User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2012/July

Rhetorical question?

[1]] By failing to adequately kowtow to the block admin, obviously. Surely you knew that already?? Nobody Ent 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I did know that yes. Isn't that what indefinite blocks were designed for? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

But...they aren't punishment... They come with flowers and everything (or so they say). Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I really do think that there are some naive souls here who genuinely believe that blocks are not intended as punishments. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think they understand that when you combine Block with Admin it is almost automatically viewed as punitive. Message board culture and all that. Admins block. Admins ban. It's what they do. Except here, of course. Wiki-exceptionalism and all that. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

They ultimately end up as punishments, but we should still try to not issue them as such, and ask ourselves if that is the intention. Yes, yes, I'm forever the optimist living in Pollyanna-land, but I only have control over my actions and not other's. I still feel the problem is one of culture, hence my efforts to focus there and on the talk pages of admins who make "unusual" blocks, hoping they will eventually tire of my frequent questions and move a bit slower. Minor victories are better than none. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...it's a culture problem. And one I think may never really change. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice a few more have joined up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, including one admin, and I know of one other admin who I expect is joining soon. It isn't much, but it is designed to address the culture issue, as well as all the reasons why editors leave. A great many people are concerned about the subject in general, some one area more than others, but still, the lever gets a little longer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall take a look, Dennis! I have to say, the more I see of you, the more I like you. There's an interesting thread on my talk (typically rambly!) which started with Intothatdarkness pointing me at your project. Pesky (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I'm honored to have your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed

you had been tinkering with the reference section at Bradford Colliery. Does this mean I am doing something wrong by using a semicolon to bold headings? J3Mrs (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems it causes problems with text-to-speech readers. The reason is given here but, like me, you may want someone to explain the explanation. Richerman (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that seems as clear as mud, and unlike you I don't really think an explanation would make me any wiser :-( All this fiddling with incomprehensible stuff is so off-putting to the likes of me. You know it takes me all my time to hit the right keys. J3Mrs (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's to do with HTML definition lists and how they're rendered by a screen reader when they're incomplete. Basically what precedes the semicolon is a term, but there's no matching definition for it, a bit like an empty entry in a dictionary, which can throw a screen reader. Essentially the ";" to force the entire line to be bold (which was all it was there for) was a quick and dirty hack. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You lost me in the first half dozen words, after that my short attention span completely evaporated. Will wikipedia survive if I continue to do the wrong thing? I expect it will. J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It will, but you would be making life harder for the visually impaired - which I know you wouldn't want to do. Three apostrophes either side is a much better option. Richerman (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's as Richerman says, a courtesy to our visually impaired readers. Imagine if you will a dictionary full of words but with no definitions of any of those words; that's the best analogy I can come up with. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I've become aware of this issue, which frankly I was oblivious of until RexxS (talk · contribs) shoved it under my nose, I've determined to go through all the articles I've created and make the same changes I made to Bradford Colliery. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am losing the will to live... J3Mrs (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be automated using AWB, so don't worry about having to do it manually. I think I've still got AWB access, so if nobody else gets to it before me I'll have a go at it later. Now get back to proper work on a colliery or two. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done it. I've created about 100 articles. Is there anything else I've learned that I ought to unlearn?J3Mrs (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Only one thing. Don't ever, ever, get sucked into Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you tell me. J3Mrs (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Never have I made so many edits and added and added so little information, well none.J3Mrs (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But you've helped those less fortunate than yourself in the hearing seeing department. Malleus Fatuorum 09:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was the seeing department. Oh well.J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 09:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing someone else's comment

The following discussion 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.

---

You changed the signature of another editor here. Please undo this part of your edit. Fram (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix it yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If it had been an obvious error, I would have. This seemed to be intentional though, so I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling. Fram (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What's telling is your belligerent and defensive attitude Fram. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

and statements like "Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought" and refusals to undo changes you made to the comments of others aren't belligerent? I suggest you have a look over WP:UNCIVIL. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything? Malleus Fatuorum 11:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Fatuorum. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, because you want retribution? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because he's an arsehole. Malleus Fatuorum 11:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would've brought it to ANI if he hadn't. No ill will, but for the future, I think it's best for people to know they can't do things like that without some consequence. Plus when the time comes to once again attempt to show a pattern of behavior, and someone asks "why didn't you report it then"... you know. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:55, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you. I never have, and I never would, deliberately alter anyone's posting. I can only think this was caused by an edit conflict, as it certainly didn't come from me. Have you ever seen me alter another editor's posting before? Malleus Fatuorum 12:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't, and I appreciate your explanation, late though it was. An earlier one would've avoided most of this. I know it's silly to expect you to take steps to avoid conflict though. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:11, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That isn't at all fair. I've seen Malleus discuss article problems many, many times on their talk pages. Parrot of Doom 12:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that too. Malleus likes talking content. That's not exactly avoiding conflict though, unless we're talking about avoiding edit wars. The tougher choice for Malleus comes when he gets criticized, and his options include striking back or explaining himself. He likes doing the former because it retains more of his pride. Most of us have learned, through the process of reaching adulthood, to sacrifice some pride in the interest of avoiding conflict. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:28, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Equazcion, I expect Malleus is twice your age and has thrice your wisdom (which considering the above may be considered an insult to Malleus, actually). What a sanctimonious prick you appear to be. Parrot of Doom 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He may very well be twice my age, I wouldn't know. But age has little to do with adulthood. Anyone who gets this riled up this easily isn't there yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:14, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

And adulthood has little to do with wisdom, as is apparent from the nonsense you're writing. Parrot of Doom 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just curious - why should anyone willingly sacrifice any of their pride? Chedzilla (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How dare you talk to me about adulthood in that way. Maybe one day, when you no longer need to feed on your mother's breast, or crave the support of some weird American frat society, I can begin to explain to you how things work. Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, as I've pointed out at the ANI, maybe it is better if we all just drop the stick here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't pick the stick up, but sure as Hell I'm not dropping mine now. Too many arseholes around. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm just one more asshole here, but I think there is enough blame to go around, and have faith that you are a big enough man that you can let it go, just as I'm asking others to do at the ANI. I get it that you are frustrated, but at the end of the day, is this the hill you really want to make your stand on? I'm asking you to agree to disagree, and show the same tolerance for differences of opinion that I am, and go have a tea. I don't ask that you agree with me or anyone else, as I know that isn't going to happen, I'm only asking that you consider some sincere and friendly advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, when I'm no longer being kicked then I'll have no reason to kick back. Until then lock up you wife and children. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a great many things I can and have learned from you Malleus. Perhaps there is an item or two that you could learn from me as well. There is an art to picking your battles, knowing when to retreat and when to charge ahead. Being a martyr is overrated, and I've never heard one disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite what you may have heard I do pick my battles; in my world this is just a minor skirmish. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• The edit conflict is fixed. Nobody died. There is no need for anyone to stir this up. Please, move on and do something more productive. --John (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2012 (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.

Amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously having a laugh. My sincere hope is that you find yourself banned as a result. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the above request and have been reading the depressing history behind it all (could have all been ended peacefully at several points by all concerned, but no-one took the opportunity). Wanted to point out one thing: you referred to AE in your statement. AE generally refers to arbitration enforcement. That is where admins (try) and enforce arbitration rulings. The page you were pointed at above is for clarifications and amendments of original arbitration cases, so that is different. The main difference being that clarifications and amendments is a place where arbitrators are petitioned to make changes. AE is a level below that, and involves admins, not arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Malleus Fatuorum 08:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Halifax Gibbet

This is a note to let the main editors of Halifax Gibbet know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Halifax Gibbet was an early guillotine, or decapitating machine, used in the town of Halifax, West Yorkshire, England. It was probably installed some time during the 16th century as an alternative to beheading by axe or sword. Halifax was once part of the Manor of Wakefield, where ancient custom and law gave the Lord of the Manor the authority to execute summarily by decapitation any thief caught with stolen goods to the value of 13½ pence or more, or who confessed to having stolen goods of at least that value. The device consisted of an axe head fitted to the base of a heavy wooden block that ran in grooves between two 15-foot (4.6 m) tall uprights, mounted on a stone base about 4 feet (1.2 m) high. A rope attached to the block ran over a pulley, allowing it to be raised, after which the rope was secured by attaching it to a pin in the base. The block carrying the axe was then released either by withdrawing the pin or by cutting the rope once the victim was in place. The date of the gibbet's installation is uncertain, so it cannot be determined with any accuracy how many were executed using the Halifax Gibbet. By 1650 public opinion considered beheading to be an overly severe punishment for petty theft; use of the gibbet was forbidden by Oliver Cromwell, and the structure was dismantled. The stone base was rediscovered and preserved in about 1840, and a non-working replica was erected on the site in 1974. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Malleus, I just wanted to thank you again for teaching me how to use the Harvard referencing templates with a bibliography section. It's been ridiculously helpful in all the constellation articles. Hope all is well with you and yours! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If I ruled the world I'd make using those templates mandatory, particularly that {{sfn}} one that Mr Rabbit pretty much thrust down my throat on The Coral Island article. But unhappily I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, what does {{sfn}} do? It looks shiny. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I love sfn, it makes things so much easier, especially reading the article in edit mode. PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sort of turning towards the sfn idea but newbies certainly seem to prefer the prompts offered by {{cite book}} etc, as indeed did I way back when. I saw some esoteric discussion on Jimbo's page a day or to ago re: page load times for the various templates. One contributor was RexxS, so I'll delve into that one when he and I next meet. What I do think is necessary is that we reduce the number of options: there may be some genuine need for > 1 but there is no need for the plethora that currently exist. I dither at present but have no particular problem with being told via MOS etc what to do regarding these cite issues.

Oh, and Br'er has recently introduced me to {{efn}} - it is great from an editing pov. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Br'er recently introduced me to {{efn}} as well. It's nice. And like you I really do wish that there was a single standardised citation method, which is why I always use {{citation}} rather than any of the morass of {{cite}} templates. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

With {{sfn}} you don't need to name the refs, as it clumps them all together automagically. So for instance rather than <ref name=FraserP26>{{Harvnb|Fraser|2007|p=26}}</ref> you can simply write {{sfn|Fraser|2007|p=26}} Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That. Is. Fantastic. I may implement it on my current project, but will definitely do so on my next article. Thank you again! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit is a man on a mission, so by the time you get up tomorrow you might find that he's converted all your article to use {{sfn}} anyway. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, perhaps I'll go through Andromeda and Aries when I have a moment, and maybe I'll get to Auriga before someone looks at the GAN. Boötes should get the full treatment! The good Br'er is definitely one of the definitive gurus on wikicode. Most excellent. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 did a huge amount of work in outer space (in space, no one can hear you sock;) Mostly the outer solar system, not constellations, but…  Br'erRabbit  03:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Which was rather appreciated actually as there's a pretty small core of people working trans-Neptunian and there's rather a lot of little worlds to cite, even if there are a decent number of papers available. And now I know about {{efn}} as well! Iridia (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You do realise that TMA-1 was me… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• {{sfn}} and {{efn}} are the future. And thank Charlie Gillingham for the automagic collation. It works by generating names for all of the refs and allowing MediaWiki to then do the clumping. Beyond the collating, it frees you from the tyranny of manually named refs, which are highly error prone, and allows you to simpy adjust the inline-page#s and the footnotes adapt. See {{sfnRef}} for more customisation possibilities and {{wikicite}} for yet more. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If I ruled the world ...

• Any editor obviously vandalising an article would be instantly and permanently banned
• Any administrator who issued a bad block would receive a block of the same length or more
• Anyone who emitted the "AGF" guff would be blocked for an hour or so, to give them time for their head to clear or the effects of whatever substance they'd been abusing to wear off

Any more? Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was mulling over an idea recently which wouldn't work and wouldn't gain traction... What if an administrator was only allowed to have one "unratified" block in place at any one time. In other words, I were to merrily come along and indef block you, I lose my block ability until someone else comes along and agrees with it. Checks and balances. Doesn't help to poor chap blocked badly, but it does limit damage. Also, it would be possible to see if a block was "ratified" or not, improving the block log. Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you were to come along and block me I'd hunt you and and your family down and I'd ... no wait, I'm thinking of a different movie. I think the answer is very simple. If you block me for, let's say, two weeks, and that block is overturned then you should be blocked for two weeks, with no right of appeal. Malleus Fatuorum 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Will make sure I keep an axe by my bed should it ever come to that then. How would you suggest indefinite blocks are handled? Worm^TT(talk) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that indefinite blocks should be within the remit of individual administrators, far too dangerous. Malleus Fatuorum 11:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocks of establised editors, you have my full agreement. Sock puppets, vandalism only accounts, offensive user names etc etc etc, it should be there. I'm not keen on the eye for an eye approach myself, though. I would suggest that instead of a block for the period, they should have their bit taken away. I think 2 weeks without the bit should teach the lesson pretty well, and it would be logged too. There are far too many admins who spend too much time holding on to their bits. Worm^TT(talk) 11:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was specifically referring to established editors. I quite like the eye for an eye approach myself, but I'd probably be equally happy for the bit to be taken away for an equivalent period. It might serve as a reminder of what it feels like to be at the coal face. Malleus Fatuorum 11:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can fully support the first two. I also fully agree with the "indef. of established editors". Item number 3 however I'd want to copy-edit a bit to include "AGF /OR/ ABF guff". Actually I think there's a lot to be said for assuming the best (where possible) in a situation where we're stuck with only "words" without any voice inflection, body language, or knowledge of the person to help determine another person's full intent. And in line with being the pedantic ass that I am, would copy-edit also include adding *I* to "If ruled the world" be out of line? Hope you and yours are well Mal. Chedzilla (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, I have the biggest reservation about the first, since I (too often) tend to think of the glass as half-ful. Hey Malleus! How are you! I see you're not blocked--good. Today, I'm going to work up the courage to look at that ArbCom thing. I can't wait. Happy 5th of July, and my best to you and Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm fine, and I too was rather surprised to get up today and find myself not blocked again. As for that ArbCom debacle, it exemplifies everything that's rotten here as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I like Worm's tweak to the idea; losing the bit (and having it logged) for the equivalent time span would be great. Your "If I ruled the world" thing is very interesting; one of the questions I ask myself about people from time to time, to make internal decisions, is "Would I be able to handle living in a country where this person was head of state? Or would I have no real choice but to emigrate?" If I ruled the world, myself, my to-do list would become terrifyingly long. Pesky (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I think there should be a free fire zone, reserved for flaming. Vent steam there, but not elsewhere. Sort of like those all-insult stations I've heard exist in some countries where callers can just call in to vent curses upon various things they are upset about (as opposed to the US radio version where you have to call in and agree with the host...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry...

