Hey, one editor once called me an "ass kisser". It hurt, but I sucked it up and moved on - never complained about it. In fact, I even gave thought to the matter, and realized why she said it. Looking back at some of my posts, I understood why she said it - but it still hurt because I thought so highly of her - and still do. I just thought she could have been a bit nicer about it. I have to admit, the more I'm seeing, the whole "corruption" thing is a bit frightening. I think that there's a few loose canon admins that need to seriously be reigned in here. Anyway, thank you for the kind words - it really made my day! ;-) — Ched : ? 01:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It happened though. So you'll have to forgive me for my belief that the majority of the admin corps are a load of castrated wankers who ought to be attending to their school lessons instead of wasting their time trying to find their dictionaries so that they can understand what the adults are talking about. --MalleusFatuorum01:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
That's exaggeration, Malleus. The problem is that the problem admins get most of the attention. That's not minimising the problem - bad blocks and various other misconduct by admins are a danger to WP by driving away editors. We need more effective ways to deal with admin misconduct, while the many admis who do their work competently and fairly get on with it. --Philcha (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) What we really need is an "easy in, easy out" system in which promotion to admin is a painless procedure, and de-sysopping is also quick (but public). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
While the admins themselves are free to weigh in on such matters, you'll never get a change - since often they're the people most concerned with the politicking here. I have to agree with Malleus on the naivety of allowing children to become admins. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"castrated wankers" I wondered how such a thing could be possible since the first would seem to make the second impossible. Regardless, there are a few female admin that have demonstrated the presence of an extra Y chromosome and a pair of balls. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if he wants to go down the "evidence of abuse from months ago" route he seems to want to head down, he could always have a shot at explaining this... – iridescent19:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I just can't make some people out. My own view is that IPatrol's filing of this RfC is far more abusive than anything I've ever done, as it's clearly intended to be vexatious and to provoke a response that will allow him to say "See! I told you so." Well he's out of luck, because I couldn't care less. --MalleusFatuorum19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Personally I would have replied with a bile-filled rant starting "fuck you, I'm not incivil", but then I have a slightly warped sense of humour. I admire your decision to stay out of it, particularly because it rather moots his entire argument.Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a polcy of not getting involved in my own RfCs. It just encourages people if they believe you give a fuck what they think, and some people need precious little encouragement to play the goat as it is. --MalleusFatuorum20:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Jesus. Are these people the result of the 'everyone wins at sports day' culture? I'd award you a "cutting ire" barnstar Malleus if I thought you valued such things :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have - you once replied to a comment with "you seem to be under the impression I give a shit about what you say" (which is one of my favourite lines, after Being Human's "why not go find out?" *said in a thick bristolian accent* "I woulds, but then it would look like I gives a shit") - but I don't take it personally. Disagreeing with somoene on a point doesn't mean you hate them, dislike it or are always going to oppose them - it just means that in this matter, you think they're wrong. The wiki would be a better place if people could get a few things into their collective head: 1) opposing something you say does not mean someone is your Sworn Enemy For Life, and you do not have to bear a grudge as a result, 2) similarly, if someone has agreed with you in the past they are not your Bestest Internet Friend, and do not have to agree with you in the future, 3) "this shit X is doing to Y is fine, because X is my Bestest Internet Friend" is not an acceptable attitude and 4) the use of rude words does not equal incivility. One can be uncivil without rude words, use rude words without being uncivil and use a sentence including rude words without the rude word being a problem (example: if I call Ipatrol a dirty, grubbing little bastard pissant", the use of the word "bastard" is not what turns it into a personal attack). Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspected that may be the case, but it's nothing personal Ironholds; I disgree with just about everyone from time to time. Doesn't necessarily mean that I think I'm right, just that I'm not persuaded by the arguments that I'm not. --MalleusFatuorum00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't think it was anything personal. People disagree - doesn't mean you disagree with me as a person, just that you disagree with whatever it was my argument was. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! When we last left off, I don't think you were a fan of mine. But I am a fan of yours and I weighed in on that ridiculous RfC. Keep doing what you are doing -- it's great! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, what I'm not a fan of is wikipedia's civility policy, as I've said many times ad nauseum. I'm very much in favour though of more strictly defining and imposing the "no personal attacks" policy, applied to everyone, with no getout clauses for administrators. I was just concerned that you may not share what to me seems like that crucial distinction. --MalleusFatuorum01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please -- we have a lot more in common than you may realize. The Wikipedia civility policy needs a lethal kick in the...well, I will leave the anatomical destination to your imagination! That being said, if there's an admin who is acting like a bully and trampling all over NPA, I won't hesitate to hit that block button -- the Lord doesn't play favorites and neither do I. Peace be with you, Malleus! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a complainer, but I've tried to sign on to something in your RfC a couple of times now, but there just isn't anything nearly exciting or outrageous enough. Frankly, I'm disappointed with the whole proceeding. It's really a kind of lame and unimpressive showing. I was hoping for something a little more exciting and outrageous. I couldn't find much in the way of mild incivility, personal attacks, or really anything I could sink my teeth into. I know you're not responsible for the RfC, so I don't blame you personally, but it's still kind of disappointing that it appears to have been taken seriously so far and lacks much in the way of dramatic effect. What a waste. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh trust me, behind the scenes I've been spitting venom at least. When you start a conversation with "where the hell is that tool Ipatrol" and move from there you end up with a bit more than mild incivility or personal attacks :P. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha. Minge. I got that from the British version of The Office. Means nothing to me, but it was a funny line and a hilarious delivery. Funny too how you pronounce twat as rhymes with sat, instead of rhyming with hot--as it should, you know--here in the States. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is thot the area of the USA where the cot sot on the mot? Or where Oloce hod o doft conversation with the Mod Hotter?
