User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2009/November

Halloween 2009

		The Halloween 2009 Limited Edition Barnstar
		For your work on the Manchester Mummy article, which was featured on this year's Halloween themed main page and contributed a lot to its success. Keep up the good work :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

I took the liberty of improving the image for this article. There's a closer shot here if you have the space for it. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the improvised appearance of File:SSEM Manchester museum close up.jpg. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting the naked ebay kettle man in the CRT :D Parrot of Doom 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Brady

I haven't watched it, but apparently this is quite good. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool Town Hall

I've had a go at expanding this article and wonder if it's anywhere near suitable for submission as a GAC. If you have time, would you have a look at it and advise? And if it is fit enough, maybe a little copyediting too; it's been surprisingly difficult to make a lucid article from the sources. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Buttock Mail

This article seems kind of fun and might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up. Any suggestions for suitable images? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How did the terms buttocks go from referring to a prostitute to another name for a person's backside? Is there a connection to bullocks? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the OED it was the other way round. Buttock was first recorded in the modern sense in 1300, but it wasn't used to describe a prostitute until 1673. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with bollocks, which is a relatively recent word, dating from 1940. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Most disapointing sir! Bollocks is far far older - at least fourteenth century and likely older. Even Wikipedia is reasonably up on the history and etymology of the word! Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's bollock, not bollocks. At least according to the OED anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're blocked for being to clever Mr. MF! Seriously, I didn't realise the singluar was a different word stem. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mal, do you have any good sources on the origins of pissing contests and ego battles? A new article I started is under fire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Three hours after you started the article it's up for deletion. Classic! A good place to start would be the OED. Do you have access to the online version? Seems to be a surprisingly modern term, dating from 1943. The slang dictionary would also be worth a look, for starters. There's also an entry in the Canadian English Dictionary. Should be pretty easy to save this article I think; I'll help if you like. Needs a picture though. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha great minds think alike, I was about to add a photorequest to the talk page. :) How do I access the OED online? You're welcome to help of course, but if it's not a subject that interests you, no worries. I was curious about the terminology and was surprised that it wasn't included. I did notice that previous versions were deleted via the old "not a dictionary" trope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're a member of a subscribing public library, then just type in your library card number here. Personally I'd dump the "big ego" stuff and concentrate on "pissing contest". There's no obvious connection between the two terms, and attempting to make one will inevitable draw citicism of OR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. One never knows (or at least I never do) how these things will evolve once they're launched. Should battle of egos be its own article then? I think so. Although they do seem closely related to me. What about beating one's chest, strutting one's stuff, peacocking, etc. I thought it could cover the subject somewhat broadly. Is there an overarching descriptor? I will have to ponder this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely separate out battle of egos. You're inevitably going to be charged with OR for making a link between it and pissing contest. You'd probably be surprised how much can be said just about the historical usage of pissing contest. It may never be a big article, but it could well become a comprehensive one. None of the other terms you mention derive from a schoolboy game, which is a theme that the article obviously needs to explore. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not "sweat" the deletion discussion. I have faith. ;) And if an article on that particular a notable and intersting topic is deleted (which I think is highly unlikely) it will live happily in my userspace until such time as common sense makes its triumphant return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats +

If I'm reading the article traffic pages correctly the Manchester Mummy article was viewed by about 84,000 folks over the last 2 days. Thanks for your work, congratulations, and the above barnstar is well deserved! I checked for vandalism 4-5 times during the night and noticed that there wasn't very much and that it was being handled pretty well.

I noticed a minor disagreement today on the article between you and User:Piledhigheranddeeper and, without taking sides, will note that Piled is a very good editor in general.

Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Piled and I probably need to discuss the issue of safety coffins on the article's talk page, but I'll take some persuading that a development almost 40 years after Hannah Beswick was embalmed is relevant to her story. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great stuff. You have definitely topped anything I've produced in terms of hits. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed a certain lane of gropeage then :) Parrot of Doom 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but I didn't produce that one either. :P I think I also applauded the popularity back then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

PoD and I are just populists, we pander to the lowest common denominator; prostitution, serial murderers, witches, and right-wing politicians a speciality. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page

[1]--Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Beeblebrox and the ANI report

I have made the point on ANI that calling established editors trolls is not civil and not an appropriate way to comment on a dispute.

However - that point made - your behavior on Beeblebrox' talk page was atrocious.

We expect that editors will treat each other with respect. Wikipedia as a project fails when people are abusive and rude. It degrades the quality of conversation for everyone involved, does not help solve any problems in any way, and drives people away from the project. It's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

Please consider this a formal warning against future provocative or uncivil behavior.

We count on editors being adults and treating each other that way. Our policies expect and demand it. Please respect Beeblebrox and other editors as human beings and treat them as such.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think any repetition of edits like this would be a good idea. Please don't do any more stuff like this, as I know you are a good content editor. Why not get on with editing content? Anyway, just a friendly warning, as I probably wouldn't block you myself, but somebody else inevitably will. Then we will have even more drama, all of which takes away time from volunteers... Just please don't, ok? --John (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find that very patronising. I do not find it acceptable for anyone to alter any posting of mine, much less abusively as Beeblebrox did, and then edit war to keep the abusive version, especially an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, the rules for User Talk pages appear to be a bit different from those for "public" Talk pages (on articles, guidelines, Wikiprojects, etc.) As far as I can see, the User gets the last word on his/her Talk page - unless you can make of charge of some sort of misconduct at the User Talk page stick. If you can't, you'd be making yourself liable to charges of misconduct.

Of course the same rules make it possible for you to copy diffs or the actual words at your own Talk page. Since your Talk page is one of the better known ones, your point of view will be noted. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules, just open season on anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Beeblebrox's behaviour was appalling, but I'm the one all the admins come to warn. Pathetic. For anyone who doesn't know, this is what I was objecting to. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think that Georgewilliamherbert is talking out of his arse. The truly "atrocious" behaviour was in Beeblebrox deliberately and abusively altering my posting. He's entitled to remove it from his own talk page, I agree, but not to alter it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice cup of tea, Malleus. If you think Beeblebrox is distorting your words, report your intepretation calmy and concisely on your own Talk, with diffs and add then post a note to Beeblebrox, including one diff that summarises the post on your Talk - and then drop it. Tactically I think you'll at least break even. --Philcha (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got no further interest in Beeblebrox or what Georgewilliamherbert or anyone else thinks. The facts of the matter are plain enough for anyone to see. That so many appear so willing to call my behaviour "atrocious" while ignoring the at least as "atrocious" behaviour of an administrator speaks volumes; no need for me to say anything else on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Karanacs did the decent thing, for which I thank her. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see you being harassed by these abusive and bullying admins Malleus. Clearly these are desperate characters trying to defend the indefensible. Refactoring another editor's comments to change what they said is obviously totally inappropriate. That anyone, let alone an admin, would try to defend that kind of misconduct is deeply troubling. That these individuals are choosing to take the side of an admin who repeatedly made edits to preserve a dishonest change that mirespresented what you said is shocking. I guess it's no more disgusting than the defenses being made for disruptive and incompetent admins who find it appropriate to make a point of their drug abuse. The disruption and damage they're doing should be stopped. But it seems that many of the most uncivil and brutish thugs are at the controls of this project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • They are what they are, hardly worth bothering with, nothing can be changed here now. What I find even more irritating though is the simple-minded credulity evidenced by comments like this, so reminiscent of flies circling a lump of bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I had seen a couple threads there full of trolling and drama mongering. Of course the trolls and drama mongers there are shouting and pointing their fingers at the whistle blowers and scape goats who dare expose admin incompetence and misbehavior. I guess it's just more of the same. Oh well. I hope you have a good week otherwise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty disgusting behaviour. I don't want such people having any kind of power on this project. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Too late. They already have it and there's no way they're going to give it up with a fight. Which all their friends and supporters will attempt to characterise as needless "drama". It's a corrupt system that without any checks and balances well suits corrupt individuals. --Malleus Fatuorum