I tried Mal.. I really tried to stay out of it all ... What you think of me is none of my damn business, and I know we've disagreed on many things.. but I honestly do appreciate that no matter what .. you've always helped me when I asked. I know I've said some pretty crappy stuff and all .. but if the truth be told .. I do admire and respect you. Your honesty and integrity are are something that I truly aspire to. That said: .. the hell with ya. — Ched :  ?  00:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a rather extraordinary and very revealing incident Ched. Somebody asks ArbCom for an amendment to my RfA topic ban, but it quickly degenerates into another "let's see if we can Malleus banned" thread, with nobody stepping in to keep order. Very much like the ill-considered civility enforcement case really. And here's the rub; I'd be pretty confident that anyone looking through my history would see that I have been consistently helpful to anyone who's asked for my help, whether or not we've got on in the past, with very few exceptions. And they'd also see that I treat with respect anyone who does the same to me. I am not some monster, but neither am I one to turn the other fucking cheek if you try and piss on me. So to speak. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said to both of you! PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ya know, somewhere in that civility case ... someone said look at the contributions on a particular day. Just for the hell of it .. I picked my birthday for one year. There were like FIVE Featured articles you did that day .. I thought ,. well hell .. that's just a "one of" .. so I looked at a few other days .. and damn .. it's like a daily thing where you fix, tweak, write, and create top-notch articles. Yea .. there's times I'd like to smack you upside the head when you dig your heels in and all .. but you're an old man that's "been there, done that" .. so it's hard for me to say anything. No matter what .. in the end this is just a feaking website .. so I'm not going to get my nutsack in a twist over it. I admire you.. I respect you.. don't ever expect me to say anything nice again. I'm old. I don't care. The only reason I'm even still here is because of what you said about having a responsibility. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This may be the first time that I have waded into the near-perennial fracas. We can all help each other, we can all respect our differences in interpretation and in culture and - hell - we do not have to be best buddies in order to rub along. This seemingly continuous flocking to pursue a personalised agenda needs to stop. Yes, Malleus could tone things down a bit but, hey, when every word is being scrutinised to death (and every positive action ignored) it is no wonder that the boiler blows uo. To my mind, there is a long-running agenda here and every single alleged incident is blown out of proportion because of it. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's actually quite interesting in a way. Yes, of course I could "tone things down a bit", but why the Hell should I? How much "toning down" would be demanded? I am not some spotty 16-year-old Californian oik with an attitude, and the repeated references to my "maturity" by the children here really do get on my tits. I am one of George Bernard Shaw's unreasonable men, and there's no prospect of that ever changing: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." So the kiddies can just fuck off as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The really ironic part? .. It wasn't all that long ago that I saw a teacher post on your talk the thanks for all the help you had given those younglings who were actually willing to listen and learn. Life is funny huh? — Ched :  ?  01:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That was during the ArbCom show trial, and I was rather touched when he said that he'd had to (quite rightly) discourage his students from posting their opinions. The bottom line is that I treat you like you treat me, no matter how important you do or don't think you are. No ifs, no buts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment< Malleus. There is an almost Newtonian feel to the entire he said/they said palaver and, yes, your GBS quote seems to be about right. The difficulty in this situation is that it does indeed sometimes appear to be you against the world. In reality, you have a lot of support but the nature of the beast is that those who oppose will shout loudest, and everything else is a reaction to that. As for tone, well, changing a "fuck off" to a "piss off" is a minor thing ... but I do rather suspect that the same Inspectors of Malleus would stilljump on you until you refine it to "please desist, my dear friend". Whereas I recently gave someone a "for fuck's sake" that passed through ANI wth barely a sighting of the people who seem to haunt you. . Time could tell? In any event, and as you have said so often, the civility policy is not worth the server space that it consumes, however little it costs. These issues are less about the policy than they are about interpretation, culture and "bashing". Particularly he latter. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Y'know, one of the things that's beginning to make me feel a tad more optimistic is that I've recently come across several places where some sound good sense is being talked. Malleus, I know exactly how I feel about you, and it's 95% pure respect, admiration and affection. The 5% which isn't happens when I see you do that name-calling thing; in those instances what I really want to do is turn you over my knee (or pin you to the floor) and soundly spank your bottom (except that you'd probably enjoy it far too much ;P), and that only because you have the wit to hit back in other, and better, ways ... you have such a command of words that you have no need to use the ones which make others get their banhammers out. In terms of use of words, you can run rings round most of them. And yet you persistently fail to make the best use of your skills in that area. Hugz. (Try using "Go forth and multiply" instead of "Fuck off" for a while. There's not a single "uncivil" word in it.) Pesky (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What's bogus, or at least unenforceable about the civility policy though, is that "Go forth and multiply" still means "fuck off"; the incivility is separate to the phrasing. Less honest people may say things like "with all due respect" , yet plain-speakers are pulled up for using simpler vocabulary. pablo 09:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Often, I find myself thinking "Malleus, you are already in the right, you don't need to twist the knife!", but of course, I understand why he torments some of these editors, as they seem to queue up begging "Please sir, may I have some more...", like some perverted version of Oliver Twist. I have to admit that I was more of a civility hound pre-admin bit, until I started seeing the damage that over-enforcement does. Perhaps Malleus really is a bad influence after all ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's what happens when you're part of the "puling masses." Civility is a cute concept, but it tends to overlook the passive/aggressive pokers and prodders, and is rarely (if ever) applied to the folks who are supposed to be running the show. And I'm sorry, but any time you give someone the ability to block another person's ability to edit it IS a big deal. Period. That "no big deal" line seems to me to be one of the starting points of the culture's hypocrisy. And Pesky, while I know Malleus could cloak his zings in fine words, I suspect that he prefers to be more direct and (possibly) honest in his commentary. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the most grossly overlooked area of incivility is possibly the one where a group of people seem to have carte blanche to call people who disagree with their attitude things like this:

enabler, supporter, buff, devotee, enthusiast, fan, follower, advocate, aficionado, believer, devotee, disciple, hanger-on, groupie, worshipper, clique member, cabal member .... shall I go on?

I'm heartily sick of the name-calling directed at people who dare to have differing opinions or seek better methods. Pesky (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm still, frankly, quite disgusted with some of the things I've seen in the past few days. Sure...those with longer tenure will tell me it's nothing compared to what usually goes on, etc., but that's not the point to me. There's a problem when you suddenly become "one of them" if you disagree with someone or dare to buck someone's consensus (a fleeting thing in most cases). There are many areas here I enjoy working on, and some people who are fun to work with. But behavior like you describe (and some I've seen that may not fall into that grouping) really makes me question if it's worth my time at all. Intothatdarkness 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling like that is not only derogatory and demeaning, it's (probably) intended to encourage others to be dismissive; it's marginalising, disempowering and ridiculing the opponents. It's ad hominem attacking. "Oh, you're one of the fan club, so your views are worthless" kind of approach. Sadly, too many people fall for it and believe it; contemptibly, it's the kind of persistent incivility which is constantly (and consistently) overlooked. And the real irony is that it's always those shouting loudest about perceived incivility who engage on this particularly undermining kind of incivility themselves. A shame so few people actually recognise it for what it is – a way of silencing or ignoring perfectly good people who happen to take a differing view on what constitutes a sensible, intelligent and mature approach. Pesky (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But we're the "puling masses," after all. <sigh> I suppose I should work up the drive to finish the FSB Mary Ann article. It's getting closer to being decent... Intothatdarkness 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A mreow for your "I don't, not really" message. Did you ever read Gerrit Komrij? You might like him.

Drmies (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

- I always pictured this little one as more the type of pet that Malleus would give a home to. — Ched :  ?  14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm actually rather fond of cats Ched. I've never come across Gerrit Komrij, but I'll keep a look out for him. Presumably he writes in Dutch though? Are there translations? Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dutch, and I don't know how much is translated. I'll find out. One notable poem is "Two Worlds", commissioned when Amsterdam was the cultural capital of Europe, 1987--I have it upstairs somewhere, in a publication with the poem in a dozen languages. I'll find it. There's an excerpt here, at the bottom, of The Invisible Labyrinth. BTW, I need a translation of "vormvast"--"sticking fast to form"... Not "formalist" yet as a doctrine, but a poetry written in non-free-form, so to speak. Is that "formal"? "Formalist"? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got no idea, as I'm most definitely no poet. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditional? Rhyming, scanning stuff ... of course there are so many different forms for it to stick to, from rhyming couplets through sonnets to iambic pentameter sagas ... I kinda like anapaests, myself ;P This is anapaestic heptameter. And also fully referenced ... Pesky (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

I'd like to hear your opinion on this if you have one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your stated position; so long as it's not excessively offensive (some people here will go through whatever hoops are necessary to try and make the case that anything they don't like is offensive) who cares what users chooses to call themselves? User names can't be promotional, only what you do with them, and editors should be dealt with on the basis of what they do. Two things are very clear though. The first is that many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines simply don't work or are widely misinterpreted or ignored, and the second is that administrators like OrangeMike and Sandstein are out of control and way beyond the reach of any logic. They have no right to enforce only those policies they approve of, like WP:CIVIL, but not those they don't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know where either stood on civility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC) add 13:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where OrangeMike stands on civility either, I really had Sandstein in mind. Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On ferrets and editors

Early on we were told to flick the nose of any ferret that bit, but I can promise you that just makes the little buggers even more determined to get you the next time they see a chance. The only sure way is to take the bites, let them know in their own language that it's hurting you, and pretty soon they don't see the point of trying to hurt you again, if you're not hurting them. It's just a matter of mutual respect.

Errrrm .... could you apply the same strategies to editors / admins? No matter what they do to you (bite) or how much they may have bitten you in the past?