Hmmm. I don't know whether that's an admirable piece of avoiding your copybook being blotted by a spurious complaint, or a bit of history-rewriting in action. Or both. – iridescent19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks Majorly. Shows how much notice I take of RfC. I noticed this there as well: "RfCs brought solely to harass ... or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process." An abuse that seems to go unremarked if this particular case is any indication. --MalleusFatuorum19:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was nice to see a course correction. The usual modus operandi around here appears to be a doubling down on stupidity. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to bring you down to earth (!) I'm thinking of taking this to FLC to hopefully join its mates over the river. Would you like to perform a little Malleus magic on its text? The format should be OK as it matches the Runcorn lists - except the refs column has been merged with the description, as was done with the Douglas list. I know it's short, but I'm not going to combine it with anything; its boundaries are clear and self-evident. Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've just left a question for you (or anyone else who cares to answer) here, looking for some clarification on what appears to be a somewhat ambiguous policy, based on vague recollections and a quick refresher glance. I figure it'll be easier to just keep discussions together over there, but a head's up here where it's more likely to be seen never hurts, either. :) -Bbik★01:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd put money on the reviewer thinking about the length of the article. Better be ready to make some points about comprehensiveness and have Go Man Go on standby as an exceptional article about a horse that is still short through necessity. Nev1 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion on my talk page. I guess "five references" isn't enough of something. (mutters) First the whole ONDB thing with BrianBoulton's latest article now this... oh, yeah, and alt text for Penda of Mercia thrown on top. (grumbles). Ealdgyth - Talk19:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we have to wait and see what comes up in the review; FWIW I'd have been happy to pass it as a GA. I find these throw-away comments about article length and density of citations to be rather depressing. If three sections "isn't enough" then it's down to the reviewer to suggest what's missing, bearing in mind that GAs aren't obliged to be comprehensive in any event, simply to cover the main topics, which this article seems to do perfectly adequately. I've invested a lot of time and effort into GA, but there are occasions when it all seems to have been a big waste of time. And after Deacon's recent debacle at FAC, which led to his decision to retire, I'm no more optimistic about that either. --MalleusFatuorum20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the whole Deacon thing happened while I was way busy off-wiki, or I'd have thrown my two cents in. I do find it somewhat odd that the main editor behind the "must use common name" for Deacon's FAC is currently all over "must use self-identifying name" for RCC/CC. Very... odd. Ealdgyth - Talk20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find that odd at all. There are some editors who focus on the minutiae to the exclusion of everything else. That bike shed just has to be purple, else it's not a proper bike shed. --MalleusFatuorum20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
On the plus side though, somehow they got through WP:MOS a change to allow images to be bigger than the default thumbnail. Thus, how I've spent my day.. playing with images Ealdgyth - Talk20:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but after seeing this, I can't objectively review the article. I don't appreciate the implication that I wasn't going to give a good-faith review. Nosleepbreak my slumber20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't appreciate the "only five references" bit either. That kinda gave me the idea that you weren't listening to what I was saying about being broad in coverage. I'm sorry you feel affronted, but I wasn't real impressed with your initial comments before you'd even started the review, they didn't strike me as approaching the article with an open mind. Ealdgyth - Talk20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) AGF is the last refuge of the scoundrel as far as I'm concerned, and is not synonymous with "please remember always to be a gullible fool". --MalleusFatuorum20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm taking this less personally by the minute. Malleus, you don't seem to assume good faith in anyone or anything, so why should I be any different? I was never out to get either of you or out expressly to fail the article. I never even gave it a review, and the implication of my lack of objectively is just wrong. You are a true piece of work.
You're starting to make personal comments about my motivations and character Nosleep. I would strongly suggest that you think very carefully before posting here again. --MalleusFatuorum20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I"m sorry if you think I wasn't assuming good faith, and to be fair, there probably wasn't as much there as I usually display. On the other hand, when we were discussing things on my talk page, you linked not to the GA criteria, but to a section of another page on reviewing GANs that i could not see how it applied to the article at hand. The best I could assume was that you meant that it was too short to ever be a GA. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but a reference to the section of the criteria that you felt it missed would probably have explained things better. Let's just chalk this up to me being cranky after spending too much time dealing with images all day (including Alt Text which is enough to make me tear my hair out) and if you feel that you can give the article a fair review, based on the criteria, I welcome it. But if you're soured on me and my articles, I can totally understand that you'd prefer not to step foot near me again. All I can say is that I"m not normally so bitchy, you caught me in the middle of a very protracted and difficult to understand discussion this morning totally unrelated to GAs and horses. Ealdgyth - Talk20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, am always cranky, it's an evolutionary thing. Perhaps one day we'll all be as intolerant of ... well, insert your own pet hates here, as I am. --MalleusFatuorum20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
First impressions can be deceptive, and Nosleep did say At a glance, I'm a bit skeptical (own emphasis added). My own first impression of the article was "it's short, some people will wonder if it covers the main points", and if I didn't know that Ealdgyth produces some fantastic articles, I would be one of them. However, what is important is not the first impression, but what follows. If Nosleep had claimed that the article didn't cover the main points, then maybe there'd be an issue about the quality of the review, but when Nosleep specifically voiced concerns over the length of the article, she hadn't yet posted her quick fail review which meant that the article wouldn't be quick failed. You can't do that without reading the article, so I doubt that at 20:32 Nosleep had read the article.
You can't stop a review half way through and say it's crap. That'd be like stopping Monet half way through one of his paintings because it's a bit blurry. Nosleep hadn't fully scrutinised the article and I don't see any assertion that the article wasn't broad enough here so I think Nosleep should be shown a bit more consideration. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"I think Nosleep should be shown a bit more consideration". Perhaps. You'll have to forgive me though if I don't share your generous thought. --MalleusFatuorum20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather have judged the review once it was complete. I wouldn't want one of the articles I write to be judged half-way through writing it as it would be hopelessly inadequate. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nosleep displayed poor judgement. What else is there to say? Apart from the usual "Let's start another RfC on Malleus, because he's upset my friend" of course. --MalleusFatuorum21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) See, I don't do piecemeal reviews. I post that I'll be reviewing and then it's all one big thing. That keeps me from sticking my foot in my mouth without having read the article. I think I've only quick failed one article out of about 120 reviews. But I guess to each his own. I did apologize to NoSleep on his talk page, I was (and am still) a bit bitchy today, which didn't help, but after waiting for the review for over two months, I wasn't really happy to see someone think it didn't match the criteria (I do think I have a pretty good grasp of what can and cannot pass GAN). I dropped a note on Malleus' page as much to make sure I wasn't being a dumb-dumb about it matching the criteria. And let's let it lie at that, Malleus, okay? How's Chicado V looking for FAC, btw? Ealdgyth - Talk21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think poor judgement is over-egging it a bit. Nosleep said she though it might not be long enough (for long read broad), is that really such bad judgement? Yes, the burden of suggesting how the article is not broad enough is on the reviewer, but she hadn't completed the review so might have changed her mind. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It was clearly poor judgement to make the initial statements that (s)he did, clearly without having read the article. I have no investment in the success or failure of Miss Meyers, but I am concerned about GA reviewers who review against their own preferences and prejudices, not against the GA criteria. I've got nothing else to say on this matter though, and hopefully some common sense, as opposed to section/source counting, will prevail --MalleusFatuorum21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nosleep, implying that this article is not capable of reaching GA status and then going on to justify it on grounds that are not even related to the GA criteria is not the best way to solicit a good-faith response, I'm afraid. Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the article myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologize
I don't know you well enough to reasonably assert that you're a net minus to the project. I can suspect as much, and I wouldn't be surprised if you think it of me, but I went a little too far. You were way out of line, too, but that's not an excuse for me to do what I did. I'm willing to be the bigger person.