I stand by my statement, and ask what constructive purpose this edit summary had? Soxwon (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What other explanation do you offer for Beeblebrox's repeated attempts to alter my posting? Ignorance? Malevolence? Stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you mean this statement? Since when was correcting an obvious error the action of a troll? It shocks me to see people defend such idiocy as that demonstrated by Beeblebrox. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@Malleus Your coy attitude fails to amuse, you know damn well the comment served no purpose other than to antagonize.

@Parrot of Doom Yes, this edit is obviously fixing a wrong and not stirring up trouble... Soxwon (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What I know damn well is that you have turned up here simply to goad me into making a comment that will give one of your chums an excuse to block me for incivility, pretty much the definition of trolling. I have to tell you though that it won't work, as I don't have even the slightest interest in anything else you have to say and will blank any further comments you make here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know Malleus pretty well from chatting to him for some months now, and I think you're flattering yourself with those comments. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And, in other news...

Thanks for your pre-FAC help, and your support, on the Nuffield buildings FAC, which has been closed today as "promote". Your generous use of your limited time to help me, and many others, improve our articles through copy-editing and reviewing at GAN and FAC is fantastic. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that is good news. Well done and well deserved. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith assumption

Just so we are clear, I think that this is a disgraceful example of bad faith, and a bit of a fucking cheek, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read what I said again, with a dictionary if necessary, without missing out any of the words. Quite frankly I think that you ought to be looking very closely into why it is you're so intent on having an article written by someone you call your "agent provocateur" deleted. I understand though that the truth can often hurt, so I forgive you for your disgraceful outburst. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know CoM wrote the article, and it really doesn't matter whether he did or not. I am not the type to engage in that sort of petty drama, though it now appears that you are. I've had quite enough of your bad faith, your baseless insinuations and your mischaracterizations. I now see that you are basically acting as one of the antagonist's henchmen, rather than doing what is best for Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have accused you of nothing, but by your apparent outrage I'd say that you have accused yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't directly accuse me - that is true. But you suggested, twice, that my !vote (and subsequent comments) were based on who created the article. That is a clear assumption of bad faith. Then you had the audacity to suggest I remove myself from the discussion on the basis of your bad faith suggestion. Whether or not your insinuation was implicit or explicit, it was still inappropriate for an AfD discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

From those links, it's clear Malleus suggested others could question your motives, I don't see him saying he does. Unless you can read minds? Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to ignore it as being completely without merit. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could edit the OED. I'd change the hyperlink for irony to point to this discussion. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people still wouldn't get, they can only see what they want to see. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

No, you know very well that's not what I mean. "Opening a dialogue" by roundly attacking someone - and I'll point out again, without a shred of evidence for any of the accusations - is always going to end unproductively. Black Kite 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean; we just don't agree that voicing an objection to the actions of an administrator is the equivalent of "roundly attacking". Sadly too many here see any and all disagreement as harassment to be eliminated at all costs, a very unhealthy state of affairs. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always a point in between, though. There's a big difference between "You're wrong about this, and I think your actions have been unfair" and "You're an arrogant disruptive drama-mongering admin who should be blocked". To be honest, the latter is actually less likely to gain you any traction - I know I would just have ignored it. Black Kite 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We're probably struggling to agree. My general view is a Machiavellian one, that the rational person ought to act in the way most likely to achieve the desired outcome. When faced with intransigence though, as in this case, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. Also in general, I think things would go a lot more smoothly here if more people didn't take such comments so personally, and go running off to WQA or AN/I whenever someone upsets them. That's just part and parcel of everday life, sticks and stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with the last bit to an extent. Of course, that's partly because WP:CIV is a dense block of text that says nothing useful, and takes its time over it. And WP:NPA is even worse. Black Kite 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with that too. Contrary to popular opinion I'd be very much in favour of a clear and unambiguous NPA policy that was applied consistently, to both regular editors and administrators. I do though think that the present civility policy is a ridiculous and childish waste of space that shelters some of the worst of the abusive administrators, allowing them to block unpopular characters on the flimsiest of pretexts. Like using the word "sycophantic", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit much ...

... when I have to post my own block notices.

01:14, 5 November 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=324002285)

Sloppy admining I call it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of action that brings civility blocks into disrepute. Durova³⁵⁷ 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they ever in repute? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking someone for 24 hours after having countless civility warnings for saying another editor has "shit for brains" brings civility blocks into disrepute? It is one thing hearing that sort of thing from the peanut gallery, but hearing it from someones whose work as an admin I respected is a bit disappointing. Our editors do not deserve to be abused and preventing such abuse is exactly why the community made civility a policy. Chillum 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically he said several people have shit for brains. Doesn't make civility blocks any more appropriate though. They're still stupid. Lara 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably then you'll be rushing off now to warn or block for "abusive drama-mongers"? Parrot of Doom 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'll get back with you tomorrow sometime about Longchamp... (gaze up) Good thing I got sick, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a wikipedia for adults somewhere? I think I may have to go looking for it, 'cos I think this one stinks. --Malleus Fatuorum

Well, you could always join the Simple English Wikipedia. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop collecting chocolates, and make you and Ottava pay for my next visit to color my hair! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 4. I cursed over the last one. Hate that shit. Anyway, I edit conflicted with you to make basically the same post. Unprofessional to say the least, not to mention it is a pretty lame block as the comment wasn't really a personal attack and it sure as hell wasn't harassment. It's not even as if you were speaking untruths. Lara 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

People walked into my cube at exactly the wrong moment, for five minutes of important conversation. Not predictable ahead of time, or I'd have waited a b it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn co-workers, interrupting your wiki-time. You should complain to your boss about their insolence. Ask for a raise while you're at it. Lara 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, waiting a bit is not appropriate. Blocks are preventative after all and clearly things were getting way out of hand here and action was necessary immediately to protect the wiki. Lara 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right Lara; the project was clearly in imminent danger, I had to be brought back into line. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have been blocked. Bad dog! - is that better? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec * 4) For goodness sake Malleus, you can be so... exasperating. I'm more or less aware of your views about WP:CIVIL which i to some degree share, but you do appear to hate putting down the stick, and you are pretty formidable when you're waving it. Which seems, I don't know, kind of often. You are such a great editor, a source of amusing if at times terse commentary and an asset to WP. But if you want to be handed a special mop, why keep whacking people on the head with the one you've got, fully charged with dirty water? I'm all set for a support, but I just don't get why you can't resist the impulse to keep typing, when someone on the other end of it might not share your sense of humour! BTW this is not a comment on whether the block is/was appropriate. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused about Malleus' actual desires when it comes to adminship. Lara 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Sperm young Nicklin.jpg

Have a whale of a time.