"I can promise you that just makes the little buggers even more determined to get you the next time they see a chance." Pesky (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But you said it yourself, animals can't be dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. And dishonesty riles me (probably) as much as it riles you. In Real Life™ one of the many and varied hats I wear is involvement in miscarriages of justice where the original fault was dishonesty of one kind or another (or just people with agendas not realising the consequences of what they're doing). Injustice can make me steam. It can make me literally get the shakes for days from rage and outrage. And when an innocent person dies in prison it just devastates me. I try desperately hard not to let it take over (not easy, for someone with OCD!) But, with all your experience in dealing with ferrets, treating this situation the same way, in that you are the human and the biters are the ferrets; just consistently don't flick their noses, no matter how hard they bite. That's likely to be bloody hard to do; I appreciate that – but at least then, the more you can do that, if anyone does bite, you can quite sensibly request a recent example of nose-flicking. The less recent those examples become, the more obvious it is to others that you're being bitten but not nose-flicking back. You are so intelligent, and I know you're the Unreasonable Man, but even the Unreasonable Man has smarter strategies at his disposal. Hugz to you. Come down here to the Forest; you'll love it. And I can show Mrs Malleus some incredible wild flowers (some pretty rare), and you some incredible beer. And shrooms ;P Pesky (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth

I endorse every word of Carcharoth's analysis. I would like to see you writing essays and collaborating with others in improving the ethos here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I find Carcharoth's analysis to be rather self-contradictory. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification

This is your last warning. If you continue to contribute in a positive manner like you did at Melford Stevenson, you may be forced to do so regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone suggested to me that I might like to take a look at Melford, and it was in pretty poor condition; looks better now I think. Anyway, how did you spot it? Are you the admin allocated to Malleus watch this week? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you are on the green mile, so there are at least 6 of us on 24 hour watch to make sure you don't injure the other inmates. There is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed some of the refs there.PumpkinSky talk 01:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Still an awful lot to do though, and I don't yet have any of the page numbers needed. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I'll do what I can to help. Just let me know.PumpkinSky talk 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some books are needed, to give a more rounded picture, but I know you're in the US, so don't sweat it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cotswold Olimpick Games

I think you should nominate this for TFA for the opening day of the Olympics. Parrot of Doom 11:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I had half an idea that it had already been on the main page ... I'll check. It would need a good blurb focusing on the debt the BOA has said the modern Games owe to Dover's Games though, and I'm not sure I have the motivation to write one right now. I've had some rather upsetting RL news today, which has kind of altered my perspective on things. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well whatever it is I wish you the best. Life can be a shit butty, sometimes. Parrot of Doom 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Many hugs; Real Life issues can be total bastards. You're in my thoughts. Pesky (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Olimpicks and constellations, people matter the most, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, hope things improve. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my best wishes as well. Intothatdarkness 17:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Andromeda (constellation)

This is a note to let the main editors of Andromeda (constellation) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Andromeda is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains one of the 88 modern constellations. Located north of the celestial equator, it is named for the princess in the Greek legend, who was chained to a rock to be eaten by the sea monster Cetus. Its brightest star, Alpha Andromedae, is a binary star, as is bright Gamma Andromedae, a colorful binary and a popular target for amateur astronomers. The constellation's most obvious deep-sky object is the naked-eye Andromeda Galaxy (M31, also called the Great Galaxy of Andromeda), the closest galaxy to the Milky Way and one of the brightest Messier objects. In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance; a constellation related to Andromeda also exists in Hindu mythology. Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You deserve a lot of credit for this. You and yours are in my thoughts; I hope all becomes well very very soon. Best wishes. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Best wishes from here too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Saw the above thread, too. Best wishes, Mally. I did my thing on Andromeda and it goes up in an hour and a half. Met Keilana, too and it was a per discussion on your page. Sincerely, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ODNBsub

Probably not top of your priorities at the moment (my sympathies and best wishes) but I'm wondering whether we can find a solution to the formatting of {{ODNBsub}}. I can see the reasons why having a consistent format with {{subscription required}} is a good idea, but until this edit of yours ODNBsub hadn't had brackets since Feb 2010. Adding brackets then meant that we ended up with double brackets when ODNBsub was used in the "|format=" parameter of {{cite web}}, for example. So, as a fix for now at least, I've added the formatting directly and eliminated the brackets. This means that people will need to add brackets if they want them but won't be stuck with double brackets. It does mean that the brackets aren't in the same font style as the message, though (<advert>e.g. Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860, which is still accepting comments at peer review by the way... </advert>). If you or any of my fellow TPSers has a better idea, I'm all for it. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that {{subscription required}} says that it should go between the closing brackets of the cite template and the </ref> command, since using it in "|format=" also produces double brackets. Should I revert myself and add similar instructions to {{ODNBsub}}? I think it would need a bot to go through and move the ODNB template to the end of references, since it'd be a hell of a job to do by hand... Bencherlite^Talk 10:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks strange to have the output from {{ODNBsub}} in a different font from that of {{subscription required}} and I never liked using {{ODNBsub}} in the format= parameter, as it's obviously not a format, just a hack. I've actually looked at (and fixed) quite a few articles that use the template (and the similar {{ODNBweb}}) template, and {{ODNBsub}} pops up all over the place, sometimes in the format= parameter and sometimes in the "right" place just before the closing </ref>. So I'd say go back to my version, change the documentation to match that of {{subscription required}}, which will remove the evident confusion about where to put {{ODNBsub}}, and then look at the options for making its usage consistent in all articles. Having it work differently to {{subscription required}} just seems crazy to me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. Is this the sort of thing (moving the template to the end of the citation) that AWB could do? Malleus Fatuorum 12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, on further reflection. As one of the people who's grown used to using |format={{ODNBsub}} this will hurt me more than it hurts you! As for AWB, I don't know; it would probably require a bit of hackery in the "find and replace" instructions to catch all possible variations of spacing etc. I was amused to see you comment a while back that you have AWB access - I thought you were opposed to having anything that admins could grant or take away?!! Bencherlite^Talk 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am, but somehow I've never thought of it as a user right. Guess I'll have to ask for my access to be revoked now you've pointed that out. Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, does the same apply to Twinkle? Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Twinkle's just a gadget that can be selected in "My preferences"; just think of AWB as nearly the same and you'll be fine (after all, if you had the inclination and know-how, you could run a tweaked version of AWB on your computer that didn't require the usual AWB access route, as Rich Farmbrough's last run-in with Arbcom showed. I didn't mean to provoke you into giving up AWB access, anyhow. Bencherlite^Talk 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true, I could easily alter the AWB source code and recompile it, as you say (I was a C/C++ programmer for years), so revoking access would be nothing more than a minor irritation anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

Is it just confirmation bias on my part, or does it seem like the incidence of wikipedia "consuming its own" is accelerating lately? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that it's been accelerating over the last couple of years, which is quite strange given the recent interest in editor retention. But just look at the outcome of ArbCom cases; no matter what the nominal reason for the case it's become mandatory now that whoever is taken there is at the very least reprimanded, no matter what the rights and wrongs. And how many ANI topics have you seen in which there wasn't at least one editor arguing for some kind of sanction regardless of the merits of the case? Bottom line is that there are far too many here more concerned about all the bureaucratic crap that's proliferated, and not about what we're supposed to be here to do; write a freely available encyclopedia. And those non-administrators who do try to write stuff are treated with increasing disrespect, as easily replaceable units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that something is very different now from what it at least seemed to be when I started here several years ago. Perhaps wikipedia is a victim of its own success. Too many cooks spoiling the broth. And that sort of thing. Concerns about editor retention. Concerns about the admin shortage. And all the while treating established editors like drive-by trolls... and vice versa. Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no doubt that this is happening, however it has happened in the past. For me the difference is that I am, in the last couple of years, seeing people who I know to be (or at least to have been) good contributors driven off the project, whereas in my first few years I tended to assume that the process was fair and self-regulating - that those loosely described as "senior admins", arbitrators and so forth, knew what they were doing. Perhaps one phenomena may be characterized by the arbitrator who described something I was supposed to have done (I can't remember what) as "very 2007". I think in this context it meant "getting on with the job" - I.E. bold and Not:Bureau. It would be useful, but not necessarily easy, to actually compile some proper statistics. Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Bugs, you are absolutely right. I've noticed a definite sea-change (for the worse) over the past year or so. Pesky (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how objective this is, but I'll certainly say that my perspective of Wikipedia has changed since 08-09. — Ched :  ?  07:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot more widespread vindictive vengefulness; more trigger-happiness and less really reasonable non-zap-solution-focussed approaches. Pesky (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a break in late 08 due to frustration, and didn't log back on until two years later, even if I did some work as an IP. Obviously, I see some of the problems you talk about, I'm also seeing a few of us willing to be speak out and be more vocal about it. And Malleus, the recent interest in editor retention is in part a response to the very same concerns and others, and a way to get like minded people all on the same page, looking at the same problems, and actually working on real solutions. And of course, I enjoy shinning some extra light in areas where it is needed by politely butting in from time to time, and encouraging others to do the same. I'm still rather optimistic, but that is my nature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I did the same thing, and I see the same change in general attitude. It's a less collegial and more bureaucratic environment now. I just don't feel as optimistic as you, not sure why - I'm the young one and should be less jaded or something! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we have the ability to change our own destiny, then the amount of optimism is directly related to the amount of effort we are willing to expend toward our goals. You do a lot of good work, you have reason to be more optimistic than you are. Optimism, like happiness, is subjective and internal. It is a choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is right. People have to make the choice to continue to participate and to work together, rather than sitting on the sidelines with a big chip on their shoulder. Those feeling disillusioned with Wikipedia (and there have always been those in every generation of editors) need to either work out what is causing that disillusionment and work to overcome that, or move on. Otherwise you just sour the atmosphere and drag everyone else down with you. Sometimes those who are getting disillusioned are seeing local trends rather than global ones, and extrapolating those trends to conclude that because things no longer work for them, it can't work for anyone else either (which is usually wrong). It's a natural stage in the development of many Wikipedians (especially those that stay around for longer than a few years). You either get through it and out the other side, or you leave, or you become someone who grouches a lot of the time. Look back over the past five years or so and you can see many examples of editors who went through that process. It is invariably much more pleasant to work with a group of enthusiastic new editors, rather than a set of jaded editors whose hearts might no longer truly be in it, and who mainly combine article work with cynical commentary. The Wikipedians that tend to be the most productive and content are those who are capable of periodically rejuvenating themselves, letting go of the past, rediscovering their enthusiasm, and recognising when they need to take a break and come back refreshed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But your position is of course incompatible with the notion of admin for life. Additionally, you seem to be putting the blame for long-standing problems (or is it your contention that there are none?) on those who complain about them, not those who have failed to address them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that identifying problem areas and sensitive spots, and then complaining about them every so often isn't actually that helpful. One of the funny things about Wikipedia is that complaining about things doesn't help precisely because it is so de-centralised and there is no central authority to appeal to to fix things that are broken. If you see a problem, you actually have to do something about it yourself, or persuade a sufficiently large number of people that something needs doing about it. Just complaining about something tends to actually make the problem worse, as people start to avoid the area being complained about, or they start to tune out the oft-repeated complaints. The frustrating thing is that even a carefully crafted presentation, with evidence, and proposals for changes, can sink like a stone without a trace if no-one else sees the need for change, or it can run slap bang into the brick wall of no consensus. The only real way to achieve change is either incremental (bit-by-bit over months and years) or radical change from above (very rare). Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely why Wikipedia is ultimately doomed. There's very little to be gained by writing essays, initiating RfCs, starting up projects or any of the rest; the only rational way to think of Wikipedia is as a repository of freely available content until something better comes along, hopefully run by adults. And when that alternative does come along, as it surely will, all Wikipedia will be left with is its administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

..ah yes, Carcharoth, wiki has above and below doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic. I think administrators (and supposed problems with them) are actually a distraction. The real core of Wikipedia is its editors. It is perfectly possible to ignore the worst administrators (within reason) and concentrate on editing. I would say more, but have to go now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Blake and Dante would have a lot to say about Wikipedia, wouldn't they!