I'm struggling to understand why it might be that you believe I give a flying fuck what you suspect, about anything. You are not a "bigger person", you're just an ... --MalleusFatuorum23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
What I find fucking hilarious strange is that, without fail, thin-skinned editors who complain about other's incivility always, always end up becoming uncivil when their initial complaints are ignored or not given the gravitas they believe they should have been accorded. --WebHamster23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and there's no entry on "badgering." If I we're at all funny, I'd add one. But since, I'm not, you should write that. :) iMatthewtalk at 02:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, no one is denying it's real. I just find it hilarious when people get uptight when someone disagrees with their vote, especially if their vote is as ridiculous as some of the ones I've seen. My description of it is completely accurate. Majorlytalk11:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to write "Badgering", it ought to go in the RFA decoder rather than the main dictionary. Most people couldn't care less about RFA and the main WikiSpeak page shouldn't be swamped by RFA-cruft. Contrary to appearances, there is a logic to the way that page is set up... – iridescent21:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus. I'm GA-reviewing Great Southern Group. I'd be grateful if you coudl read through it and let me know what you think of how it presents the topic (I've already done the detailed checks on sources). --Philcha (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the tenses used look a little inconsistent, as in "The Great Southern Group comprises ...", as the company has gone bust.
The article tells us that Great Southern was involved in "management investment schemes", but I really didn't get much idea of what one of those is.
In general my feeling was that the article was more about management invest schemes that it was about the Great Southern Group.
Your ""The Great Southern Group comprises ...", as the company has gone bust" is not quite right - it's in administration, although winding-up is a high-probablility outcome.
I've already asked the nominator to clarify "management investment schemes".
Re "more about management invest schemes that it was about the Great Southern Group", I see your point but disagree. Some of the factors in GS's fall were common to MISs (tax changes; credit crunch) but some were GS-specific (bad yield forecasting; some environmental isses).
Overall I think the article looks pretty good, and meets the GA criteria. It's not perfect, but perfection isn't one of the GA criteria. --MalleusFatuorum21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This sums up my feelings. Multiple people say for the talk page to be given a break for a few days. I declare that I will do it. What do they do? They try to take advantage of it by posting the same old tired lies over and over and act like it is appropriate. I expect this will need an RfC soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha. I sent Nathan a lot of links about use of "Persian Empire" between 1100-1400, which contradicts Folantin's and John's claims directly. However, he still thought the "Bulgarian Model" (i.e. that ugly stub of Folantin's) was correct. He opened an RfC on the matter. I love how they claim that they are all about RS and V, but ignore sources on the matter. They then go back to that "secret truth" argument. Do they not realize how horrible their arguments make them look? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of blocking people, but that deserves a block. He has been informed to the contrary directly dozens of times over the past two days. The mere attempt of him trying to pretend it didn't happen is proof that he is a POV troll that isn't fit for the encyclopedia and a fraud about his academic credentials. I would be surprised if someone who is so far in denial was even capable of graduating high school. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To my untutored eye it looks like there's a failure to agree on what the topic of the Persian Empire article actually is. My understanding is that there were two Persian Empires, the first under the Achaemenid dynasty between 558 and 331 BC, and the second under the Sassanians, from 224 AD to 651 AD. There were undoubtedly other empires established in the area know as Persia, but not by the Persians. So if this supposed to be an article on the two Persian Empires, or to cover all of the empires that have occupied the area, whether Persian or not? --MalleusFatuorum18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I provided many links to say that what the Mongols invaded was the "Persian Empire" (along with them having one of the dynasties of the Persian Empire in the same way they held one in China). Many traditional sources call the Sassanids and earlier as Persian empires with a lower case e. The Persian identity as we know the term came after the Islamic invasion. It is the same as the difference between Old English England (Anglo-Saxon) and post 1066 Norman Middle English England. Sure, there is some continuity but there is a striking difference in culture. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The above is evidence that you are unwilling to accept evidence or facts. Such an attitude makes it hardly likely that your papers or assignments were ever approved of enough for you to pass, or that standards are so lax that they let anyone through. You claim black when everything points to white. That is normally called "trolling". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice point
[16] I agree with you that Peter Damien shouldn't have been banned. He doesn't fit in the MMORPGish culture of en.wikipedia, but he was more than qualified enough to write solid contents. BTW, do you know that Deacon of Pndapetzim may have left the encyclopedia? AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you could have a quick look at Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), before I consider submitting myself to the flagellation of FAC? I can't really find anything more to add to it, other than a precise list of studio dates (and I don't have the book I need for that, its too expensive). Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I once helped a girlfriend to write a long essay on that album - the lines paralleling the biographical events. Definitely my favourite Floyd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to look out my vinyl copy of WYWH to listen to while I look through the article—if I can remember how to plug in the turntable to my "new" Bose system, and find the pre-amp that it needs ... assuming that the stylus still works ... --MalleusFatuorum21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have DSotM and The Wall on MFSL 24-carat gold CD. I'm something of a fan. I've also got most of the rest on vinyl, and I'm still nerdy enough to listen through a Roksan and Naim system :) BTW, if the stylus is worn you'll be damaging those records by using it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The stylus was OK last time I used the turntable, probably about three years ago. It's a good Shure one anyway, so I'm sure (geddit?) that it'll be fine. --MalleusFatuorum22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I still have my original DSotM from the initial release in '73 and my (now well-worn) half-speed master of WYWH. Come to think of it I still have all my original vinyl which regularly gets an airing on my now ageing Linn/Naim system. Come to think of it I'm an EMI double dippers delight having got copies (on vinyl) of every version of DSotM including the 20th and 30th versions (I vaguely recall one of them having a load of bumf with it and a sticker announcing Direct Metal Mastering. Having said that I even relented and gave in to the digital age and shocked my then missus for spending several hundred quid tracking down and buying all the PF MoFi releases and the gold disc version of WYWH... and don't get me started on the Waters' gold albums! Sheesh, it's only when it's written down like this do I feel like a PF geek! And I'm still not sure whether I actually like the 5.1 SACD remix of DSotM--WebHamster23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The MFSL ones are the 'ones' to get IMO. I have Equinoxe on 180g vinyl, its bloody amazing. What was even more amazing was that I didn't injure myself when I accidently scratched side 2. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
On this I have to agree. I have a handful of the MoFo 200g vinyl discs, including Oxygene, and yes the sound that emanates is rather nice and less digital. Having said that, the Mastersound 24kt gold WYWH has a very analogue sound and does get a regular workout. --WebHamster08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) All this talk of Linn systems make me feel quite deprived. I have to make to with a Pioneer PL-200X direct-drive turntable, sans elastic bands. Ah well, I'll survive. --MalleusFatuorum23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Only Scottish Apple-purchasing zealots buy Linn. Those with any sense ignore the hyperbole and buy Roksan, turntables with sagging plinths :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
... which reminds me of a friend of mine who mounted his turntable on a massive slab of slate, to isolate it from vibrations. He never really accepted these new-fangled transistors either, valves are best. --MalleusFatuorum23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since slate is a somewhat excellent material for transmitting energy, I think he may have acted in vain. You don't see car manufacturers using engine mounts made from slate. Mind you, I use 2 valve power amps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, the excellent synergy between the hifi industry and the snake-oil salesmen. A partnership made in hell and presided over by Peter Belt (now why doesn't that red link surprise me, heheheh) :) --WebHamster08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Peter Belt was hilarious. Quite how strips of foil sellotaped to curtains could change the acoustic properties of a room is beyond me, and apparently, observable scientific fact. Actually, we should make that link blue - there must be tonnes of material pointing out what a stupid person he is. Hes easily on a parallel with people who use gold-plated 13A sockets, shielded multicore mains cables, green pens on CDs, and gold-plated co-axial digital sockets :D Not forgetting of course people who spend tens of thousands of pounds changing their speakers, while negating the most obvious thing in the room, the room itself. I've had some experience in recording studios, most hi-fi notions are laughed at. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As an English PC zealot I have to own up to it only being an Axis/Akito/AT-OC5, but in my defence I did trade up from a Thorens TD160BC / SME3009/II / ADC combo and Roksan were new kids on the block at the time... I did drool (secretly) once over a Pink Triangle at the Manchester HiFi Show once though! And in Linn's defence it was their room at the Last Drop Village HiFi Show that introduced me to SRV and Couldn't Stand The Weather at some point in the late 80s --WebHamster23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(re PoD) Semi-agree, although that lurch from "Fearless" (possibly Waters's finest moment) into "San Tropez" (possibly the low point of PF's entire career, and I include "Lucy Leave" and AMLOR) is so sudden as to give you the bends. – iridescent21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Malleus do you know what the 'done thing' is regarding re-nominating articles to WP:FAC? DSotM failed almost certainly due to the comments about the non-free content, but several changes have been made that may make its next passage a little easier. Would it be cheeky to renominate it immediately and should I instead think about WYWH, or can I just plonk it right back at the top as a fresh nomination? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You can keep your civility crap to yourself, as I'm not interested. I don't think that your view is logical, consistent, or reasonable, which is all that matters. Go and complain to your mummy, perhaps she'll be more sympathetic than I am, which of course isn't saying very much. It's about time editors like you realised that disagreement is not uncivil, it's just a disagreement. --MalleusFatuorum02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If there are three non-notable primary scores of the same name, doesn't combining them into a single article establish notability? Once combined, do we average their ratings, take the highest one, or add them together to get the highest score possible? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that those arguing for keeping this article on a unexceptionable primary school haven't even taken the care to notice that there are several UK primary schools with the same name, and have willy-nilly mixed them up, speaks volumes. Not a very impressive demonstration of their commitment to reliable sourcing, but rather an impressive demonstration of something else. --MalleusFatuorum03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Those who lash out in fear rather than debate lose credibility in a discussion and I indeed have no interest in hearing your opinion now, either. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Malleus, you were quite civil. Now, the NPA claims by POV warriors I am currently dealing with would probably set you off on to a point that you would be far from the above link. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Clever clipping job. If Fatuorum had said something to that effect, It might have been the beginning of a discussion but it was not. It was a snarky, sarcastic, belittling message: "From the tenor of this discussion I have the distinct impression that will only add to the clamour to keep this stub on an unremarkable little primary school. A school sharing its name with other unremarkable schools in the same country surely makes it notable." It added nothing to the debate but an attempt to throw mud at his opponents; it was his hands that ended filthy, however. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I really do have to hand it to you. I have rarely seen such an impressive demonstration of stupidity and dishonesty, even here on wikipedia, where such displays are all too common. --MalleusFatuorum21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A comment by an anonymous user was here. However, his comment had no point and was a baseless accusation. It has been removed.