I have no desires when it comes to adminship in truth, and certainly none to do with the self-aggrandizing glory that so many seem to feel goes with the job. My major motivation was the imminent trialling of flagged revisions, nothing else. I've got absolutely no interest in waving my willy around blocking other editors for using naughty words or arguing unpopular cases, for instance. So sue me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is a "willy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

here, but be warned, not safe for workplace consumption Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You sure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

SG: this might help. Kablammo (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I imagined; why are you not "wagging" it, MF? (And don't answer with any weird websites, because I haven't yet installed virus protection on my reconfigured computer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reference to his "porn star proportions". >_> Lara 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm, "porn star proportions" aren't all they're cracked up to be: I hope MF isn't bragging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I bed to differ... >_> Hhaah. But, the reference is one of my own where I once stated that Malleus is a "dick of porn star proportions". I was pointing out that he would not take offense to that just as I wouldn't (haven't?) take offense to him calling me a bitch. Lara 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ah, yes, it all comes back to me now ... one of your finer posts :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lara continues to deny her obvious typo. Not "is", but "has". --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. (Don't blame me; Kablammo's link led me there. "Even Kablammo"!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec*4 - crikey it's hard to get a word in edgewise here!)I'm well aware of some of the discussion from Malleus on this, but I don't think RfA is a good vehicle for irony or making a point. I was happy for it to be played with a straight bat and to give the guy a mop. I'm all in favour of mops being wielded by people who maintain a high bar before intervening on grounds of incivility, I just wish a slightly better example could be set. However, I'm hopeful that he will stick to his principles and wield the mop as light-handedly as he wishes others would do, whatever intemperate remarks he might make sometimes as an editor (sorry about talking about you in the 3rd person on your talk page, Malleus, and yes I know, you will probably point out that you don't regard the remarks as "intemperate" on the grounds that they were carefully thought out :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think you get it. :/ Lara 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<shrugs> It wouldn't be the first time. Groucho Marx made a remark about not wanting to belong to a club that would have him as a member. When it comes to administration and politics, there's something to be said for the opposite approach—to only give the job to someone who doesn't want it. I thought Malleus fitted that bill, but perhaps his post below suggests excessive enthusiasm for being helpful, so perhaps not :-) On an unrelated point, and having pottered around WP for a few years, I have a hard time discerning coherent policy control by an "administrator corps" (Malleus, below), but yes, I agree, the dohickeys shouldn't all be parcelled up together. But that is quite another discussion. Have a pint for me Malleus, and see you back at 'work' tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty hard to upset Hamiltonstone, and even when I am it's soon forgotten as I've got a rotten memory for stuff like that. But I didn't mean at all to imply that I would be "making a point", simply that the introduction of flagged revisions places an extra burden on administrators that I felt I might be able to help with. That's all. That the position comes laden with an increasing number of dohickeys that even most administrators don't understand is an unfortunate feature of the mediawiki software's inflexibility, or perhaps more likely the reluctance of the administrator corps to delegate authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some things need to be said. Whether those who ought to be listening want to hear it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No Malleus, some things need to be heard. I'm pretty sure that, once someone believes they are being placed in the category of 'shit for brains', they may, just possibly, not continue listening. Just a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a final thought for you. Once I've decided that someone's got shit for brains then I don't much care what they think. If they subsequently prove that there's intelligent life between their ears then I'll do as I always do, take people as I find them. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

this was a clear violation of WP:NPA. You know better than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

I've lived long enough to know a great many things GWH, one of which is that the greater fool is the one who argues with a fool. So I will not argue with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be a valid experiment, Malleus. For the next two weeks you and I post at the same number of Wikipedia conversations about civility and admin abuses explaining why we think someone's reasoning is faulty. I say in my normal respectful way, "Your reasoning is flawed." You say "editors here have shit for brains". At the end, let's see how many opinions I have changed with my statements, and how many have been changed with yours.

My hypothesis: you'll have gotten blocked 5 more times and caused the equivalent of a 10-car pileup. Several editors involved in your discussions will have re-evaluated their stance and will have shifted to moderate or outright against a civility policy that suppresses criticism. My comments will go ignored by all.

A tragedy on many levels. --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people climb over walls, some people break through them, some people circumvent the walls, and some just complain about them being there. The thing is in all situations, the wall existed to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean I didn't accomplish anything with that little chat on your talk? No more breaking walls, Ottava ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If any walls are broken because of me, it is because other people in the discussion have picked me up and used my head as a battering ram. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. Ottava is getting deep. I think he's trying to impress. ;)

Moni's hypothesis is close to perfect. But swap "blocked 5 more times" with "hauled to ArbCom, skipping the requisite RFC." Lara 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting point Moni3. For instance, women in Britain didn't get the vote by asking nicely for it, they got it by getting in the faces of authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So literal do I take nonviolence that I consider harming with words and issuing insults to be the same. In fact, I was so good at it in my youth that I am paying penance by refusing to do it now. Women got the vote by chaining themselves to lightposts and prime ministers' carriages. People with AIDS got attention from the government by pretending to die in the streets. What's the verbal equivalent of chaining myself to the prime minister's carriage without slaughtering the horses and slinging arrows at the passengers? In what way will someone who cares about words be heard? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I make a distinction that I hadn't really thought about before. In face to face conversation I can see your body language, and I can react to that, as you can to mine. In this written medium though I have to make clear to you in words what I might otherwise be able to suggest in a facial expression or tone of voice. Hence I make no excuses for phrases like "shit for brains". Those who care about words need to consider how those who only understand a smack in the face can be made to listen to the subtle nuances of what you're trying to say.