It isn't possible to ignore the worst administrators. I got blocked for 3RR and a rude word, because apparently that's disruptive. Malleus has been blocked for less. And yet, an administrator disrupts the project over a period of many months, and gets a finger wagged at him. Parrot of Doom 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who looked at my block log with an open mind would see a microcosm of what's wrong here. Overly sensitive and overly self-important administrators being right at the top of that list. As you say, ignoring them isn't an option, as they don't ignore you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well you know I disagree with you (PoD) on that. The disputes were (as far as I recall) all of the editing variety. Nothing to do with being an admin at all. If he wasn't an admin, you'd still have both gotten into those disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that admin used his tools to further his disruption. And no punishment was forthcoming. He's even had a pop at Malleus on that Arbcom page. Parrot of Doom 08:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you nailed some symptoms of the deadly way Wikipedia is spiraling into the clutches of uncomprehending administrators. The consequent experiences of helplessness and lack of centralised intelligence are key issues. It's true that new editors can be bright and bushy tailed and nice to work with, until they start to realise what actually happens here. But I don't follow your point about pretending this is not happening. Do you have a drug you can share that helps with that? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasonableness? Chillax? Either that, or being pedantic about spelling. But I've got in trouble before now pointing out spelling mistakes. There was one here ('repost' should presumably have been 'riposte'). But seriously, one thing I think some people do is take Wikipedia (and those who edit it, including themselves) too seriously. It should really only be a hobby or leisure activity, not the all-consuming passion it can seem when some argument breaks out. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in the work done here, but it has to be balanced with other things as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely you can understand that if one spends time and money (books, trips to the library, journal subscriptions ...) on developing an article then it's a little difficult to watch that article subsequently being trashed. But of course you may choose not to see that, as most of your admin colleagues do. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be stating the obvious, but if an editor is a good enough writer they should be able to get published elsewhere. They shouldn't need to write for a site where their work can be trashed. But they still do. Why is that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be determined to miss the point. Kindly go miss it elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Re-reading that, I do seem to have missed the point. I agree with what you said about time and money spent on an article, and will leave it at that. Apologies for any upset caused. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you may not be able to understand this, but if anything does eventually drive me away from this adventure it will be people like you. By nature I am the eternal optimist, but I am a realist as well. I did get (fucking) jarred into the internal workings of what has been going on here for the last few years and decided to stay despite what I realized. But people like Malleus do not sour the atmosphere or drag me down. It is only the knowing that I'm not the only one that can read the writing on the wall and yet stick around for awhile that keeps me here. At a certain point only a fool believes that the powers that be are able to change. What has happened here is exactly what happens as every corporation becomes larger and larger. It really should not be at all surprising. Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did re-read what I said to Malleus, and have apologised to him. I don't normally take these things personally, but it is rather disconcerting to have someone you don't recognise turn up and say "people like you" with an edit summary of "he is hopeless..." Anyway, as I said, I don't recognise your name from anywhere, but apologies to you too for any upset caused. I certainly didn't intend anything I said to have that effect on anyone. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all of us optimists are so pessimistic. I guess it depends on your life experiences. As for corporate growth and reinvention, that I understand. Change is not only possible, it is unavoidable. In my career experiences, the fools were the ones who thought nothing would ever change. The question is never "if", only "how". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Gandydancer I'd point out that at least in terms of active contributors, Wikipedia is becoming smaller and smaller, so how do you square that circle? Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem. We do have a problem. But, as I commented earlier (and as Dennis has pointed out, too) we also have several places in which intelligent people are looking at the problem and discussing it without getting too heated. This is one of them. Sooooo ... yes, there's room for optimism. If we could work on ways of reducing the heavy-handedness on both (actually, all) sides, that would be a good start. There are some admins who are overly heavy-handed, and there are a few who come across as downright sadistic. A sanction should never be applied with glee. It should be applied with a sigh. If it has to be applied at all; and often there are better ways. And we have grumpy editors who are also too heavy-handed from time to time. I can understand where they're coming from (of course I can, I'm not totally thick, ya know .... despite appearances to the contrary); but there are better ways than being too heavy-handed. We've discussed animal behaviour here and there. I have an eight-foot boa constrictor who has a few little behavioural issues. Ahem. Never, ever, ever get into a fight with a big boa. That's a "kill or die" situation, and is totally avoidable. In cases like that, you just have to think of better strategies than getting into a fight. I don't want to have to kill her, and I don't want her to kill me, either. With situations like that, one has to be very, very smart in working out strategies. Wikipedia is much the same; we should never feel the need to get into a kill-or-be-killed fight. Pesky (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Carcharoth, you're talking a lot of sound sense. And an edit summary of "He is hopeless", Gandydancer, is out of order. Really it is. Assume the position, and allow me to take a whip to your behind. (And stop grinning and leering like that, and put your tongue away ....) Jeeze, everyone can occasionally miss a point, for all sorts of reasons! It's called "being human"! Is there a single one of us who could honestly say that they've never missed something, or misread something, ever? This is what I mean by more tolerance and less heavy-handedness. Keep talking, guys. Have some beers. [Pesky hands virtual beers around the table]. Pesky (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"There's room for optimism"... 'fraid not Pesky. Within a few short days the new project on editor retention became a mutual celebration of admins invoking the greater splendor of themselves and brushing aside the actual concerns of content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I took my name off the project, Epipelagic. My experience with too many projects has been as soon as it starts moving toward obsessive collection of data (in addition to the other element you noted) the project is not long for this earth. Data can be useful, but it can also be manipulated or become a goal in and of itself that overshadows everything else. Eternal optimism is an admirable trait, but it also leaves people open to exploitation by those who would "work the system" to their own ends. I'm not a prolific editor by any means, and thus my thoughts certainly don't carry much weight. But I become concerned any time a position that has the power to block access is deemed "not a big deal." Of course that's a big deal! Denying it just makes people appear foolish. And when that same position isn't subject to any serious review or reconfirmation it creates more problems of perception. There are good admins, of course, and some great ones as well. But every time a rogue is allowed to spout off with no serious review or repercussion, it damages the credibility of the entire group. Tolerance is good, and we do need more of it, but when it's perceived to flow in one direction or only toward a chosen few it becomes favoritism. And those perceptions are major problems. And this is from a relative newcomer's point of view. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is your precious TFA the illustration to this discussion? - Language question: "He is hopeless", does it mean "he lost hope" or "I lost hope in him"? I didn't, one or the other ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that points out my "he is hopeless" edit summary as not appropriate is certainly right. If I had to make a statement about hopelessness, I should have said "I am hopeless". I made an attempt to say I was sorry on his/her talk page.

Dennis, I'm wondering where you work. In my field (medical) everyone that I know that remained within the system has lost hope of change for the better. Same thing with teachers--the only change for some years now has been for the worse.

As for what I think would help Wikipedia retain good editors, I don't know. Has anyone come up with some good ideas that could actually be put in place? Gandydancer (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, that simply isn't the case and I would take exception to that. The fact that several admins have joined is a positive sign, and something I was hoping for and pursued. If you want actual results, you have to have a group that has a fair amount of admins involved like this. And Gandydancer, right now the group is one week old and already compiling the data on WHY people leave to start with, to clearly define the problems before solving them. And if you check the contribs of members, you will see people who are speaking out at RFCs with these goals in mind. All the project did was allow a lot of people to realize that there are others who have similar concerns and give them a place to discuss, compile and work. The project isn't the solution, the people are. The project is just a way to organize them. And to answer your question: I've spent almost 20 years here, as the marketing head is in a rather cut throat industry that has seen 95% of all companies within it, go out of business in the last 5 to 8 years. It has been an adapt or die experience. I've owned a few small businesses along the way as well. I certainly don't have the education of a doctor, but I do understand corporate struggle and renewal in a very real and personal way. This is very different than an institutional setting, where radical ideas are typical frowned upon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to keep editors? Here's a list of things that might make our lives easier, right off the top of my head.

1. Force all editors to leave edit summaries on GA and FA articles. New software to prevent edits without summaries. Nonsensical summaries automatically reverted by a bot.
2. TFA always protected from anonymous edits.
3. Get rid of the civility policy but keep the no personal attacks policy.
4. All candidates at RFA required to have at least one successful Featured Article nomination in which they're the primary editor.
5. Any admin who makes a bad block becomes subject to a block of the same duration, no arguments.
6. Any admin found purposely abusing the tools (no matter how minor) is immediately desysopped and named and shamed on the Village Pump. No arguments, no fannying around...BANG...GONE.
7. Any editor caught POV-pushing in articles is banned from that article and all its relations.
8. The same for anyone guilty of obvious plagiarism.
9. Long boring conversations on project-related pages are automatically replaced by a bot with "OMG JUST FUCKOFF AND WRITE AN ARTICLE". Parrot of Doom 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

9A. (ditto) for "seemingly endless handbags, posturing, sniping and tantrums at ANI". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think #s 5 and 6 are especially important to have on the table. The power to block IS a big deal, and there are no obvious mechanisms in place to make sure it's wielded properly. Intothatdarkness 13:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose #4. FAs are important, but they're not the be all and end all. There's a lot of value too in breadth of coverage, so an editor who creates lots of small "competent" articles (not even GA) that add to our coverage of a topic is adding just as much encyclopedia value as someone who work on a single magnum opus. Besides which, there's also the Citizendium argument that admin and content are basically orthogonal, and an aptitude for one is no guarantee of the other.

Otherwise though, there's a lot to be said for most of these. Why didn't #1 and #2 happen years ago? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As for #4, I wouldn't have qualified. Perhaps that was your point, but as I have no idea, I won't assume. I disagree with the idea that you need to be an excellent author to be a reasonable admin. Understanding the process, being sympathetic to needs, and using the tools sparingly isn't dependent on one's ability to generate prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I like them all except for #9, even #4. Four will instill empathy for writers in the admin, and will act as a kind of competency test. It's by no means infallible, and we may miss out on the occasional good admin who's a poor content creator, but in my opinion it would improve the efficacy of the admin corps over time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Per iridescent immediately below :). 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Institutional Memory (©Malleus) has to point out that there are historical reasons we don't do all that:

1. The software can't distinguish between GA/FA and any other kind of article, and making summaries compulsory for every edit would greatly irritate people who like to tinker with things in their userspace before they send them live;
2. The WMF sees the ability to edit TFA as a powerful recruiting tool; as the article which always appears below the words "anyone can edit" on the main page, it sends out a powerful signal if the article is uneditable. People had to fight tooth-and-nail to get to the current situation where TFAs can be protected in case of vandalism, and it's unlikely Jimmy & co will concede any further ground;
3. Most of the people who cite the civility policy (either for or against it) have never actually bothered to read it, and assume the wording is "anyone who says something I don't like should be banned". The actual wording is very carefully phrased, particularly this section, which every admin should be forced to learn word-for-word;
4. Bad idea. Plenty of people who will never write an FA would be perfectly good admins—the people who work on images or templates, for instance (there must be some who aren't batshit crazy), while plenty of people who have written an FA I wouldn't trust to count their legs without needing two guesses—WP:WBFAN could be retitled WP:List of self-important crackpots with only a few names needing to be changed;
5. How would you define "bad block", and who would decide? Most blocks fall into "I don't agree with this, but I have to concede it falls into a strict interpretation of the rules". If an admin makes an indefensibly bad block, Arbcom are more then happy to hang them out to dry—they like desysoppings pour encourager les autres;
6. Likewise, how do you define "abuse"? Would closing an AFD one minute early when the vote is 25-1 in favor of deletion count as abuse? Accidentally protecting a page with a copyvio in place? Blocking someone, having forgotten that you had an argument with them on the topic in question six years ago and are thus technically "involved"? (Carcharoth and Randy can confirm that not only have all of these happened, but Arbcom gets requests to desysop people on grounds like this all the damn time);
7. Every edit other than the most minor typo-fix is POV-pushing; you're "pushing" the view that the source you're using, and your interpretation of said source, is correct. If we really introduced a "nobody can add any fact which could be disputed" rule, we'd end up like Citizendium, whose articles on Moscow and Cyprus are each three sentences long and Civil liberties is still a redlink because everyone's too damn scared to touch anything open to debate;
8. Obvious plagiarism, yes, but there are shades of grey between "paraphrasing" and "copyright violation", and it's not always obvious where the line should be drawn. I have a feeling Pumpkinsky may be able to elaborate on this theme;
9. Most of those long boring conversations are a waste of pixels, but every radical change (and they do happen) has stemmed from a LBC. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell which conversations will trigger changes. Remember, the firestorm that ripped the guts out of FAC and led to mass resignations and a major rewriting of policy, stemmed from a routine complaint that someone hadn't been notified when their article was tagged for deletion.

Not saying the way Wikipedia does things shouldn't be changed—the current system clearly isn't working—but the solutions aren't as obvious as tinkering from the bottom, as long as the unhealthy combination of the Old Guard at the top and the holy shit slide at the bottom aren't addressed. – iridescent 2 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean by The Old Guard, or even the shit slide. What do you see as the problem here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Old Guard are the admins of 5 years ago, who passed back when "no big deal" was still in place and the overwhelming majority of candidates passed RFA (see following table, courtesy of User:Hut 8.5). The majority of them wouldn't have a chance of passing if they were to re-take RFA with today's higher standards, but because the standards now are (rightly) high there are few new admins, and thus the group of pre-2007 admins have a hugely disproportionate influence.

The Holy Shit Slide

The Holy Shit Slide is the WMF's own term for the internal collapse of the en-wiki editing community. See that nice Sue Gardner explain it in her own words. – iridescent 2 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Year	No. promotions	% still admin	% still active admin	% of all active admins
2003	123	68.29	26.83	4.69
2004	240	65.83	22.08	7.54
2005	387	65.89	25.06	13.8
2006	353	66.57	20.11	10.1
2007	408	76.96	38.73	22.48
2008	201	80.6	52.74	15.08
2009	121	85.95	54.55	9.39
2010	75	92.0	78.67	8.39
2011	52	96.15	88.46	6.54
2012 (so far)	10	100.0	100.0	1.42

Ah. Thanks. I had seen that talk and the holy shit slide, but I wasn't familiar with the 2007 thing. So when Rich refers above to the arbitrator who described something I was supposed to have done as "very 2007", I guess the arbitrator was referring to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what we should do? Elect someone who gets all of this to ArbCom. Hopefully they'll try to effect some changes - by, for instance, slapping admins who believe that "civility," is most aptly defined as "contempt of cop," that ArbCom is being overwhelmed by private requests that are private for no reason, and that the "old guard" has disproportionate influence. Hopefully that person won't just up and leave for no explained reason. Wait, yes they will! Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Iridescent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this tinkering touches the core issues.

1. We need to start afresh and dismantle the present admin structure.

2. The admin tools should be unbundled and issued on a needs basis. That is, editors apply for a particular tool if they need it in their area of work. Some code of practice should operate in each of these areas, and the tools should be removed when appropriate. Thus, vandal fighters would be given the right to block vandals, others would have the ability to delete articles or files, and so on, with each area under some oversight.

3. Disciplining established editors and the power to block them is a special case. This is the most dysfunctional and controversial area in the current system. There needs to be a dedicated process here, involving perhaps a board or a special group of users which exercise this power. Maybe these are the people we should call "admins". I'm not sure of the best way to go about this. The current way is to have a large pool of users ("admins"), specialized mostly in areas that have nothing to do with content building, and then allowing any one of those users the right to block a committed content builder, often on little more than whim or using their "common sense". That lottery has to be the worst of all conceivable systems.

4. The incumbent admin corp is now entrenched in their hold on power. There is no way they will allow a clear space for discussing reforms like these, let alone allow them to be implemented.