Bullshit, Mr. Anonymous. Your comment is the same as saying "Your criticism makes me uncomfortable. I would rather not read it. I don't have the stones or maturity to look inside to find out why, but here I'll call it incivility and try to legitimize my own criticism. Then I'll sneak in pseudo-psychobabble about obsession simultaneously trying to make poor allusions to your emotional stability while pretending that I give a shit about you." Just use the words you actually mean. It's much simpler. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm gazing at a crystal ball. I'm seeing Malleus read your comments. I'm watching, as in the near future he replies to your message. I'm now looking at my future self, laughing at that reply. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ho-hum. Yet another middle-American, thin-skinned, politically correct yank wishing the world would follow his/her naive lead. --WebHamster17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The anon's early edits were to tell Malleus that he/she had been monitoring his contributions at RfA... so who's obsessive? The first pages people stumble across aren't RfA and few know about talk pages, so it makes me wonder who it really is... Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I thank you very much for your concern 174.103.152.118. It's really reassuring that so many compassionate editors like you and Ipatrol are motivated only by a shared concern for my welfare. I'm really touched, although obviously not as touched as you are. --MalleusFatuorum18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If so it's a waste of their time. Wikipedia's broken consensus policy will undoubtedly lead to this unremarkable school's article being kept, as all it requires is a load of fans to turn up, without the slightest understanding of what they're talking about. Very few administrators are brave to assess the arguments instead of counting the votes, no matter what the glossy brochure claims. --MalleusFatuorum22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I admire your persistence in tackling wikipedia's very many problems, but I just don't have either the will or the motivation to deal with the idiotic dishonesty that has become endemic here. --MalleusFatuorum01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is my many years of service to the Vatican along with quite a bit of work opposing heresy and protestant attacks that gives me an inquisitorial edge and fuels my willingness to hunt after those who operate in such ways.... or perhaps it is just bad luck that I am in these places while people decide to just go crazy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That needs a lot of work to get through FAC; I wouldn't even have passed it as a GA with words like "parallelly" in there. Parts also look perilously close to a "how-to" manual to me as well. Someone really needs to go through that prose like a dose of salts before it'll stand any chance at FAC. --MalleusFatuorum20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn my reliance on red squiggly lines in spell checker which has atrophied my ability to see guffs like the ones you just corrected...what you reckon 'bout the content? Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think if the slight tendency towards a "how-to" manual can be dealt with the content looks reasonable. The big problem I see for FAC is the prose quality. It's generally adequate for GA, but FAC demands so much more. --MalleusFatuorum20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, is it possible to upgrade the prose of this article so that it can meet FA criteria? The nature of this subject requires a description of a sequence of actions, which may by itself resemble a "how-to" manual, though it probably can be tweaked into a more literary style. Sorry for the guffs, English's not my native language.
I see no FA whose subject is primarily related to folklore, I'd say with this article a progress could be made in this field too. VVVladimir (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Malleus, hat in hand here. I've never written a blurb before (I don't envy Raul that job), and Ottava roped me into nomming Johnson at TFA, but the blurb added there by someone else needs a re-do. Are you interested ? [18] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure we can do better than that Sandy. What's the protocol? Can I just edit the blurb, or does there need to be some discussion somewhere first? --MalleusFatuorum13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I nominated the article at Ottava's request, then someone else added the blurb ... it really needs a complete re-do. I think anyone can edit, but since it's technically my nom, certainly you can do whatever you can to improve it. I do appreciate the help ... I'm afraid most people reading the nom will think I wrote that blurb ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some recent work you've done, and I was truly impressed with your tact, timing, and calm efforts Mal — Ched : ? 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible that you hold little regard for such things as barnstars Mal, but I hope you'll accept this in the spirit that it is intended. — Ched : ? 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As I sometimes think you're the only person on the entire project who actually understands how GAC works – what category ought Alice Ayres to be listed under? I really want to avoid the dreaded "Misc", but I have a feeling this one may not fit comfortably anywhere else. (This began life as a footnote, but I think you'll agree that it's a little too big for that. The more I dug on this, the more surprised I am that this was a redlink – maybe the legendary Maintenance Phase is further away than certain people think.)
Oh, and if you can think of better section headings, please go ahead with them. This is a weird case, as it's essentially a two-paragraph stub with a 30kb "Legacy" section, and I was having trouble summing up the concepts I was trying to describe in pithy two-word headers. – iridescent21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's always seemed rather strange to me that GAN doesn't use the same categories as GA, as Alice Ayres clearly falls in GA's "Historical figures: other" category. IIRC I had the same problem with the Manchester Mummy. Nominating Alice in the Miscellaneous category may not be such a bad thing though; it's far less busy than Roads for instance, and so may attract a reviewer more quickly.
GAN does use the same categories as GA, but is organized by the top two levels of the hierarchy. So if it falls under subsubsection "Historical figures: other" at GA, that is part of subsection "World history", which is a GAN heading (check the "Includes:..."). Geometry guy23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, I stand corrected. So much for Iridescent's misguided opinion of my understanding of how GAN works. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Same here - except for a few bits of sandwiching and some minor things, it is a good article. If no one reviews it I will pick it up tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I like it - I wasn't expecting it to grow the way it did, but the story's more interesting than I expected it to be when I started. Some parts of the narrative make me wish WP:NOR weren't so strict, as there are so many potential asides on the social mores of the 19th century. My personal favourite is the women dying rescuing the children, while their father died rescuing the cashbox.
Will submit it as "misc". The worst that happens is it sits there for a month. I'm now just waiting for some clown to AFD it because they can't find anything about her on Google.
I don't think the sandwiching is a problem - I've played about at various settings, and the images only sandwich at very wide screen settings, where there's adequate room for the text to flow. I think it's more important to have them attached to their correct places in the text, as they all illustrate particular paragraphs.