BTW, there's a very famous video of one suffragette, Emily Davison, who rushed out in front of a horse at the Epsom Derby and was killed. Sometimes you have to be prepared to be killed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful mentioning "body language," you're going to get Ottava all worked up. It is true, though, that we do lack the ability to use gestures. Lara 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem dying (which I assume in our metaphor-laden discussion is getting blocked) or using the middle finger. Wikipedia itself is a middle finger to spun media, which deserves more than a finger. I think revolution is awesome as long as it expresses an honest truth and works to improve lives. But I can't look at these gentle hurting editors who are trying so hard to be taken seriously, so fragile, and call them idiots or fucktards...you get my drift. I don't mind shoving people, telling them to stand up, do something right, and have some integrity, but this fragility deafens and weakens people. They're trying so hard to be legitimate that all they respond to is idiot and shit for brains. Legitimacy demands forced confidence, which demands they never reconsider a decision or a statement. They're so desperate for respect that they are unable to give it. They give you effectiveness while simultaneously chastising you. While if the same was said in a forthright respectful way, it would be lost. --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond Moni3. Of course you're right, we should each of us do what whatever we can to help those who deserve our help, and I truly believe that I've done that consistently during my stay here. Others may disagree, but I'm happy in my skin. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a courtesy, as I'm not sure anyone else has mentioned it in posts here: your block is the subject of a discussion here. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw some mention elsewhere of the discussion, but I'd advise any sensible admin to stay well clear of unblocking. Being blocked doesn't bother me in the slightest, just more evidence of the corruption that is endemic here. No need for decent admins to get involved. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to an unblock request is one of the administrators functions. I have been informed through various venues that responding without such is considered undesirable. I shall watchlist your talk page, and respond in a fashion that I believe to be in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. I wish you all the best in any and all that you do. — Ched :  ?  04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Infamy, infamy, they've all got in for me." This is nothing Ched, nothing to make a fuss about. Just a couple of admins getting their own back. Happens every day. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You know Malleus, the more and more dramas that occur on Wikipedia, the more and more I agree with what you state at the top of your talk page. Children really do run this site it seems.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

Many years ago, an man with honest intentions entered Parliament and almost succeeded in bringing the change that was needed. Like all honest men, he failed. But happy Guy Fawkes Day! By the way, weren't you supposed to run for RfA today? I guess the whole 24 hour block puts a damper on that.

Ironic, no? :) You have been Guy Fawked! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention Guy Fawking around Moni.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, 27 November was the day. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I like my version of your statements more. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, Bonfire Night would have been a good choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you dork, I already linked that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's twice now you've called me a dork. I'll have to drag your sorry ass to AN/I if you don't stop abusing and harassing me ... ah wait, I'm not an administrator, so it's OK to abuse and harass me. Sorry, I was dreaming there for a while.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You dork, there's nothing sorry about my ass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but I can't remember where I hid my flash drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mal is always trying to get pics of girly bits... men. Lara 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you can't blame me for trying! --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When I find my flash drive, you'll be the first to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it in your aforementioned ass? Oh! Cha ching! I'll be here all the week... --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I like to keep that place free. Last I remember, I hid the flash drive in my sock drawer, but that was before my September trip, and the memory falters. Best I can do for Malleus is the Hanky Panky page where I order my intimates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'll have to drag your sorry ass to AN/I if you don't stop abusing and harassing me" Don't you have to be -not- blocked to do that? Oh! Burn! *flees!!!!!!* Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get one of my undisclosed alternate accounts to do it if SandyG steps out of line again. Apparently secret alternate accounts are de rigeur amongst administrators these days. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally, I figured you would be the Edward Gibbon to my Samuel Johnson in The Club, but if you are going to go all Guy Fawkes I guess I would have to be Robert Catesby. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt a common bond with Machiavelli. Catesby was an incompetent fop. You can be my Prince. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Catesby was an incompetent fop." Yes, and...? Haven't you paid attention to anything I do around here. incompetent and foppish are two words that fit. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll block her with my undisclosed alternate admin account. >_> I gotta get to work first, though. Lara 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Work? Darn you, Lara ... I was looking for someone to tell me what's up on IRC tonight. One of these days, I should figure out where or what that place is. But I suspect the real action is on Skype these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

*Smiles* the real action is at my blog, actually. Today's post just went live. Although if you ever feel like trying Skype just email for my ID; would be glad to bring you in. It's a wonderful venue for media content collaboration: set Photoshop to full screen, discuss technicals in voice, and trade screen shots. Cheers, Durova³⁵⁷ 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty impressive Durova. From a personal point of view though I wonder what leads these block idiots to believe that once my time on the Stool of Repentance is served I'll gratefully agree to continue freely contributing to their broken project? Stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no virus protection yet on my reconfigured computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of a Stool of Repentance before. Now you've got me wondering what they looked like. An illustration of one of those in use would be something! Durova³⁵⁷ 05:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy - IRC is this way, but switch "wikiversity-en" for "wikipedia-en". By the way, my description above of what was happening on IRC was very apt. It was just me making an ass of myself, like always. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava, but I'm never going to any of those places; I have a special place in my heart for those who hold court off-Wiki :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets just say that I prefer to be abused by Wikipedians off Wiki instead of by them on Wiki, so, if they kept it all there that would be nice. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ah, if only they would :) Unfortunately, I've seen too many instances where off-Wiki coordination is clearly apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava: You could have just given her this link instead. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sumbuddy please translate: I can't go there because I haven't yet installed virus protection on my reconfigured computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We use to celebrate it when I was a Johnnie, but most people didn't get that it was mostly a counter joke in praise of Fawkes because we changed our name from the King's during the Revolutionary War. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you attended St. Johns in Santa Fe, I have been there a few times, if only to go to the mind-blowing bookstore. And Santa Fe rocks. Love that town. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Annapolis. I haven't left Maryland. My ancestors were the founders of this place and I don't think I could ever drag myself away. Santa Fe is supposed to be very nice though. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Having seen your previous discussions you probably won't care, but I feel an apology is owed for my poor behaviour in the above discussion. No excuses, just being a dickhead. Sorry. Soxwon (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I don't care. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of rejecting such an apology, you might instead learn that admitting an error does not always lessen a person but in fact may show the strength of a person. Thank you Soxwon for having the class to make this posting. Chillum 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I might. I might also ask you to fuck off, but of course I did neither. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't seek yet another protracted back and forth fruitless discussion with you. I just thought perhaps that if people's advice would not inspire you then a user's example might help. Apparently not, good day sir. Chillum 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillium - please don't provoke further conflict here on Malleus' talk page. That's not helping anything. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking him (not telling him) would arguably not be a personal attack, as it gives the recipient of that comment some options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying

... I might not always agree with you ... but you do impress the hell out of me at times Mal. I think you fuck up sometimes, but I will say outright that more often than not - you're right in what you say. Since you're not gonna get bent out of shape over things - I won't either. My best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  07:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Amen. The block stinks. I appreciate all your good work and collegial contributions to the encyclopedia. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is one of those blocks that are in reality retaliation for something else. Have you been rude or unkind to any other Admins recently? No, that can't be right - that sort of strange block would be out of character for Georgewilliamherbert, an Admin I have always found kind, curteous and thoughtful. Giano (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your honesty here is refreshing. Lara 01:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder how these admins who seem to so enjoy passing out "civility blocks" would fare if they had to be reconfirmed by a vote of 50%+1 every so often? They might be able to pass that threshold, but there's no way they'd gain adminship again if they had to leap over the 75-80% bar. I do regret that I missed all the fun that was had at the expense of this incredibly stu- um, I mean "astute", of course, block. And I think that both the one placing the block, and those lining up to support it are demonstrating very clearly how utterly malodorous is the tissue that currently constitutes their gray matter. UA 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just fine it rather strange and sad, that presumably grown men want to pass their time hunting down and punishing other presumably grown men saying naughty words. While other presumably grown men announce on site that they are breaking the law and slowly and very publicly killing themselves passes as perfectly normal behaviour. Funny old world. Giano (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. It's not the words, it's the aggression and intimidation behind them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What displays more "aggression and intimidation", implying that someone might have "shit for brains" or mashing the block button every time someone writes something you think is mean? UA 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Obscenities used to be called "fighting words", for good reason. And admins have a job to do, part of which is to keep aggressive, intimidating editors in check. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a wildly divergent view from my own of what the role of an admin should be. The block button should be saved for emergencies. This was not one. As for swears being "fighting words", my best friend (whom I've known since kindergarten) and I routinely swear at each other when we're arguing about politics. Only around (most) ladies do I curb my language in real life. Adults swear sometimes. They swear at and about each other sometimes. Blocking for that is ludicrous. UA 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs, I find being stalked by Admins analysing my every word in the hope of blocking me far more "aggressive" and "intimidating" than being told my brain is shit. Adults are quite able to deal with such situations, if they are so delicate then their whole life must be one arduous trial for them and thta is no one others fault than their own. A little agression and swearing is normal and healthy living a police state is not. Giano (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The worse thing to have while trying to update a page is to constantly have that yellow bar appear because an admin dropped a "warning" on your talk page. If you want to lose a train of thought or to have your work get derailed, that is the quickest way. Think of trying to write an essay with the cops knocking on your door every five minutes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Such is the plague of some of our top content contributors (noting the presence of Giano, Ottava and Malleus in this discussion :) Perhaps it's a male competitive jealousy thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• We need to start a block/ban/constantly warn campaign against Moni3 to instill true gender equality. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for gender equality, so shall I call everyone here motherfuckers to get a warning on my page? Because y'all be bullshit. --Moni3 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn. If your orange bar starts going off as often as Malleus's and Ottava's do, I'll never get any work done, and I'll just have to resign myself to grey hairs. And we all know it's the women who hold down the fort here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You all are under the mistaken impression that "freedom of speech" is a right on wikipedia. And that somehow you should be free of scrutiny so that you can do whatever you feel like doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that qualify as a personal attack, or is it exempt because it doesn't single out one person, just all of us? I'm a great fan, Baseball, but the lessened scrutiny and sanction for otherwise good editors-- specifically, females-- has ArbCom support. Don't shoot the messengers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Try peddling your hopelessly misguided home-spun philosophy on someone else's talk page. I'm embarrassed to see it disfiguring mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me where it says there is freedom of speech on wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Malleus is not trying to use Wikipedia to state that the Holocaust is a myth or flying saucers impregnated the Virgin Mary. He is criticizing the structure within Wikipedia, and it is up to the social structure on this site to either chuck him out with a site ban because his language is so over the top beyond the pale disruptive, disregard him as a loon, or change because there may be a nugget of truth to his criticisms. I haven't seen anyone claim anyone has the right to say anything s/he pleases. But it appears to me that there are a group of editors who agree with Malleus' points that admins do not hold themselves to the same standards they hold other users, and the civility policy is too ill-defined and strictly enforced for imagined slights. Criticism changes culture. Malleus' brand of criticism is being silenced by blocks and ANI reports. Criticism is allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I made that same argument on the ANI page - that there is inconsistent enforcement of the civility rules. And my confidence in the admin corps has been eroded by recent malfeasances. That, however, does not give Mal or anyone else a reasonable excuse to lower themselves to that level. OK, what other questions do you have? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't an inconsistency with the civility rules. To the contrary, there is a clear consistency. If Malleus, Giano, or myself makes a comment in response to someone being troublesome, we are blocked for "incivility". If those people berate, attack, and abuse us, they are not. That has always been the case and always will be the case. Thus, consistent. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Take the high road, and you'll have no trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to take the High Road, one meets all sort of commonplace dull people walking there. One has to have a little panache, be a litle different and a lot more exiting. High Road indeed, sounds like something in a London suburb. Giano (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your "high road" appears to involve not crticising anyone more powerful than yourself Baseball. That's cowardly and morally repugnant. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that since my posts lack the cussing or mentions of the word "stupid" in any kind of manner unlike some found in Malleus's posts yet the same results happen that the "high road" doesn't apply here. The judgment was determined before the evidence was ever presented. All someone has to do is file a complaint no matter how illegitimate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think you should make no changes to your approach and that things should somehow get better. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear who you're asking, but if it's me than I'd say it's working just fine, and I don't think that I should make any changes to my approach. YMMV of course, don't much care. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't mind being blocked from time to time, then there's no problem. Meanwhile, we're all trying to keep you entertained until the block expires. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a minor inconvenience, and inevitable given the execrable quality of administrators who rule the roost here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A "cost of doing business", basically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This debate feels like it is appropriately summarised by this link: [3] Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemon helmet for the win. Dr. Philcat. I have noticed, such as my perception is, that Malleus gets blocked less frequently and those willing to block him are fewer. His blocks are overturned as well and gradually editors are starting to see some sense in his protests. Apparently, per Dr. Philcat, it's working out slowly and steadily. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be like the guy who fell off a hundred-story building, and as he passed each floor, they yelled at him, "So far, you're OK." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be. Surprises me that I'm still here actually. Not because of daft blocks like GWH's but because I'm not usually so patient around so many idiotic and misbehaving children. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling fellow editors "idiots". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an idiot blocked you for calling an idiot an idiot? Sounds about right. Call them a toxic personality next time, that seems to be allowed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A wiseman (yes, -man-, so take that Moni and Sandy!) once said that rights were only rights as long as you fight for them. So yes, many here will fight for this right. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you sexist pig :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Three doofuses from Brooklyn once said "You gotta fight for your right to party." Now they're all icons and Zen, perfectly respectable. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those wisemen have taught me valuable lessons, such as watching out for crafty women. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just run that past me again? --Philcha (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, you sexist pig. (SandyGeorgia 16:30, 5 November 2009)
• And we all know it's the women who hold down the fort here. (SandyGeorgia 16:06, 5 November 2009)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAgPgZGDyg SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, a girl shouldn't give away all her secrets so publicly :-) --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Sorry, the "shit for brains" bit was way across the line. I'd have blocked Jimbo for saying that about someone. Admin consensus can overrule, of course, but that's just not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)". That kind of empty rhetoric just makes me laugh. I don't recall the brave GWH blocking Jimbo when he claimed that certain editors were "toxic personalities". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, Jimbo didn't specify a target so it wasn't a personal attack. Only you, myself, and Giano get blocked for such things. There is clearly a clause in NPA allowing this exception. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irony has been too thick lately! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three doofuses from Brooklyn once said "You gotta fight for your right to party." Now they're all icons and Zen, perfectly respectable. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 .. I thought the link would lead somewhere else. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Apology