5. This brings us back to the start of this thread, which is that it is now too late for change, unless it is done from the top which seems unlikely. There is no longer any point in mentioning these issues. As Carcharoth said they just sink like a stone. There is no light at the end of the dark tunnel Wikipedia is now travelling --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions give me a hope for change that I have not had for a long time. At times when a power elite holds too much control it becomes a waste of time to try to work within the system for improvement. At least that has been my work experience and my experience in politics as well. I'm reminded of an old Doris Lessing book in which the world leaders get together year after year to talk, talk, talk about world hunger. Nothing ever got done and nothing has been done to this day. I believe that endless discussion can actually add to a problem because it makes it seem as though there is concern and understanding and that productive action will soon be taken, when it's not very likely at all. Gandydancer (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Gandydancer, that's a relief. I though I was the last remaining editor on Wikipedia prepared to state the obvious. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! The thread has "just growed"! There are some really goo ideas here (which should be in the Infamous (joking) Project area if they're not already. Hey, all those who are pessimists ... give the project a chance; it's only just a newborn, not even an infant yet, hasn't learned to hold its own head up and smile, let alone perform outstanding feats of athletic genius! The civility policy may be worth a revisit; it may not be precisely the same as you recall. I did some extensive rewriting / adding / clarifying to it a while back. As always, the problem is with equitable enforcement, rather than the actual policy itself (though it's never going to be some which will please all of the people all of the time). Pesky (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If I was truly a pessimist I wouldn't keep muttering it's too late for Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! I think there's always room for some hope, so long as intelligent and well-meaning people are sincerely looking for ways to improve things. Ultimately, all improvement stems from discussion of one kind or another, and sometimes the simplest and most radical and most far-reaching improvements come from a discussion which has been going on for "far too long" (see later!) and which a lot of people have given up on. Gandydancer, you have a lovely point / parallel with the medical world. But I think that it may be something which medicos / paramedicos have been saying for decades. Maybe even centuries. Like people who say "when I was a child", "things aren't what they used to be", "in the good old days", and all that other stuff. Anything like this is in a pretty constant state of evolution, and sometimes it's a dead-end evolution, and sometimes it just stagnates for a while, and sometimes there's a sudden leap forwards from what first appeared to be a disadvantageous mutation. So long as we can get people with Serious Brain to be prepared to put aside individual personality clashes and old tiffs, and communicate really well with each other, with a common goal in mind, things can happen. And sometimes it's when those who have been most polarised suddenly discover that they can actually work well together in that kind of area that the sparks which fly start powering things instead of frying them.

P.S. Oh, yes, that "far too long" thing. How long is too long? If it works in the end, then it was just long enough. And, if what you're doing to make something work isn't actually causing worse damage, then you keep on persevering until it works. So long as the "until" stage hasn't been reached, the discussion / action isn't "too long". Pesky (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pesky you start off saying that I have made "a lovely point / parallel with the medical world" but then go on to show that it is not a good comparison at all. I don't agree with you (and I certainly don't like my suggestion being called "lovely"! :D). In my experience there is currently a political, medical, (and religious) crisis related to the belief that a ruling class has taken over and is turning a deaf ear to the needs and desires of the working class. Certainly there is nothing new about this discontent and discussion of it, but something new does seem to be emerging and it is most visible in the political atmosphere of today. One need look no further than the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon to see that. Of course, here at WP we have no other course of action but to talk about what to do, but I believe that more editors need to start saying "FUCK THIS SHIT", if you get my drift. Actually FUCK THIS SHIT was one of the signs used by demonstrators at the OWS marches. Some people don't get it, they are clueless, but others get it. That's why I'm encouraged by some of the posts here. To me it seems that they are saying FUCK THIS SHIT. I don't see this as negative or pessimistic at all. They are needed here, at least by me they are. (As always, it is difficult to explain one's POV in just a few words and with no physical presence--I've done my best but may well be misunderstood... Pesky if I remember correctly I scored only 7 on your test) Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good comparison (I almost certainly didn't explain what I meant properly.) I'm not sure where you live (I'm in the UK), so my perceptions / experiences of the medical world may be different from yours. I don't think there's any such thing as a community with no problems, but the problems change from generation to generation. Medical, again: back in the old days, the biggest causes of death were things which have (mostly) been eradicated or are now easily treatable. The biggest causes of death now are just the ones which were next down on the list. Fing is, though, fing is, that if we succeed in eradicating accidents and disease, then the biggest causes of death will be homicide and suicide. Now, wouldn't that be a truly shocking thing to have to say about a country? On the surface? There will always be a list of problems, it's just that the one at the top of the list changes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try and eradicate the ones which we can address. Pesky (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also tend to agree that FTS may be a good way to begin. Discussions/conversations have a way of circling back on themselves, or being subverted by the status quo. How many projects do we "give a chance"? I'm not being snide, Pesky, I'm asking that seriously and honestly. Your position seems to be based on the proposition that all projects will eventually work, and if it doesn't cause more damage it's worth carrying on...even if it's doing nothing more than spinning wheels. There is communal damage done by projects that start with promise (or are perceived to start with promise) and then go exactly nowhere. People become frustrated, cynical, or simply give up on the process because in the end it's just more talk. I'm not saying that Dennis' project (or any other) is crap or not worth doing, but you have to understand that each project started that goes nowhere (or is perceived to go nowhere) you will lose people. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand the skepticism, it was well earned over the years. One of the differences here is that I'm trying hard to not make it "my" project, and letting the momentum of the most active editors move it in the direction that is likely to get the highest participation. This is why I can say I'm not the "leader", only the instigator, and I really mean it. Any idiot can start a project, after all. I am smart enough to not try to dominate it, instead offer some guidance here and there and encourage others to be bold and become emotionally invested themselves. Of course, this means that the things that are most important to me might not get addressed first, but it also means that issues that have the strongest support will get addressed soon. In the meanwhile, I'm not waiting for the project, I'm participating in discussion wherever I find them at venues or on talk pages, rather forcefully actually, promoting the project some and at the very least, building a consensus that editor retention itself is a core issue that we face. The beauty of the project isn't what the project does (it is a project, technically it can't "do" anything), but is that you are able to consolidate discussion in one place instead of it having it scattered all over the Wiki. This allows us to encourage others to participate in RfC's and other policy making discussions without "canvassing" them, since it is within the scope of the project. I try to take the time to support other's subprojects, even if only with encouragement and public support. As for me, I'm not afraid to stir the pot just a bit and take a public stand, and hopefully some others will agree and come along for the ride on changes that interest me. Very soon, it should be a useful "bulletin board" pointing to policy discussions that affect editor retention, so you won't need to be a project member to benefit from the list of discussions on the front page. Of course, anyone is welcome to add to this section, not just "members". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But will that model lead to more collaboration or make it easier for a group with a specific agenda to take control of the process? Or will it result in something that ends up lacking focus and drifting in too many directions to be viable? Getting active editors to drive participation is a worthy goal, but what if those active editors have an agenda that proves contrary to true editor retention? Or if those active editors become so focused on gathering data and targeting specific groups that they miss the forest for the trees? Intothatdarkness 15:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I come in and quietly recommend one thing or another, ping a user on their talk page, suggest a radical solution, which forces others to either agree or come up with a better one. It is kind of how we do it here at work, there are no "bosses" per se, leadership on individual projects is created organically and is just "obvious" to those in that subproject. It is similar to Kaizen, always changing, always improving. We don't need more bureaucracy and a top heavy WikiProject to fix a top heavy wiki. Often, all that is needed is a well expressed opinion or a fresh idea. You are right that some areas will get overlooked, but only if there is insufficient interest in that one topic. No amount of leadership can overcome that. (un)Fortunately, there are many areas that need addressing, so if crowds drift toward fixing 2 or 3 problems, then that is 2 or 3 problems we have fixed, which leaves us better off than before. I've also found that by helping others with their goals (even if they aren't on the top of my list), they are more willing to help me with mine if I ask them, and I'm not shy about asking. Most projects wouldn't work with this method of "management" but I think this is the only possible system that can work here, and I have a great deal of experience with this system, and no desire to be the boss.

I've learned more about the problems since the project started than I ever knew beforehand. Now I wait for each small group with the right ideas that are ready to move forward, then I put every bit of energy I can into getting their ideas implemented, using the goodwill I've generated elsewhere to get others to consider and implement the idea into policy (or removed from policy). That is my role, supporting others. This means some risk of it being "hijacked", but the other "leaderless" participants are more emotionally invested because they are equal shareholders, and not likely to allow this either. Everyone has an equal share to protect.

What it will look like in a month, I can not say. There is always the risk that it will fall flat on its face. Nothing worth achieving comes without risk. Because the project is so decentralized, however, the risk is much lower than you might think, and because each person has an equal stake in the outcome, I don't think they will allow it to fail, even if it is difficult or impossible to implement some of the ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But isn't Kaizen essentially an incremental approach to change, where you tinker with the details as they present themselves? That approach might work very well if you are operating within a structurally sound system. But that's not the case here. The administrative system on Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed, and unless there is a willingness to address its core defects then no amount of tinkering with the details can result in a satisfactory outcome. The tinkering just becomes a band-aid which hides the real problems. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I was using some of the ideas of Kaizen to apply to the Editor Retention project, not Wikipedia itself. You are correct, Wikipedia itself needs a more radical approach, but developing the project that will help keep editors here should be done slower and adjust itself over time, rather than have a strict set of rules up front. Since we haven't done a project like this before, we have to let it grow at its own pace. I don't claim to have the answers for Wikipedia yet, that is for everyone to figure out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I can so understand the scepticism. But I do feel that we only really fail when we stop trying. Of course a load of things which we try won't work, or will only partially work. But we can always learn something from things which didn't work out as planned. Very few things are ever a total loss or a complete waste of time. Pesky (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'll leave y'all to it, then. Intothatdarkness 13:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Notes" subheading

In the article Rienzi I noticed you replaced the subheading ;Notes with '''Notes''', and I am wondering what the rationale for this is. Currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats#Sources and references recommends the first. Should that advice be changed? --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should. It's an accessibility issue for those using screen readers, as explained by RexxS here and elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been wondering the point of those changes as well. Thank you for pointing out that explanation by RexxS. A change that makes an article more easily accessible to non-sighted readers is indeed an important change and, contrary to some people's opinions, a real improvement to an article. LadyofShalott 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to WT:FLC, since I (and others) have used this trick in the past for FLs. I don't know how common it's been in FAs, or whether it's worth mentioning at WT:FAC (or has it been mentioned there already?) Bencherlite^Talk 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As the MediaWiki markup guide until recently recommended using ";" at the start of a line to make the whole line bold I suspect it's very widespread indeed. But this is an area where tools like AWB can definitely help. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an accessibility issue, but at its core it's a semantic issue. Using this hack produces html that is semantic gibberish, which in turn is what is put on offer via screen readers. The poor markup will confuse other tools reading it, too (Google bot, for example;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a little harsh, and in your deployment of the word "semantic" you irritate a long-standing bugbear of mine. There are no "semantics" in basic markup languages such as HTML, although you could argue for them in XML grammars. But basically in this case it's a no-brainer; don't use the ";" hack as a shortcut for "make the entire line bold"; hopefully we're all agreed on that now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll bring it up at the Opera project and try to get it changed. We've been using it in most of our articles because it was an easy way to add the bold. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are semantics in html; the ';' is producing a DT element, but in the uses we're speaking of, there's no ':' and hence no DD element (definition term, and term's definition). HTML has a rep, mostly from the early days, of being a free-for-all, but the specs with xhtml/html5 tightened that all up. Ralph's valid criticism of the plain bold re h3 elements is valid, but in MediaWiki that forces a TOC entry (I know...), an [edit] link and entails some styling that some just don't like (view being that h3 doesn't always seem styled as subordinate to h2). Using plain bold is less than semantically ideal, but at least it's not outright wrong as a stand alone DT is. And see semantic markup; it's why all manner of embedded attributes and inline styles are far from ideal.