Hi, Malleus. I've had a chat w Ealgdyth at Talk:Miss Meyers about inflation adjusted prize earnings in horse racing. She's been using {{inflation}}, which considers indexation by consumer prices. In articles about prize money for human competitors, e.g. Howard Staunton, I headline earnings-based adjustments as prize money is a reward for labour, although I also include the indexation in consumer prices so I can't accused of WP:mortal_sins. I've no idea what drives horse-racing economics. The two measures differ because of increases in real earnings. What do you think is applies best to racing prizes? --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably neither of them. The {{inflation}} template should only be giving a rough comparison anyway, so all I'd be concerned about with it to make sure it's not giving a spurious illusion of accuracy. --MalleusFatuorum16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Measuring Worth gives the following comparisons for US $28,727 (Miss M's earnings) dated to a central point of 1954 and adjusted to 2008 values:
$230,097.07 using the Consumer Price Index
$191,095.85 using the GDP deflator
$323,155.14 using the unskilled wage (the comparison indexes only to 2007)
$581,555.28 using the nominal GDP per capita
and a couple of less useful ones. The lowest and highest adjusted figures differ by a factor of 3. So choice of index matters a lot. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. I think the GDP indices are the least useful of the lot generally, and wage comparisons are only valid for, well, wages. There are very few occasions that I think anything other than the CPI makes for a useful comparison. GDP perhaps for major construction projects funded by the state is about the only one that springs to mind. --MalleusFatuorum17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If we were talking about the earnings of a professional sportsperson of 50 years ago, I'd think the most useful numbers would be: a comparison with average earnings of 50 years (comparing the earnings of sportsperson and Joe Bloggs, without worrying about indexation); using an income-based index to compare the sportperson's earnings with to-day's Joe Bloggs (ignoring the "winner take all" effect of increasing media coverage). So for horses' prize winnings in principle I'd go for one of the income-based indices, unskilled wage or nominal GDP per capita, as these give a relationship to present-day incomes, to put in present-day terms the return that the owners get for all the expenditure, much of which is labour. However that would be questionable if the greatest return was a result of breeding from a successful horse - stud fees for stallions, sale of foals for mares. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're analysing this too deeply. The adjustment is simply to give readers some idea of what $X would be worth today, and for most people that would be in terms of what would that amount of money buy today. Hence I think CPI is the most appropriate measure most of the time, which is what the template uses. For large capital projects that are publicly funded perhaps one of the GDP comparisions would be more appropriate, but that certainly isn't the case here. --MalleusFatuorum19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, we're talking about an equine celebrity. For a human celebrity, the question would be what a similarity would earn to-day. --Philcha (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no answer to the question "If Miss Meyer was running in comparable races today, what would her winnings be?". The issue isn't how much would her winnings be today, it's what was $X able to buy in Y. IIRC England football captain Billy Wright earned something like £20 per week at the height of his playing career. Would we be saying that's the equivalent of however many millions a year David Beckham earns today? Doesn't really make sense to me. What's important is what could £20 buy in 1959, not what Billy Wright might hypothetically be able to earn in 2009. If I may say so, I think that you demand too much of GAs. Which of the GA criteria demand that inflation adjustments must be made according to your personal criteria? --MalleusFatuorum21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Does it really MATTER which is used, as long as which system is used is explained so that if folks really WANT to know, they can look at it? As I recall, the measuring worth page goes into great detail about what each index does. As far as I, as a general reader, goes, I just want a general idea of what it's close to. As long as the way it's figured is explained, it really isn't worth this huge amount of discussion, honestly. Talk about fretting over how many angels can dance on a head of a pin! Ealdgyth - Talk21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to say Ealdgyth. The general reader, like me, just wants to know what Miss Meyer's winnings would be able to buy in 2009. If it's really felt necessary—and frankly I don't think it is—then a note could be added saying that all figures are adjusted for inflation according to the consumer price index or whatever. It really doesn't seem like anything to be worrying about to me. --MalleusFatuorum21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, I hadn't planned on taking the Ole'Missy to FAC, but after putting her through her paces, I'm thinking we might as well do so. I don't think I can beat the ditch on size, since I'll have to bulk up some more stuff just to make the Missy understandable... but...Ealdgyth - Talk21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not? If Philcha's been through the article and passed it at GA it's pretty much an FA already. He's a pretty tough reviewer. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he should start reviewing at FAC, but he swears it's an MOS mine-pit or something like that. I'm going to tear my hair out over Chicado, Ling wants the bit about explaining starts out, and I just know I'm going to have Xandar come swooping down and make my life hellish about the whole thing. (mutters) I hate that part of FAC. Everyone wants THEIR way, not interested in any other way to word things, it has to be done their way, no matter that you've put something in for someone else's specific request. Blech. Sorry, tired, hot, sweaty and generally grumpy. It's always nice to come whine to you, you don't tell me to "cheer up" or something equally blechy. Ealdgyth - Talk23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I'll strike the "chin up" from your talk page, if it offends. I know I personally get actually pissed when people leave those damn smiley face icons or wiki-cookies on my talk. I just didn't know that you are a kindred soul. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem that both GAN and FAC have Ealdgyth; reviewers don't always review against the criteria, too many review against their idea of how they'd have written the article. --MalleusFatuorum00:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I explicitly and openly review against "is this interesting", "is this accurate", "is this properly sourced", "is this comprehensive" and "are there any glaring flaws", and no formatting-wonkery whatsoever. It's why I never review anything at GAC any more; at FAC there are enough fanatical i-dotters and t-crossers to cover that angle, but I don't want to be the one failing Parsnip for non-compliance with WP:MOSROOTVEGETABLES subsection 32.6(c). – iridescent23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolute poppycock. I've never heard such philandering wikishite in my life. It's 32.7(c) and you know it, Iridescent. – B.hotep •talk• 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, I wish I'd picked a better example—that article is very possibly the worst Wikipedia article on a major topic I've ever seen. "Parsnips are easily mistaken for hemlock"? – iridescent23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A major article? I don't give them a second thought and buy them frozen from Morrisons. And if I were to put my trust in my root vegetables in a major supermarket from Bradford... I would have to say I will be checking for hemlock from now on. – B.hotep •talk• 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the better illustrations, though. Is this what they mean by Wikipedia porn? I don't mean a "major article" as compared to France or Cat, but "major" in the sense that people would actually miss it if it turned red. – iridescent23:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It does actually make you question your disbelief at people who see Jesus' face in a potato when you see anatomically correct vegetables like that. – B.hotep •talk• 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't even know it was going to be on the main page until yesterday, but I guess Raul thought it was on a subject that's been under-represented at FA in general, never mind at TFA. I was optimistic that the Pendle witches would eventually get a slot, but I never really imagined that the Samlesbury women would. In fact I never really even intended to take the article to FAC, as there's so liitle information about them. What pleases me about the article though is that it's almost certainly the best source of information on the trial of those three women to be found anywhere, certainly online, just the sort of thing I think wikipedia is good at. --MalleusFatuorum13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe its the ghost of Syd Barrett, come to haunt me because I'm writing funny things about him here. BTW I think that article is going to be a bit big when finished. Probably 150k or such. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It probably would violate some policy or other to post the contact details, but google "Sincere Management" and you'll find them. – iridescent22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