You were banned and insulted by the kind of people who now seek to topic-ban CoM for six months from AN/I. I can't imagine why you would feel at all annoyed... At any rate, I must admit, you have a fun crowd hanging about your talkpage. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for all those equally, if not better, good editors who don't. Moni3 made a very good point somewhere above about which approach ultimately achieves the best result. Hiding quietly on the sidelines while being shat on certainly isn't my idea of an acceptable working environment, and nothing changes if someone doesn't have the balls to shout out "Hey, stop shitting on me". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

J3Mrs again I'm afraid

Hi Malleus, You were very helpful with the Tyldesley article and as I now have crammed just about everything I know into Leigh, Atherton and Astley, the townships that made up the old Leigh Parish, I wondered if you would be so kind as to cast your eye over them for me. I think I'd do the GA thing again if you thought any of them close enough. I think I am sufficiently recovered to try it again, (famous last words) No rush, it was just a thought. Cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a first look through Leigh and let a few notes on your talk page. I'll take a look at the other two over the next day or so. I was wondering, since Leigh is pretty well known locally for the cat and dog's home, whether or not that ought to be included. It's been the subject of several investigations for illegally putting down retired greyhounds if I recall correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea about the cat & dog's home ???? By the way I nominated it. Not the cat & dog's home. I think Astley & Atherton needs some pics, so a visit might be necessary--J3Mrs (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

The cat and dog's home has been in the press repeatedly over that greyhound issue. There was even a Sunday Times expose.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I, and fingerpuppet, have addressed most of the issues you so kindly listed, and once again thanks. The cats and dogs thing, where on earth would I put it? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In the economy section, as they seemed to make quite a bit of money from their scam? </joke> More seriously, what about the Landmarks section? I'm not necessarily saying you need to include anything about the animal sanctuary at all, I'll leave that for you to decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would only stir up the railway station brigade, oh and the Wigan doing down brigade, and the live in Lancashire brigade so I'm not going down that route :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Pyrotech is reviewing it already, I think I need cake to sustain me through the weekend. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Beer. I recommend beer, lots of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But I need my wits about me, I still haven't got the hang of lots of stuff on here :-( By the way I'm glad you're back. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We did it again, another GA! I certainly wouldn't have got anywhere without Fingerpuppet and of course your copyedit and suggestions. I substituted red wine for beer by the way, cheers :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick! Obviously you're getting the hang of it now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic isn't it, the speed I mean! I only have the hang of finding info, all the twiddly bits are a mystery! Thank you! Will you put Leigh on the map when you aren't busy? Red wine it is then. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for you on your talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I left you a reply on my talk page. Only read it if you are eager to get yelled at. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yell away, but always remember that he who lives by the sword [of civility] shall perish by the sword [of civility]. If the rules are going to be enforced, then they must be applied equally to everyone, even you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, both of you - the contact on the AFD, whether initially inadvertent or not, could credibly be overlooked despite the arbitration case restriction. If both of you keep this up on each others' talk pages, that can't be. Knock it off.

(posted to both Scjessey and Malleus' talk pages)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I misremembered the Obama arbcom case restrictions and temporarily confused Child of Midnight's edit restriction with Malleus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Take your sanctimonious claptrap elsewhere GWH. I have done absolutely NOTHING wrong, but I have been accused of making allegations I did not, sworn at, been called "unintelligent" and "illogical". Do something about that and get off my case. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are both brazenly violating an arbcom edit restriction. To their credit, none of the admins who you're actually arguing with (content wise) have done anything and nobody else seems to have noticed. But both of you could be blocked for what you've done, right now, by any uninvolved admin.

I strongly urge you to take a deep breath and step away from the behavior that's explicitly prohibited.

This is not a judgement call on civility. This is a brazen violation of an explicit "don't respond to each other" arbcom case remedy. Don't do it anymore. I warned him at the same time I warned you. He seems to have stopped. Hopefully both of you can stay disengaged and nothing happens about it. But this can't continue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What "can't continue" is your blatant bullying. Get off my talk page and find someone your own size to try and intimidate, 'cos it's not working here matey. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Where's my "arbcom restriction", and shouldn't someone have told me about it? Are you a little confused GWH? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about that myself, since I've only recent heard about Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and am unclear why another editor wasn't added there after an Arb case closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've ever been hauled in front of the Spanish Inquisition, so I'll be interested to see what this arbcom restriction that GWH believes I'm under actually is. I think he's confused me with COM, but maybe I just forgot about my ArbCom case, and maybe GWH needs to slow down and take just a little bit more care in his crusade to make this the nicest of all possible wikis. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was dealing with something else involving Child of Midnight and Scjessey - they're the ones under the edit restriction from commenting on each others contributions, from the Obama articles arbcom case. You are correct, that didn't apply to you, and it was entirely my confusion while trying to deal with several different fronts in the current ANI blowups. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but what you actually did was to come here threatening me for something that I hadn't done. I really do hope that you'll try to be more careful in the future with other editors who may be more intimidated by you waving your big admin stick around than I am. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad that's resolved. Now, why is an editor who is sanctioned by ArbCom not added to the Editing restrictions page? Is that a "mentorship" loophole? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If I was to attempt to make an honest reply to that I'd just find myself blocked again. There's very little honesty here, and no consistency. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep your chin up, Malleus. At the end of the day, you have a boatload of friends here, and you put top content on the main page that gazillions of people read. The rest is cruft (I know it doesn't feel that way from your seat :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't be chased away, I'll leave when I'm good and ready. But I'm starting to see too many good editors being harassed by the various baying mobs that hang around the sloughs of despond. Something needs to be done, and GWH's childish "Oh, let's all be nicer to each other" really doesn't cut it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the link above, there does seem to have been considerable deterioration in the quality of discussion at the cesspool of Wiki. Don't know how that can be fixed, though. I see you always have to fix my indents ... I really should go get some new eyeglasses. I hope my "sorry ass" jokes at least helped some yesterday :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I did very much appreciate what Lara called the block party. I will though forever depise wikipedia's civility policy and the administrators who so zealously and one-sidedly enforce it when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. I expect that you've had as bad as this in your time, but it just makes me laugh that that administrator got away Scott free and I get blocked for using a naughty word like "sycophantic". There's a lot wrong with the way this place is run, and many of those running it need to be dumped. What can be done about it? I don't know, I've thought a lot about that. In the short term I've come to the conclusion that the only way to improve the standard of the admin corps is to become one. I know that'll ignite a shitstorm, but it's a fight worth fighting I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been somewhat regretting my decision lately, because I've become aware (among other things) of good editors who chose to follow my example. Exactly the kind of people we need as admins. But then, if they were admins, they'd still be doing good work rather than drama mongering at ANI, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I really do believe that you should think again. The best adminstrators don't hang around AN/I looking for people to block, they're helping regular editors to build this encyclopedia; quietly and without fuss. Sure, you'd get loads of opposes, and loads of borderline civil commentary, but so what? All you need is for more sensible people to turn up than vengeful lunatics. I've been through it twice, and I'll admit that some of the comments made the first time around took me completely by surprise, and I was quite shocked by them. But that was then, when I naively believed that the project was run honestly, doesn't bother me now. The only thing I'd say, and I say it to everyone who goes through RfA, is be very sure that you won't be affected one way or the other by the result. I speak from experience when I say that it can be a very harrowing experience, not recommended for the thin-skinned or faint-hearted. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually did rethink it very seriously this week. I don't care about all of those things: it's only a website, and there are far too many self-aggrandizing buffoons here to pay them any mind. I went down my usual checklist of questions one asks oneself when facing important decisions. When I came to "What's the worst thing that could happen to you if you do this?" I hit a hard brick wall. My reasons for not pursuing adminship are too personal to commit to a public forum. I'll just say that I have never yet encountered a story of a Wiki woman who has been through anything like the real life, scary stalking issues I have, more than once. There is nothing I can do on Wiki that makes that risk worth taking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, stalking is serious. Not just for you, but for your family and those who care about you. My sister-in-law went through a stalking episode a few years ago, someone she met at college while she was studying for her law degree. Scary. It eventually went to court, and her stalker was jailed. It's not a nice thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Particularly when you also have to think of your family. Well, MF, I'm going to get my beauty sleep; go write an article ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Turpin will likely be coming your way quite soon. Pleasant dreams. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooo look, I found a new toy. ANI is good for something then :) Parrot of Doom 08:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your name