But we're fine on how to proceed; the ';' should be beaten back. nb: if doing so in a case where the next bit of wiki-text is not a '*' or something else blockish, you may have to add a blank line to keep things from gluing-up into a single line... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading this lengthy exchange, I can see the point, but before making such wholesale changes, shouldn't you approach the working groups to make this a needed change in the individual MOS or style guides, otherwise, like myself, others many not initially see the point of the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

sounds like megabytes of talk for a month. ick. too much talk around here and not enough doing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And on that we are as one. There is absolutely nothing that needs to be discussed here. Explained, but not discussed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, and I see that page (Headings section) specifically says to use H2, H3, H4, headers, and not to use either the semicolons or '''...''' bolding for pseudosections. LadyofShalott 01:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it, like so much else here is wrong. The problem is that if the article itself uses level 4 headers, for instance, then you can't use the TOC limit to prevent the Notes, Bibliography, etc. from appearing in the TOC, as you can't jump from level 2 to level 5. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for apparently being dumb about this, but I don't get what you just said. (Why would you be jumping to level 5?) Can you explain it again? (Also, why is there all this [not just on this page] about wanting to limit the TOC? I like things being in the TOC and don't understand why the fuss about limiting it anyway.) LadyofShalott 02:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the points of using the ";" hack is that it keeps the subheadings in the References section out of the TOC. Another way to do that would be to make the subheadings level 3, and limit the TOC to level 2 headers, but that wouldn't work if the article already contained level 3 headers in the body of the text. You could potentially get round that by making the subsection headers level 4, but you can't, because you're not allowed to skip levels. Malleus Fatuorum 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I think makes sense now. I still don't find the limiting the TOC to be a useful argument. Why is that a big deal to people? Lady of Shalott 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it's just clutter. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

According to that Accessiblity MOS page though, even the ''' bolding isn't properly understood by screen readers. I find that a more compelling thing to worry about than just "clutter" in the TOC. Is anyone in this discussion able to speak directly to the screen reader issue? (I am, as you can tell, not.) Lady of Shalott 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What it actually says is "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) ...". In other words, as far as a screen reader is concerned it makes no difference whether something's in bold or not as it ignores the bold attribute anyway, so no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one thing it actually says. It also says, "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings." That is the portion I had in mind. Perhaps it does not come across as clear that it is meant to be a heading? LadyofShalott 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The MoS is an inconsistent mess, to say nothing of the project-specific variants, but just think about it for a minute. The situation with References sections is quite different from that of the article body, where of course "proper" headings should be used. But for anyone listening to a citations section I'd say that the least of their problems is that the list of "Scratchit (1982), p. 3, Grommit (2010) p. 132 ..." will be preceded by the word "Notes". And let's remember that accessibility isn't just for those with visual impairments; what we do shouldn't impact the experience of normally sighted readers either. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've already said how I'm not fond of the TOC limits, so as this puts us into a circle (or at least a spiral?), I'm going to drop this stick and comment no further in this thread. I think we have agreement on the major point (not using the semicolon hack), and where we don't agree, I don't care enough to continue. LadyofShalott 02:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed the major point, so if we have agreement on that then it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "No, but, yeah, but, no, but..." See my comments a few above. TOC gets too big, too deep, you get too many [edit] links and the 'look' from level 2 to level 3 looks funny. So there are mild exceptions; call some of these lighter weight then headings/sections. It's just a minor bit of formatting and it should be done with simple bolding in such circumstances. I know the ';' hack is easy, I've knowingly done it a lot. But we shouldn't, and I don't anymore. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Who here was arguing in favor of the ; hack? Certainly not I, so I have no idea why you'd say that in response to my comment. LadyofShalott 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:George Ponderevo, for one, on The Coral Island example, which led to most of the recent talk. But others have too over long time. Didn't mean to imply you were for it. I'm glad this is finally getting some traction. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus, I stopped reading around here and decided to go back to the ranch. It ain't a pretty one (yet) but with Thorp, the church and Horsefield among the more recent Whitefield articles I am beginning to have visions of QR codes scattered around town akin to Monmouthpedia. One day, someone might even realise that my new stuff doesn't need to be reviewed at NPP. - Sitush (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How many new articles have you written? Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that many - 30 or so - but enough to persuade people of my responsibility etc. Wehwalt must've seen the note above as the permission has now been set. My comment was an idle thought of an idle fellow, really. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to George, who I've seen pottering about at The Coral Island, he did seem to pretty readily accept RexxS's accessibility argument once it was explained. Unlike some others. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

He was more reasonable when I asked Ralph to have a word with him. He was quite hostile to me on several topics, though. I had to hat a thread with him on my talk. Still not sure who he was before. A few ideas, of course. Seen this one? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(watching) and the inevitable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So am I correct in assuming that Jack's Socks isn't you? His contributions so far seem reasonable though don't they? Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is the "His" in question? Jack, Br'er Rabbit, Jack's Socks, any of Jack's socks? - Whoever, His contributions seem reasonable to me, Herr rabbit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• User talk:Jack's Socks#July 2012

Just got whacked. Note the first edit, right on my heels. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an easy way to determine how many instances there are of the leading semicolon being used for a definitions list? If there are only a few, I'm thinking perhaps these could be handled with a template, and the Wikisoftware could redefine the meaning of the leading semicolon to a bold subheading that does not appear in the TOC. Then all the pages that use it for that purpose would not have to be changed. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Almost none, if any, I suspect. But how would a template help? You'd then have to change ";" to "{{;}}", as opposed to just making it bold. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, there are quite a number of them; easily many tens of thousands. This is a basic piece of wiki-syntax and it will not ever change. Definition term happen to be styled bold and that led many to view it as a shortcut. HTML5 has a new concept of header tag, so expect any change to come from that direction. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Are we talking at cross purposes? I meant that the number of articles using ";" for definition lists as opposed to a hack for emboldening an entire line was probably vanishingly small. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  No, I understood you. They would tend to be in geekier articles than you probably look at. I do expect the hack usages rather outnumber the DL usages, but that's not a legit reason to consider refining wiki-syntax. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  I certainly wouldn't be arguing for any kind of redefinition of wiki-syntax based on this issue, or in fact any other given the supposedly fairly imminent implementation of the Lua stuff and whatnot. But we all know how long it takes for software changes to arrive here, so where's the logic in not doing what we can in the meantime to improve accessibility for visually impaired readers by making a simple change from ";" to " ''' "? And why are so many fighting it? Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  People are lazy. It's simply a matter of one unshifted keystroke vs six with the shift key (and a release of the shift;). the toolbar's "B" requires selecting text. To many people this all matters more than accessibility. Many a time I've had people basically say fuck them, there are more of us. I make this change in any article I make more than a trivial edit to. The real way to fix this is to tweak MediaWiki into making the change on the fly when a page is saved. No ':' following ';'? Refactor to bold markup and maybe add a blank line.  Done. It would get 90% of them in a month. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If this change can be done automated, I don't see much problem. However the subheadings vary a lot in text, i.e., they are not all ";Notes". There are other subheadings that get used, such as, ";Sources", ";Cited sources", ";Online sources", ";Other sources", ";Bibliography", etc, etc Have you taken this into account? --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone provide some examples, or is there a page which explains this? I guess I'm ignorant of how this ";" is actually supposed to be used. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cat

A small domesticated mammal.

Pussy

An affectionate word used for or to address a cat (informal; often used by or to children).

See also: cunt.

• Help:List#List basics
• MOS:LIST#Description (definition, association) lists

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Off at a tangent: DYK that the Romanian for "cat" is "pisică"? It's so phonetically similar to "pussy cat" that I always wonder whether that's where it came from. Or alternatively whether the reverse is true. Pesky (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My cat's from Romania; name's Tigrita. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy from DC

How's it going, Malleus? I'm sitting at a table full of admins, and they all appear to be human beings, though they are an awful cynical bunch. I managed to miss another important speech, unfortunately, but I am making up for it by inserting myself in other people's conversations randomly. I'm looking at RexxS right now (he's wearing highly inappropriate shorts): he seems to be very cheerful--I wonder if anything's wrong with him, given that he's British. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Overheard: "Every bar has a world-class drunk who has a regular stool that no one else can sit on, and on Wikipedia, that's Malleus." Drmies (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So Malleus is the Norm Peterson of Wikipedia? He should be proud. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  So who said that? Not RexxS I hope. Is it acceptable to call me a world class drunk when I get blocked for making a general observation about admin wannabes? But perhaps my sense of humour where Wikipedia is concerned is not what it once was. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  You'd be surprised how many friends you have, and how many "enemies" who grudgingly agree that you are an asset to the project. No, it wasn't Rexx! But my lips are sealed. The remark is acceptable coming from me since, as you know, different standards apply. Also, ygm in a minute. All the best Malleus, Drmies (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'd be surprised if I have any friends at Wikimania. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kettle of fish

If this account is who she says, the Countess of Lucan seems to object to some of the information I've entered into Lord Lucan. I've posted a polite notice on her talk page asking her to come to the article's talk page to discuss the matter, but how do you resolve contradictions between published, reliable source material, and edits made by an account created by one of the people at the centre of it all? All I can think to do is remove anything contentious. If she is who she says she is then this could lead to a bit of a headache, as all I want to do is have an accurate article. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Either straight to the WMF, or ping Arbcom (while I suspect they all watch this page, the non-Brits may not understand the implications). A high-profile figure like this has the potential for a big PR hit (either positive or negative), and whatever happens you can be sure you and Malleus will be the ones blamed for anything that goes wrong. – iridescent 2 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I emailed them. I must say, I'm surprised to find an admin page that doesn't require knowledge of computer languages to decipher. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be in the clear on that one, as remarkably I don't seem to have made even a single edit to that article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You could punt them to OTRS, seems to be our balliwick. :) (Arbcom are almost certainly the wrong body, it being a content issue; both by policy and, umm, history. And the WMF will just push it to OTRS anyway). Either that or try Maggie (Moonriddengirl) who is community liason and will have better judgement on what to do. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, PoD, that's a pretty durned good article :) congrats. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Normally yes, but in this case OTRS isn't really appropriate. If Parrot and the Countess can't come to an accommodation, the three alternatives are (1) knowingly allowing bias in a high-profile article with the potential for major BLP issues; (2) a high-profile editwar on a legally sensitive topic; or (3) blocking a notable public figure from editing Wikipedia. OTRS is too slow, and Maggie would just bounce it up to Jimmy and Sue (I'm given to understand that Phillippe and Fae are—um—busy right now). Arbcom have the ability to get Jimmy to make the phone calls, should that be the quickest way to defuse things before they get nasty. (BTW, Parrot and Malleus, are the two of you aware that Manchester Ship Canal goes on the main page in two hours? The TFA people seem to have given up notifying.) – iridescent 2 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I imagine if that is indeed the countess (and I've got no reason to suppose it isn't), she might well have contacts in high places and access to the press that could make any of those options rather tricky. And no, I had no idea that the Ship Canal was going on the main page. I thought I'd done my stint on the main page for this month after the Halifax Gibbet went up. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you catch us right (i.e. like this) OTRS are well placed to handle it. Absolutely getting Jimmy to discuss this would be good - but in my experience (of a few similar issues) that doesn't always resolve the issue. From digging into the matter it looks like a) she needs a quick run down of Wikipedia & sourcing, b) a sympathetic ear/advocate and c) a non-wiki based method of communicating article issues that upset/concern her. All of which is what we're highly experienced in doing (I've got significantly more "high profile" problems in my rolodex through OTRS). If you can get Jimmy to call her and make things good then that is #1 option, I think. I'd say; try to make contact first, that is a critical step, and see what she is thinking (responses to this sort of thing can range from rage through upset to calm resolve and even just apathy with a desire simply to set the record straight). PoD seem accomodating so I see no reason why he isn't capable of resolving the issue as well as anyone else :) but if not I'd be happy to give it a shot - even to the level of a phone call if you can't recruit Jimmy. p.s. good to see you around iridescent :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to remove the parts she objects to but I can't sanction the adding of anything that doesn't come from a reliable source. Her website is interesting reading and I have no doubt that it's largely correct, but I can't accept her word as gospel, especially when faced with so many conflicting versions of events. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what the contested material actually is, you might in some cases be able to get away with a "... although Countess Lucan herself claims that ...".

• One possibility, with respect to the 2 years/twenty months disagreement, is to use Moore 1987, and give the year and part of the year that the event occurred, rather than the person's age. Readers can then approximate the age for themselves. You can source Murphy being admitted to hospital for cancer treatment to Ranson and Strange 1994. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Manchester Ship Canal

This is a note to let the main editors of Manchester Ship Canal know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England. Starting at the Mersey Estuary near Liverpool, it generally follows the original routes of the rivers Mersey and Irwell through the historic counties of Cheshire and Lancashire. Major landmarks along its route include the Barton Swing Aqueduct and Trafford Park. By the late 19th century the Mersey and Irwell Navigation had fallen into disrepair and was often unusable, and Manchester's business community viewed Liverpool's dock and the railway companies' charges as excessive. A ship canal was proposed as a way of giving ocean-going vessels direct access to Manchester. Construction began in 1887; it took six years and cost about £15 million. When the ship canal opened in January 1894 it was the largest river navigation canal in the world. Although it enabled the newly created Port of Manchester to become Britain's third busiest port—despite the city being about 40 miles (64 km) inland—the canal never achieved the commercial success its sponsors had hoped for. Ships often returned to sea loaded with ballast rather than goods for export, and gradually the balance of traffic moved to the west, resulting in the closure of the terminal docks at Salford. As of 2011, traffic had decreased from its peak in 1958 of 18 million long tons (20 million short tons) of freight each year to about 7 million long tons (7.8 million short tons). The canal is now privately owned by Peel Ports. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

define near future ;) (where I live that day started already) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where I am too, but luckily Iridiscent warned me two or three hours ago, so I've had a chance to take a quick look through looking for any obvious blunders/vandalism in preparation for today's vandalism. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Malleus et al! I remember looking at this last year and being very impressed. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In retrospect I'm hard pressed to think of an article I've enjoyed working on less. All geography articles are a PITA as far as I'm concerned, their scope is just huge, but it had to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate writing biographies. At least this article has nice pictures (and a real fancy map). I'm going back to article writing--this admin shit is for the bbbirds, haha. Or I'm going to take a vacation. Best to you, and to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request involving you has been declined and archived.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And what will be the punishment for those who used that case as an opportunity to get a few more kicks in, without making any effort to address the rationale behind the amendment requested? Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. Don't say "we don't do punishment here"; I know better. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think an appropriate punishment would be? -Scottywong| comment _ 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What about a topic ban on anything to do with me? But as you are consistently one of those baying for my blood, including at this ridiculous request for amendment, I doubt you'd agree to that. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The cruelest punishment is that they continue in a state of sin being the same persons. Pity them, Malleus. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