←Malleus, take a look at this comment after it was featured and on the main page, and then someone comes up with their opinion. Just let it slide. Like everyone's said, you can have it back to scratch after its day in the sun. :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a similar comment when Pendle witches was promoted, too lazy to find the diff right now. That's water off a dick's duck's back to me, but the volume of crappy edits today took me by surprise. What on Earth is the point of showcasing an article on the main page if for most of its time there it's been reduced to shit? --MalleusFatuorum22:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather have a day in the shade, than get sunburnt. I noticed the faux pas, Malleus, but thought you were referring to today's drive-by "critics". :) – B.hotep •talk• 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I read in the press today that Michael Jackson was killed by his doctor, something that seemed quite apparent right from the start. But his is an article I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole long enough to push the Moon out of its orbit. --MalleusFatuorum23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fun
People keep mentioning that writing articles or the FAC process should be fun and that they get upset when things go wrong. Perhaps I am "weird", but I see this as work. Hell, I do this for a living, and I tend to use Wikipedia as a way to not only organize my notes into a decent structure and make a reference for later, but I use it to help challenge my own understanding and gain a better grasp on a subject. Most of the time, I am drained after writing and am tired. I don't get the hobby writers or people who come here for fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason I use wikipedia is that writing articles is a good way of learning and getting to understand a subject. If I'm interested in something, I can find out more by writing an article, which may in turn help others. For me anyway, the information sticks much better if I actively have to think about rephrasing it and assessing what is important rather than just plain read it. FAC is a challenge, it's satisfying when articles are successful and disappointing although usually educational when unsuccessful, but fun? It's too demanding to be "fun". Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, FAC draws a line under a subject that I've become sufficiently interested in to do some serious research on. I'm just as often happy enough with GA though, if my obsession level isn't quite up to FAC standard on a particular subject. --MalleusFatuorum20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear! I'm retired, have spent a life doing "work", and have descended to WP as a deviation from getting bored. For me, it's not work, but a way of "amusing" myself, AND doing something which I hope is of benefit to the world (and as a by-product to me, it keeps me sane and thinking - and learning). There's room for both. Of course it's serious, etc. But why should I get hurt by some of the responses I get from ****? Let's work AND enjoy ourselves in the process - then everyone is a winner. Malleus knows I take WP seriously, but I hope to enjoy the experience and not get hurt (as has sometimes happened). (For those who don't know, I've made significant contributions to 1 FA, 3 FLs, 13 GAs and 80+ DYKs) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In the daily rough-and-tumble it's easy to forget what it was that drew us here in the first place. For me, it was a hope that if people understood more about the world around them and its history, particularly their own local history, then they might just have more respect for where they live, and what others had to go through to give us the relatively comfortable lives that most of us enjoy today. That's why the Peterloo Massacre was such an important topic to me it just had to get through FAC. Hopelessly idealistic I know. --MalleusFatuorum20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia has the power to educate and make readers look at the world differently. And although I do edit for mostly selfish reasons, this edit made me smile. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, if I have gained knowledge, I want (need?) to share it - freely (and if WP survives - for ever). It gives me much personal satisfaction with the thought that maybe I've done a bit of something sort of useful in my life. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This article from The Times made me smile. Ferret legging, an article I helped to save at AfD only a few weeks ago, considered one of wikipedia's 10 best articles. :lol: Peter, I used to run a lot of IT training courses, and in my "train the trainer" sessions one of the things I was told to remember is that knowledge is one of the few things you can give away but still have. --MalleusFatuorum21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
That really does make it all worthwhile Moni3, you're making a real difference there. I, on the other hand, am becoming increasingly frustrated at the "improvements" being made todays featured article. I think all I can do is to ignore it for another hour or so and then repair it when everyone's turned their attention onto the next victim. --MalleusFatuorum22:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I often wait a day or so and revert when anon IPs or others who don't seem to have a real interest in article integrity move on to their greener pastures. --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I always liked this one, as well as the seal of approval of Broadwater Farm being constantly ripped-off uncredited by the local authority. It's sometimes easy to forget in the chorus of whining and bitching that real people read these articles. (I confidently predict that Alice will be "borrowed" for at least a dozen essays by Southwark schoolchildren next year.) This is rather surreal, too. – iridescent22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I love the quiz, that's great. Wikpedia has yet to get over its reputation for unreliability, but many of us try as hard as we can to source everything, so that it can be checked—even when doing that really breaks up what could otherwise be a better narrative flow. Recently I've started to hear regular readers of wikipedia making a distinction between articles with proper sourcing and those without, so maybe the tide is beginning to turn. --MalleusFatuorum22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For me its two things. One, I have a natural inclination to build an empire. That doesn't mean I like to collect bronze stars, its just I like the feeling of building something from being nothing, to impressive. I've always adored games like Civilization (video game). The other thing is that I learn as I go. As Nev1 said, you read, you type, and the information just sticks in there. I've learnt more general history editing articles on here, than I ever did at school or college. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What a stalker
Check out this lovely thing. Apparently, my comments to others and why they opposed my RfA are some how proof that I am out to get her, and yet she is going through all of my stuff and the rest. I'm sure an MfD would easily take care of it, but something more would have to ensure such unstable people aren't around to destroy Wikipedia like she is hell bent on doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, this happens to be the user who edit warred on Ludovico Ariosto to try and claim he wasn't writing a Christian Epic even though there are hundreds of articles. She also claimed it was a "romance" because some translator called it such even though the experts call it an epic. And then she edit warred on the 18th century page and against Wizardman about this recent stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you could have that deleted quite easily at MfD; constructing a grudge page is clearly an inappropriate use of userspace. --MalleusFatuorum21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is some great stuff. Fullstop, Folantin, and Dbachmann tag teaming on multiple articles to push a fringe POV as if it isn't fringe. This all but admits that they love to operate as a group. You can see how many of them are really bad admin. I think it is about time to draw up an RfC and start breaking up this wannabe cabal. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A proposal
An open letter to Malleus Fatuorum,
Can I be so bold as to make a proposal here. The banner at the top of your page, Malleus? Get rid. "I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here." – you are only just beginning your time. "There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change" – you have had enough "back-up" recently to say otherwise, you might be looking in the wrong areas. "I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other." – more of the former, the latter are a dying breed and destined to burn out (believe me, I've seen them do it). "Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site," – out of step? out of STEP?! you are the most in step person I've seen since the Changing of the Guard, MF! And the "children" are the ones grudgingly tolerated, if we are honest. So please get rid of it.