Someone asked my in IRC is your name meant "Hammer of Pan" (a god), to which I told them no, and corrected for "Hammer of Fools". They appreciated the correction and went on to say: "all I did was look up Malleus and Fatuus to get my answer". So, I don't speak Latin, but I think he just called you a fatass. I just thought you should know. >_> Lara 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there is never any drama at Mal's page ... maybe this would be a chance to get some going? ;-P — Ched :  ?  01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (and no - it wasn't me who said it)

"Hammer of Fools" is right Lara. I'm not about to get upset over someone calling me a fatass; I've been called worse than that only a few hours ago. Sticks and stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I don't want to know what they call me over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You never know. Might be "powerful and sexy lady". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Wonder what that would be in Latin ...) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget about it, Malleus; I still haven't found my flash drive ! Dunno about Latin, but in Spanish, it's mujeron. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good job that you and Lara live on a different continent, else I'm sure someone would start to accuse me of sexually harassing you both ... but I'm suspecting that Moni3 may come up with a sexual harassment by internet syndrome ... :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If I could profit off sexual harassment, I'd be rich. Hahaa. And Sandy, I don't speak Spanish, but that reads like margarine. Seems to be a theme here... Lara 01:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Lara) Moni may come up with sexual harassment across multiple continents by internet syndrome! (I suspect Lara worries as much about sexual harassment as I do :) I was prompted to go a-hunting, and found my flash drive hidden in a box of q-tips ... clever me! I'll take care of Moni! (No, Lara, margarine is too easy ... margarina :) It's slang, and incorrect Spanish, so I can't find a web definition. Mujer is woman, mujeron is a lot of woman, but the correct Spanish would technically be mujerona, but nobody says that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, actually there isn't really anything about you on IRC, believe it or not. ;) ceranthor 03:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd find that kinda insulting. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's no fun at all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing worse than being talked about on IRC is not being talked about on IRC. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then hop on and start a conversation! :p ceranthor 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual harassment on the Internet (disambiguation):

Sexual harassment is a staple of the Internet. Specifically it can refer to:

• Sexual harassment starting in the early 90s
• People who get caught sexually harassing others
• Televising what happens when people get caught sexually harassing others
• Methods of sexual harassment on the Internet

I don't have to write about anything. I can concentrate on more important articles now. Unlike other dumbassery, I do not seek to understand why someone would want to get their jollies online. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

/me growls @ Moni. Damnit, you win this time. :| ceranthor 14:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy

I was wondering if you would be willing to do a peer review of the above article, which is about a travel narrative written by Mary Shelley? I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you ask me Awadewit, as you know how pants I am with literary articles. Of course I'll take a look and offer whatever I can at the peer review. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Turpin

Malleus if we can get back to some degree of normality, I wonder if you wouldn't mind keeping your eyes open for the transcripts of Turpin's trial, recorded by Thomas Kyll. It would make a valuable addition to the article, and allow me to move away from Sharpe's book a little. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That page needs moar Ainsworth!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be getting to that. He apparently has a lot to answer for, Black Bess indeed! If you have any material, please feel free to add. I've just started today, and am working through the trial and execution. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe after I finish the two FACs I have up right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lightweight. I have 1 FAC and 3 GANs. And the eejiots experienced editors pulling on the millstone that is Nick Griffin. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's a new (August 2009) book by Henry Downes Miles that looks like it might be worth trying to get hold of.[5] The Kyll book's available online here if you've got an Infotrac or Athens password. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I know a fella who can access Jstor (he helped a lot on Mary Toft and GC Lane), so maybe he can access it. I've emailed him. The Sharpe book is very good, and offers a full list of sources in the index. You can bet I'll be trawling the internet to see if any are online. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've bashed it into shape, and while I'm still looking around for original sources, and other material (the modern view section needs further expansion), I wonder if you could do the lead for me Malleus? Leads require imaginative writing, and I'm no auter. Certain things still need explaining, like why Matthew King is sometimes known as Tom King, and there are a few cite reqs to fill, but I think we might just be able to go straight to FA with this one, once knocked about a bit more. Parrot of Doom 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I just left a note on your talk page about Dick Turpin. Of course I'll have a bash at the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, you can go for it now. Thanks for the kind comments, the Sharpe book has made it remarkably easy to knock this artice into shape. The problem I'm having is finding other sources, particularly Derek Barlow's book about Turpin. They're all out of print, and sadly very expensive. I'll have to see what the library holds, but after reading Sharpe pick apart the outright falsehoods and impossibilities, I'm being very careful to make sure that no garbage creeps back into the article. Parrot of Doom 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through the Manchester library catalogue for Turpin books yesterday, but there didn't seem to be much. I'll have a looksee what Trafford has. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both the Kyll document and Sharpe say that Turpin was handcuffed and taken to York Castle. I'm unfamiliar with the history of handcuffs - would handcuffs in those days be some kind of iron manacle, and thus would 'clapped in irons' be the correct terminology? Parrot of Doom 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm off to dig at the MB&B canal all day, but I've uploaded the Kyll document to Wikisource. Presumably having been published in 1739 its well out of copyright, even though it has some kind of notice from Aus at the end. I thought you might find it interesting, particularly as you have experience of these kinds of documents on your Witch edits. Parrot of Doom 09:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably they would have been something like this: File:Old bracelets (aka).jpg, so I suppose "clapped irons" would be OK. Seems a bit flowery to me thought, I'd probably just say "handcuffed". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll change it back then. Can I also ask "Three days later Turpin accompanied the same men, along with William Saunders and Humphrey Walker, to a brutal raid at a farm in Marylebone." - would one accompany another to a brutal raid at a farm, or to a farm and then make the brutal raid? Parrot of Doom 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