Malleus, if you agreed to topic ban yourself from RfA, I would agree to topic ban myself from anything to do with you. KW, please leave the personal attacks at the door (and yes, suggesting that someone's existence is a cruel self-punishment is a personal attack). -Scottywong| gab _ 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I agree to a proposal like that? Why are you so obsessively determined to drive me away from RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because my opinion is that your contributions there are usually divisive and unhelpful. However, you're certainly not the only one, so excluding you from the process probably wouldn't make a measurable improvement. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 01:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that you're talking out of your arse once again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You know how those puling masses distract from things, Malleus. Intothatdarkness 13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotty (Snottywong, SW), go in peace. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty, for the life of me, I can't figure out what you hope to gain from these continued...let's call them 'interactions'. Why not just stay the hell away from Malleus? "It's for the good of the project" or "I'm trying to protect other editors from harassment" (to paraphrase some of the nonsense arguments one hears)--that's crap. As for punishment, yes, I think a topic ban would be a great idea. Names can easily be culled from that "request for amendment". Drmies (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just shooting the shit, not trying to gain anything. Oh, and KW, I'm an atheist, so living in a state of sin isn't an issue for me. -Scottywong| gossip _ 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was explaining that Malleus should pity you for his own good. Nobody cares about you. Go away. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One also typically "shoots the shit" with friends. It's not normally done with people who don't get along. In that case, it's closer to poking. IMO, anyhow. Intothatdarkness 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to my cult! Or, if you prefer, welcome to my world. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. I think I prefer puling masses. Cults are so "last year." Intothatdarkness 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be so into letting bygones be bygones, MONGO sure wears a damn good disguise. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be fairly common. Ah, well. Does your cult at least have comfy robes? Or a decent bar? There must be something...

You're excused from my excoriating wit, so long as you pray to me every day at noon. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits

Life is sweet. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

An Aretha Franklin song for you!

	R-E-S-P-E-C-T
	Dianna has given you an Aretha Franklin song! Aretha Franklin songs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Dianna (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sent because I respect how hard you work to make this website better. -- Dianna (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wondered what I'd done to deserve that. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The roads projects have been dealing with these two editors for a while, insisting that there must be coordinates on everything, even linear features. You may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1, where they opposed solely over the lack of coordinates; also, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4. --Rschen7754 23:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this. It seems to me that if you can click on a coordinate and it takes you a reliable mapping site that's enough. I can't see the need for someone to have published a book containing the coordinates; surely at some point common sense has to prevail? The mileages I'm not so sure about though, so I'd probably not argue against a table that omitted them and just had the coordinates. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I happened to notice since this is a linear feature. They have been pushing the roads projects to tag all roads with coordinates, even if the result means 50 coordinates or more. I personally think the KML is a better and more accurate solution; just thought I would leave my 2 cents. --Rschen7754 06:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for guidance re: leads

I have always been of the opinion that citations in lead sections are usually not required, although WP:LEAD is silent on the matter. I've generally found people agree with me, albeit sometimes after gentle debate. However, I have never seen a discussion on the subject in which there were many participants.

I am yet again in such a discussion. It is amicable enough but I'd be grateful if you or your esteemed stalkers could give me any, erm, leads regarding wider community consensus. I can understand that exceptional circumstances might require one or two such cites, btw, but not a shoebox full of footnotes. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(stalking) To my knowledge the lead is a summary of the body, should not contain any citations, but everything mentioned there should appear - cited - in the body, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. I have very occasionally included some minor factoid in a lead that wasn't covered anywhere else in the article – can't think of an example offhand – and in that case I'd always include a citation. That's never been a problem even at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just found an example here, in which I use the phrase "pathological fear of premature burial" in the lead, but in the body of the article I simply give the context for that fear, without repeating the diagnosis. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example is at Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer), which you reviewed for GA. We agreed that the factoid there could not easily be placed elsewhere in the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, good example. There are some things that just don't need to be expanded on in the body of the article anyway, as there's nothing else to say, just like Johnbod's example of the size of a painting. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry--I hadn't read carefully; instead of "should not contain" I must have read something like "does not have to contain", "usually does not contain", or something like that. As in, "usually not unless...(good examples given above)". Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty well established at FAC that the lead usually does not contain cites, but can do, in particular for quotes, which my FA's often include in the lead. Also for information not included elsewhere, which can happen (the measurements of a painting for example). Many say that if a lead has cites (other than for quotes maybe) then the whole lead should have cites like any other section; not sure how universal this view is. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I've had a couple of ledes tagged for "not having citations" when the information did appear, properly cited, in the body of the article. Intothatdarkness 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many editors, especially if used to shorter articles, just don't know. The WP:LEAD section is enough to see them off. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Johnbod's position, particularly in regard to quotations, which must be cited wherever they appear, even if that's in the lead. It seems to be a common misconception that citations are forbidden in the lead, but the reality is that they're usually simply unnecessary, as most if not all of the material will be properly cited in the body of the article anyway, so to repeat the citations would be redundant. Bottom line: if the material is cited elsewhere in the article than it's not cited in the lead, except for direct quotations. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the lead does not have to have cites and I usually reinforce that understanding but if the lead can be cited in important (FA) type articles like Ezra Pound for example it's a good idea, while not required. I have cited lead images on occasion usually to clarify some ambiguity...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are situations in which citations are required in the lead, but they're not the norm. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into quite a useful discussion that I feel may well be used as a reference. We're getting input from what I have referred to as The Great and The Good. I appreciate this very much and perhaps at some point it may result in an amendment to WP:LEAD. This was not my intention at the outset and I have very little experience of formal discussions re: guidelines but I feel that the issue is something that probably should be addressed in an explicit manner in that guideline even though there are obvious exceptions (quotes, one-offs etc). Provided that Malleus does not object, please do keep those thoughts coming. If ever I propose an amendment then perhaps it would be ok to refer to it here? Or even refer it to here? - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't object at all, although rather than the "Great and the Good" I'd probably have said The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And please, nobody point out that in a competition for the Bad part I'd be a shoe in. Even I have feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How convenient of you to find some fancy schmancy title that leaves me out. I don't think anyone ever paid money to see The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Beautiful Dutchman. Malleus, at the risk of looking like a fool, I think I would like for you to have a look at an RfC I closed on Talk:H. G. Wells, if you have a moment--I know full well that you probably have an opinion and a dozen reference books on your side, and I don't mind being corrected. Well, I do, but it's for the greater good, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

H. G. Wells is one of my favourite authors, so I'll probably have an opinion. One of my prized possessions is a Wells anthology given to me as a prize when I came top of my third form (I'm not sure how to translate that into US, maybe that would be 9th-grade?) But where's the RfC? Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:H._G._Wells#Possessive_with_an_s_ending. Funny--I just noticed H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), without "s". Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a rather similar discussion on the Robert Burns talk page almost five years ago now, in which I came down on the side of "Burns's,"[2], but looking again at the article a few minutes I see it's still inconsistent. It should obviously be "Wells's", and even Fowler agrees, considering the "Wells' form to be old-fashioned and appropriate only for "verse and ... poetic or reverential contexts". But there seems to be a great deal of resistance to writing the possessive forms of words ending "s" correctly here on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that if I changed all of the "Burns'" back to "Burns's" World War III would break out. I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the tinker in me forced me to change all of the "Burns'" to "Burns's" (the article wasn't consistent anyway), so I guess my next stop will be ArbCom (again). MalleusFatuorum 23:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, oh noooooo! Burns will probably be something you'll do in Hell for that. Richerman (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, if I was in charge then there would be consistency, and common sense. Not everyone might agree, but it would improve the reader experience. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, WP:CITELEAD contains good, reasoned advice. The only other point that I haven't seen mentioned is that the lead should introduce and define the topic as well as summarise the body of the article - which implies that some of the content of the lead (i.e. intro/definition) may not be covered further in the article and hence may be challengeable content that requires citation in its own right. Before I forget: no surprise, Malleus, you had loads of friends at Wikimania! Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I've always found the notion that the lead should be only a summary of the article to be rather simple minded. As for my friends at Wkimania, all I can say is that I'm not aware of any other organisation that progressively punishes its workers the more they try to improve its product. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the "only a summary" comes back to another problematic caste article. At Caste system in Kerala (you really, really do not want to know the details if you are struggling with Caste system in India!), I have recently made the point to someone who wants to extend the scope that if we do extend then we need to define what it is thatt reliable sources consider the caste system actually to be ... and that is, of course, a can of worms per my recent response to you on my talk page. A lot of this is basic examination stuff, or at least it was back in my schooldays: you begin an exposition by defining the scope of the subject/question. I will now completely befuddle you by pointing out that the Indian caste system, which many consider to be a Hindu concept, actually embraces Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. Perhaps some Buddhists also. How the hell we sort this type of mess out with resorting to highly dubious internal links to equally unstable articles or extreme bloat is one of the big challenges for me. Thankfully, I have to sleep from time to time and can forget all about it. Except I cannot - it is a bloody nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the way to go is to build from the bottom up. First get quality articles on the caste system among Sikhs, Christians, and then try for the generalised article. Malleus Fatuorum

Gulliver's travels

Remember the Big-endians versus the Little-endians in Gulliver's travels? Well, you may have thought it was a bit far-fetched but it's all being played out for real at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#The/the ... again. I can't believe I let myself get drawn in at the beginning, but I've since extricated myself and I'm just watching it from the sidelines as it gets more and more surreal. Richerman (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the trouble with consensus, it's very difficult to get one even on clear-cut trivia such as this example. Someone should just be given the authority to make binding decisions, preferably me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got my vote :) Richerman (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that make you part of the cult? :) Intothatdarkness 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that make me a cun...? oh, sorry - my mistake. Richerman (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't you go stealing my lines! Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But you have so many good ones - surely you can spare one or two? (and please, no jokes about not calling you Shirley) Richerman (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That was so tempting, I admit; the old ones are the best. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that when Rem Koolhaas complained after a journalist wrote an article about him, which was full of errors, the journalist replied that it was Koolhaas' fault, for not editing the Wikipedia article to remove the errors? Ning-ning (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. I think I saw that in a recent edition of The Signpost. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw it mentioned in the Straight Dope. Wikipedia saved me £200 last week; an unreferenced sentence in Kurt Schwitters stopped me bidding on a collage at a provincial auction. Ning-ning (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I watched a programme on TV a few months ago about the trade in fake autographs. One poor chap who'd spent tens of thousands of pounds on his collection was gutted to learn when they were examined by an expert that almost every single one were fakes, and some of them pretty obvious fakes too. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hug

	Giving is getting
	Pesky is scrounging has sent you a Big Hug. Hugz help to make life more bearable. Or wolfable, maybe ;P Pesky (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

... and, while we're cuddling, your views (or ideally, improvements) on the actual clarity of this stuff would be much appreciated. The idea is not my baby, though I appear inadvertently to have adopted it from its biological parent. Pesky (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Melford Stevenson

Lord Denning once, rather unnecessarily, repeated in full an insult thrown at Stevenson by a defendant after sentence had been passed: "You are a humourless automaton. Why don't you self-destruct?" (Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] Q.B. 73, for the lawyers among us). Mr Balogh's sin had been to plot to disrupt a tedious pornography trial in an adjoining court to Stevenson's by injecting laughing gas; Stevenson said that this was contempt of court, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. Elsewhere in a Westlaw search I find Lord Bingham paying tribute to his predecessor as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, by saying that Stevenson, "who was no mean judge of these things, considered [Taylor] so good a defence advocate as to threaten the administration of justice." And one of his extra-judicial comments was quoted by the media companies intervening in the European Court of Human Rights proceedings of Mosley v United Kingdom: "I believe that newsworthiness is a firm realisation of the fact that there's nothing so much the average Englishman enjoys on a Sunday morning - particularly a Sunday morning - as to read a bit of dirt" (their full submission is here). Probably nothing usable for the article, but thought these points might amuse you! Bencherlite^Talk 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd come across that Denning one before, but part of the trouble with Stevenson is there are so many good quotes, and it's impossible to include all of them. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

John had asked me to take a look at the article. My thoughts and suggestions are on my talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penyulap

Hurry, threats of snow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather an ill-judged nomination really. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving

Noting you have undone my edit to the positioning of the pics on the Southport page. Could you assist me with where I went wrong, please? Thanks Lowthen (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move the image, I put the info box (which contains the image) back to its correct place at the top of the article, and limited the TOC to reduce the block of white space that persuaded you to move the infobox down. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry I have not been here, i have been rather busy! I will fix the 2 issues yet to be fixed. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Im going to get past reviewers of the past FA nominations to have a look at the article. Some reviewers passed it on the second go, so I think I should get them involved, allowing us to get more "Supports". Once again, I cant begin to thank you on your edits to Poppy. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit of the Month contest