Yours sincerely, B.h (big B, little h) – B.hotep •talk• 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll think about it, but I really don't feel secure here. It's easier for you admins I think; you've at least been nominally considered to be trustworthy, but I've been clearly told that I'm not. You're also not subject to the arbitrary crap that we peons are expected to put with. Do you really think that you would ever be blocked for using the phrase "sycophantic wannabees" for instance? --MalleusFatuorum02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Bubba hotep, when I first saw comments by MF about the corruption of the admin class as a group, I thought he was exaggerating. But in the last year I've concluded that MF is right. For example the conduct by an admin described at this ANI thread is considerably worse than the phrase "sycophantic wannabees" for which MF was blocked; this case was made worse by the actions of the "presiding" admin, who make unfounded accusations of collusion, block-shopping, disruptive editing and feuding - and then tried to sweep the matter under the carpet with a premature close. --Philcha (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
People who demand consistency from Wikipedia are generally disappointed. Those who demand fairness from Wikipedia are, unfortunately, often disappointed as well. That's a problem. I do think things have moved in an overall positive direction in the 3 years I've been here, but status differences are real. A block of an admin is almost automatically an extreme controversy; not so for a non-admin. If you're looking for an injustice against which to crusade, they're a dime a dozen around here. Some of them need to be called out. But at the end of the day, this is a hobby that people pursue in their free time. It's essentially escapist. So the question is how much of your free time you want to spend fighting these sorts of battles. Personally, I see enough effed up things in the real world that, should I feel compelled to take up the Sword of Righteousness and crusade against injustice, I'd probably start off-wiki. MastCellTalk04:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The inequality eventually becomes intolerable though, or at least it's become that way for me. I've been considering for some time now what exit strategy might best make the point, even though I know that nobody really gives a fuck about me or any other editor on here. --MalleusFatuorum04:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that's not true. There's a lot of people here who are just here because they like writing, and they like producing quality sources of information, and there are those who are here because they've got a god complex and like pissing people off with the extra tools they have. But I don't think the latter groups represents Wikipedia. I think they're vocal, but I think your own supporters are just as vocal, and they express it on this page, as well as other places. To suggest you wouldn't be missed if you left would just be plain wrong. Apterygial05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell that there will never be true equality or fairness, since nothing is centralized on Wikipedia. It all comes down to individual editors (and in particular, individual admins), and to a number of heterogeneous but roughly like-minded groups, and it's all one huge tug-of-war of multiple ropes pulling in multiple directions (maybe a DSGE). "Multiple directions" is the key phrase— as long as there's no top-down leadership (and I for one emphatically do not worship the lack of it, as many, many do), then there will be this multi-pronged tug-of-war that can never be equitable or just. Some folks have figured out the system, and have created power systems for themselves. There's no "cabal", but there are multiple "cabals" operating for and against each other, according to whichever way the wind blows. There are few or no adults in the room, both literally and figuratively,, It will never change. We worship our lack of top-down leadership, and at the same time it's certainly in Jimbo's financial interest to preserve the status quo in order to attract the largest number of editors possible.
So what's to be done? Nothing. Live with it. Make editing friends, and edit with them. Make influential friends to protect yourself from admins with grudges or with ego trips. Advocate for a better system, but don't expect more than incremental changes. Above all else, never never never take it personally. It's not about you, it's about a poorly-designed system of governance. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, the problem with "Make influential friends to protect yourself from admins with grudges or with ego trips" is that they can't protect you all the time. The only cure for admins with grudges or with ego trips is quick de-sysop - Roux has the best proposal I've heard of. --Philcha (talk)
See, I feel uncomfortable (even embarrassed sometimes) to be lumped in with The Admin Corps(tm). I like to see myself as an editor like anyone else but with an extra set of buttons to help with the maintenance around here. I don't hang around the dark, dingy parts of Wikipedia like AN/I and such like and I try to get along without giving the impression that I am a level above everyone else. I was admin'd some 2 and a half years ago, and I must admit, it has changed a lot since then. Half the policies around here are made by a select few (users and admins alike) and change almost on a daily basis. Anyway, I'm rambling and not entirely sure what my point is, but Malleus, yes you have suffered the injustices of the 'Pedia moreso than many others, but you are likely not on your own in that respect. I urge you to keep up your fantastic work here. You've proved time and time again that you can work in a collaborative atmosphere with great results, so that should really piss on the cornflakes who says otherwise or resorts to disgraceful attacks such as the "cancer" incident. I don't think we'll ever get that Utopian state where everyone gets along, but maybe I am a bit blinkered to some of the darker corners. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, because admins are rather exalted, it is quite hard to "prove" or convince people that they are acting in bad faith, which is why if there are mutual accusations of stalking, the admin always wins. I've seen admins stalk some rather combustible folks from the lower castes. No, the admin didn't get in trouble but the untouchable did for lashing out. In diving, they automatically scale out outliers, but in WP they don't. It's also easy for a guy to only block people from one side of a conflict when they make fiery comments, and "seem to not notice" when the others do it. There is no punishment for failure to keep control, so it's easy to just block a guy from one side, general editwarring 3 reverts in a week, and not block another in the same region for 4 in hours when it happens at a separate time. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Obviously I can't see what's been deleted, but judging by other comments made by this vandal I assume that it claims my name is Kurt, that I live in Levenshulme, and that I'm a sockpuppet of WebHamster. There may well be someone called Kurt living in Levenshulme, but it certainly isn't me. --MalleusFatuorum19:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected
I have semi-protected this page for 1 week due to the trolling that has been happening here. I hope this is an acceptable solution for you. Chillum16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Here. I think that shall help enlighten the people there who would rather make things up about history than actually talk about what really happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I admire your persistence with this Ottava, but once the pov warriors get their teeth into something it's a lost cause. Particularly if it's anything to do with religion or Ireland. I'm resigned to the article being trashed in the cause of religious dogma. It's what'll happen sooner or later to every article anyway. --MalleusFatuorum18:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Malleus - I will see a ban on him if he keeps it up. It is historically impossible to claim that the Church of Scotland at the time of James the First was Calvinistic, and it was not formally so until the purging of the Bishops. One of my strongest areas is the lead up, events during, and the times following Milton in terms of religious politics. The Bishops' Wars was when Scotland can be claimed as Calvinist. It would be almost impossible to predate those events by more than 10 years. 1612 is clearly 28 years -before-, and the Bishops' Wars were more than 58 years after James the First was influenced by the Scottish Church. To make claims like he was doing would be a major time warp. Utterly ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
All this furore over a simple phrase: "a product of the Scottish Reformation", attributed to a reliable source who uses almost the exact same phrase, "a product of the strict Scottish Reformation". I just find it unbelievable. --MalleusFatuorum19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, apparently 1 of 3 trouble makers has left. I think that I have put up enough of the history to show the impossibility of the POV push. If anyone keeps going at it, I would just take it to AN and ask for a ban from the page. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to demand a rewrite of history. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I went through verifying quite a bit of it during the FAC and I have an extensive background in the area, so it meant something to me, and I just dislike people who act like that in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