I know you're not a fan of the Guild of Copy Editors, but I thought you'd be interested to hear about a new event I've set up for the project. It's located here, and it's basically the opposite of the monthly copy editing drives, in that it focuses on quality over quantity. Hopefully, it will encourage people to share their knowledge and improve their skills, by allowing for a back and forth discussion of the copy editing process. Perhaps you would be interested in submitting some of your excellent work there as a way to help educate other editors. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of competitions in general, unless there's something real to be won. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you would be willing to comment on or critique others' submissions, in that case. It's really just an excuse for people to share copy editing efforts and get feedback. But if you're not interested, I understand; I know you have a lot on your plate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but I could give you a very good example of the kind of article that no copyeditor should ever get involved in. Wikipedia is 99.999% crap, but those of us who try to improve it by even 0.001% are treated like shit. So it's not for me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll only say this: I would never question your ability to write top quality articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind copyediting the Clitoris article, which is currently nominated for WP:GA status. GA reviewer SilkTork has been clear that the copyediting of this article "will need to be subtle and careful," and has recommended you. The article has been put on hold for the standard initial seven days, but will be extended beyond that if needed, to allow time for the copyediting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look through over the next few days, but tell me, what does this mean? "The clitoris is present in most mammiferous female animals, and is especially developed in apes, rabbits, spider monkeys, etc., and other carnivorous female animals besides the spotted hyena." Does it mean "except for the spotted hyena" or "as well as the spotted hyena", as it was specifically mentioned in the preceding sentence? And does that mean especially well developed, as "especially developed could mean absolutely anything? Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that you've already gotten started. If you are asking what "mammiferous" means, it means "having breasts or mammae." Saying "female" in this case may seem redundant, but breasts are not only a female feature. "Especially developed" means "larger," sometimes including a scrotum-like aspect. "Besides" means "as well as." The previous sentence used to touch on the fact that the clitoris is more developed in the spotted hyena than in other animals, if we consider "more developed" to mean "acting more like a penis," but SilkTork changed that (although he is unsure about the change in that edit summary). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I know what "mammiferous" means, but in the context of the sentence I quoted "besides" could reasonably have been interpreted to mean either "except for" or "as well as". But if it means "as well as" in this instance, then why mention the spotted hyena again anyway? And the word "especially" carries no implication of "larger" as far as I'm concerned; it could alternatively mean that the complexity of the clitoral structures had increased, or they had become more enervated.

Anyway, the main problem with the lead as it stands, as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries, is that it needs to be a paragraph longer, summarising the development and structure sections. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. I was going by one of the sources when I added "especially" and the sources are speaking of "large" and "larger" or, also in the case of the spotted hyena, having a "false scrotum." As the article currently says, "Detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris in non-human animals are significantly rare." So, aside from the spotted hyena, researchers don't know if there are more complex clitoral structures in other animals than in humans. But I understand what you mean about the vagueness of "especially developed." The same goes for "well-developed," but you did add "particularly" in front of it when adding it, and sicking with "particularly well-developed" seems better than sticking with "especially developed."

Regarding the "Whether or not the clitoris is vestigial or serves a reproductive function has also been the subject of debate." line you added to the lead, I consider it covered by the following line: "The debates have primarily focused on anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-Spot, as well as their possible biological function." But I guess it's not as clear as I considered since you added a line to specifically address it.

You're right about the lead needing that extra paragraph, which should no doubt come second in the lead. Do you want to add it or would you rather I do it? Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm easy. You obviously know the material better than me, but I'll happily have a go at it if you'd rather. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment about the need for any copyediting to be "subtle and careful", are you happy with the kind of changes I've made so far? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather you give it a go, especially since you're copyediting the article, LOL. I'll correct any mistakes that appear with the addition, but you should be fine by just lifting something from the article text -- what you feel needs summarizing.

Yes, your changes have been fine (I would have brought up any objections), although I do question needing specific mention of the vestigiality topic in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me to be an interesting point that wasn't covered in the lead, even though there's a subsection on vestigiality in the article. It's just about making the lead a better summary of the article as well of the topic, but if you're convinced that it's unnecessary I probably wouldn't fight you over it, although I certainly don't think that vestigiality is implied by anything in the previous sentence. As a general rule of thumb I try to include at least a snippet from each significant section/subsection. As a matter of interest, why are there so many citations in the lead? Is that material not properly cited in the body of the article? (I haven't read the whole article yet, so I don't know.) Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new section on the article's talk page to raise any more issues. Having now read through the whole article I have to say that I do share SilkTork's concern about the use of overly technical language and accessibility though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned that the vestigiality topic is covered by the previous line; this is because the vestigiality discussion is about whether or not the clitoris is just for sexual pleasure or whether or not it has, or used to have, a biological function -- "biological" as in "reproductive." But perhaps it should be worked into that line by mentioning "vestigiality" somewhere. As for including a "snippet from each significant section/subsection," I take it that you mean a summary of the most important/major aspects of the article? That's what I've done, aside from including a paragraph of the clitoris's structure in the lead (which you will be incorporating). But I only stick to the most important/major aspects...per WP:LEAD. As for citations in the lead, I am also following WP:LEAD. Whether or not to include citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter, usually a personal choice, and I feel that such a contentious topic as this should have a well-sourced lead. For years on this site, I've seen enough editors add citation tags for things that are clearly cited lower in the article, and I'd rather not have to worry about that with this article or any article I have heavily edited.

As you may have seen already, although the terms are often used interchangeably, I changed this back to "sex" because "sex" is more about biological/anatomical aspects, while "gender" is more about social aspects. Both articles showcase this. Furthermore, most sources on this topic use "sex"...including the ones backing this text in the article.

As for the technical language, I don't know what more to state on that other than what I've already stated on it. The technical language is only used where it needs to be, and many other medical and/or anatomical articles, such as HIV/AIDS, use technical language (more than this article in the case of HIV/AIDS). SilkTork took care of a bit of the technical wording, either by having me change things or changing things himself, but most of it cannot be reworded to where we are discarding the technical terms (which, as I stated, have Wikipedia links to explain what they are). Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012‎ (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with that, as I don't see an unexplained or wikilinked term such as "bipotential gonadal anlage" as being either necessary or helpful to a general reader. As for "sex" vs "gender", we'll simply have to agree to differ. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. And I understand about explaining terms that are not readily and/or easily understood; like I told SilkTork, I'm okay with that, especially if briefly explained in parentheses, as long as we aren't excessive with it, the article remains professional-sounding and the text's meaning isn't changed. As for "sex vs. gender," which has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, my view on that comes from the reading of a lot of scholarly texts, including transgender topics. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from WP:MED (Jmh649) when speaking to an IP. But I have acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably; I was only pointing out that "gender" is more of a social term. But I understand "agree to disagree," and will shut up about it now, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tits and clits": "Male nipples and clitoral ripples"

The title "tits and clits" of an essay by Stephen Jay Gould was vetoed by his publisher, I'm sorry to say. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Knighthood

Anybody have any estimates of how many men have been made a Sir in British history? Would be interesting to see a full list since 1100 or whenever. I wonder if it would be possible. Might uncover many missing notable medieval personalities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep on forgetting to mention Baggrave Hall to you; a small untouched country house until Asil Nadir bought it. Ning-ning (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Was it an ultra dumb question or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete, but maybe a start--Ning-ning (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Only a Cunt would have classed my edit as vandalism. MyTuppence (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Presumably you haven't yet read the note I left for you on your talk page? You now have two choices: either revert yourself, or be blocked for breaching the 1RR restriction on 1996 Manchester bombing. As for your "Cunt" comment, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't is strange how tolerant administrators are of editors calling me a cunt, but how quick they are to block me for suggesting that someone is a sycophant? Clearly MyTuppence is a far more popular editor than me, but then who isn't? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Malleus. Perhaps to your surprise, here's one administrator who has blocked MyTuppence for edit warring and personal attack, despite his/her popularity. Despite the fact that you are, by your own account, so unpopular, I am not blocking you, but I had to think hard about it. You have been edit warring, and if you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked, but you have at least conducted your side of the debate in an adult manner, without resorting to childish name calling and personal attacks. I also take issue with your use of the word "vandalism", as I think the edits were made in good faith, even if they were misguided. However, whatever the appropriate form of words, the deed is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Another sign of progress. Look on the bright side, all! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You have that one spot-on, Kiefer (what's the world coming to?). Thanks are due to JamesBWatson for displaying massive common sense rather than a simplistic procedure-bound attitude; and if more admins were able to emulate that trick, there'd be a much improved chance of avoiding Wikipedia going to hell in a handcart in the near future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, simply trying to maintain the integrity of a GA, but I understand that's not anything considered to be important here. Much more important to encourage new editors to vandalise articles by removing sourced information they take exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a strange editing pattern---removing an academic history and replacing it with two (non-leading) newspaper articles. (Also, the claim that the UK later established control over Ireland does not negate a c. 1600 or Cromwellian conquest.) Has he edited that way before? Malleus, you left a clear, informative, and polite note on his page, which was especially restrained given the edit warring. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's attitude towards new editors as opposed to established ones, I consider myself fortunate not to have been blocked for trying to prevent the replacement of reliably sourced material with crap. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's the new kinder, gentler Wikipedia I keep telling you about. Some days are bad, but most days are a little better than the one before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that time may tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that admins are expected to do is to behave as though they were too stupid to tell the difference between an editor editing constructively, but not sticking quite within the rules, and an editor editing stupidly and obstructively. Any admin who uses intelligence is in danger of being hauled before the mob at ANI or some such place, with howls of "desysop" in the air. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Common sense in an admin. ... who woulda thought that would ever happen? Anyway: Malleus .. I noticed some work on Clitoris, as I understood the discussion on the talk page: Even if I find information via "Google books" .. I should cite the info as a {{cite book}} rather than citing a URL .. is that correct? Also: Congrats. on the wedding, and I hope the Mrs. is doing well. Sorry I haven't been around - but I kind of quit watching my watchlist so I could re-learn how to actually "edit articles". Hope all is well with you. Best. Chedzilla (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

should the url be given anywhere? Chedzilla (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughtful input, anyone?

Hey Malleus and stalkers! I'm kinda mulling over the idea (following on from various conversations) of a possible WikiProject: Plain English for Policies. It strikes me that our PolicyWonks are not necessarily our best writers, and that there's room (and need) for much improvement in the wording of policy pages, not to change policies, but to aim for "clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language. The goal is to write in a way that is easily understood by the target audience: clear and straightforward, appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, free of wordiness, cliché, and needless jargon." Also free of obfuscation and idiom. I think that possibly the best contributors to such a (hypothetical, at the moment) WikiProject would include some of the good regulars at FAC/FAR. Thoughts? Pesky (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. But I suspect, as the recent nonsense over the inclusion of the word "truth" in the lead of WP:V shows, that actually being able to improve policies via simplification or clarity of language is a steep hill to climb. (p.s. I feel you scuppered your option 12 in that verifiability RFC - which makes much the same point as you are talking about here - with the intrisic linkage to WP:AUTIE. It threw me, which is why I didn't comment). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The heartening thing about the RfC is that, despite the responses to View 12, Teh Community appears actually to have !voted with its feet on the actual Options, and wholeheartedly supported Option D (which was the one written in Plain English, lol! ... and used "true" rather than "truth". "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.") It said, totally clearly, the thing which the VnT Fans said could only be done with VnT.

I scoured through the civility policy a short while back and made some changes which appear to have stuck well, so I'm not altogether put off the idea that this can be done. It seems to blindingly obvious to me (and I've been saying it for ages) that our policies must be totally and easily clear to the target audience, which is primarily newbies unfamiliar with WikiJargon and also not necessarily speaking Collegiate American as their first language. Of course anything worth explaining can be explained in plain English. I've been teaching for decades, and never yet been unable to find the right words for anyone who wants to learn. (Of course there are always those who are totally closed to learning, but that's another issue.) I think a recognised WikiProject might have enough "clout" to be acceptable in cleaning up our policies, where individuals may fail. Numbers, too, of course ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Poppy Meadow

This is a note to let the main editors of Poppy Meadow know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 1, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 1, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Poppy Meadow is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, played by Rachel Bright. She was introduced by executive producer Bryan Kirkwood on 11 January 2011 as the best friend of established character Jodie Gold (Kylie Babbington) in scenes filling in for those cut from a controversial baby-swap storyline. Poppy returned to the series in June 2011 as a supporting character and comedy element, in a move that was generally welcomed by the tabloid press; her storylines focused on her friendship with Jodie and their intertwined love lives. Both Jodie and Poppy left the series on 14 November 2011, but the possibility was left open for Poppy to return in the future. In June 2012 Bright reprised her role as Poppy, quickly moving into Walford and resuming her employment at the local beauty salon. Poppy was introduced into the series in what critics described as "bizarre and utterly irrelevant" and "pointless" scenes, which substituted for cut scenes of the dead baby's parents at the graveside. Guardian critic Stuart Heritage considered Poppy to be "perhaps the greatest television bit-part character of the modern age" and several Daily Mirror writers gave Poppy positive reviews upon both of her returns. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)