... should be "on a brutal raid ...". (Just had to try that tool.) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't remove the infobox image. It appears to have been taken from a Toy theater. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What about replacing it with the Ainsworth illustration? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this image. I've asked the user who got me the Kyll document, to see if he can get me Baye's story, which is hosted at the same place, and which should have several images in. Bayes actually saw Turpin, and I suppose it might be better to use this image for that reason. Sharpe does kind of vaguely hint that this might be Turpin, although obviously artist licence has been used (no sign of the smallpox on that fella) Parrot of Doom 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a woman! I doubt that's anything like Turpin; wasn't he supposed to be pock-marked? It's also looking out of the frame, which wouldn't make it so good for the infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the Ainsworth image is better. Although I did quite fancy using this Daily Wail image :) Parrot of Doom 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of nice stuff about Turpin in the National Archives (search for "Dick Turpin"), including the handwritten witness statement from James Smith. I wonder, have these long been 'published', and as such would I be able to put them on commons? I'm tempted to include at least one. Parrot of Doom 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not you. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling his account's been compromised. I'll keep an eye on it and block the account if needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the feeling I have Julian, but you probably guessed that already. If I had done that I'd now be facing a very long block. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, it may have been taken over by woodpeckers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased that this whole sorry saga has provided you with so much entertainment Baseball; what it's provided me with is yet more evidence of the systematic corruption that lies at the heart of this project. I'm quite sure that Julian is one of the good guys, and I'm even prepared to believe that GWH believed at the time that he was acting ... nah, that's one step too far. Sadly though this place isn't run by the good guys. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is run by flawed individuals like you and me maybe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We're all of us human and all of us flawed, but we don't all run around in violent gangs. Some of us even believe in honesty and integrity, even we don't always manage to live up to that lofty goal. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I don't know what you mean by "run by flawed individuals", but there are parts of Wikipedia that work better than AN/I does. I suspect that it has something to do with where the content people hang out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I want to get this off my chest. This block doesn't bother me one whit, just more evidence of the stupidity around here. What does bother me though are the charges that I'm unable to operate in a collegial and cooperative environment. I think that I've done a damn sight more to prove that I operate in that way every day than the abusive clowns who are clearly (and pointlessly) trying to drive me away because I don't agree with their childish interpretations of civility. I'd defy anyone to get an article through FAC if they weren't able to cooperate productively with other editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't even get me started :) You know how I defend FA writers and reviewers, but ArbCom seems to have other priorities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Creating material for the new show? Soxwon (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there, Sox ... but then, I've been known to ask "What is a willy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The new soap opera (well, not really new, just made for TV now), As the Wiki Turns. Soxwon (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, which Sox won (White or Red)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Muahahahah, I hope to use that ambiguity to conquer to the world. I would never reveal such important information to a mere underling such as yourself. Soxwon (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I got your number before I got to the bottom of your user page and found a fellow member of the Nation. Conservative Christian = Schilling fan. BINGO ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CURSES! My evil plan is ruined! Ah well, DAMN YANKEES! Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn tootin' !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A simple question for those who agreed with my block

A very simple question in fact. What do you believe that it achieved? Or could ever have achieved? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Entertainment? RMHED (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RMHED, the directions clearly state "for those who agreed with my block" in the thread title. So you are not allowed to post here. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt any will have the guts to post here. If they do, what will they say? Really, the only thing it accomplished was it gave them all a spot of drama to fiddle with, and it gave Herbert some apparently much-desired face time with the "It Kids" of ANI. UA 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ask the following; how many of the participants in the AN/I dramafests have written multiple FAs? Hence, the stats I had Franamax run last year for arb elections. Does writing an FA put you in a "superclass" of editors? No, it shows you can handle dispute, get through FAC, and understand why we're here, beyond power games. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  The articles I write are so obscure, I doubt there's even enough sourcing to get them to FA. I watch what you guys do, though, and I do find it impressive. I just don't have any articles (either already created or in the pipleline) that I could possibly work up to that level. UA 00:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unitanode, I said "participants in the dramafests"; not everyone at AN/I does that. An action was taken today that resulted in a block in less than an hour. Some of the participants there continued to create drama. Editors who are churning out FAs don't have time for that, hopefully :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully achieved: cut down on the number of incidents of editors insulting each other with language such as was used yesterday. It's really as simple as that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Then you're a hopeless dreamer. Victimising one party in a dispute while tacitly ecouraging the instigator (who has now belatedly been blocked) is just plain stupid, if not outright dishonest. Do I get blocked again now for telling the truth? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  And it's not the first time you've done that Herbert. I'd caution you to be a bit more careful in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's not possible to be entirely symmetrically fair in enforcing the rules. Unbiased is important. But entirely symmetrically fair is not possible. Admins cannot be paralyzed into inaction by spending all their time trying to precisely balance actions against all offenders. And you're missing the point - the parties are victimizing everyone else when you resort to language and attacks like that. The block wasn't to flog you - it was to keep you from doing it again, and discourage others from doing so, precisely because such offenses victimize everyone else trying to contribute here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  You're trying to hide behind absurd linguistic contortions. Symmetry is the basis of fairness, sad that you seem to be unable to understand that. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Hey now, Mal, no need to make threats. Lara 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  What threat? Just a word to the "wise". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• A point: look at the level of civil discussion at ANI in 2006; how does that compare to today? And how is that related to the kiddie admin issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Admins cannot be paralyzed into inaction by spending all their time trying to precisely balance actions against all offenders. Perhaps not, but when another admin. reviews things and requests some modifications, then refusing to accept any review certainly doesn't speak well either. — Ched :  ?  02:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I encouraged and invited ANI review. That's the established process if the original blocking admin objects to modifications... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Like ANI was going to do much more than fight about it enough that you could declare there was no consensus to unblock. UA 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been overruled by ANI consensus more than once. I still go there when I have a doubt, and encourage others to go there over my actions if they have a doubt even if I don't. And - this is important - I didn't declare anything about consensus there. I commented, but that's it. Others, who as far as I can tell were not involved in teh dramaz, called the consensus. The admin whose behavior or actions are at question should not decide the outcome of the ANI discussion, and I didn't. There is also unblock-en-l and Arbcom to appeal to, if a block is that controversial. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb that I doubt that you (or any other block-happy admin) will adhere to is, if you "have a doubt", then DON'T MAKE THE DAMN BLOCK!!!!! How hard can it possibly be to NOT press the button?!? Sheesh... UA 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules don't require "without a doubt" for admin action, any more than juries in the US are required to be without a doubt ("beyond a reasonable doubt" is the actual term of art). If I have a reasonable doubt I don't act, or take it to ANI for discussion first, etc. If I have a doubt that doesn't seem that significant but I can't entirely rule out, I'll act and ask for review.

We need admins to be open to their own fallability. Trying to paint the picture in black and white does not help Wikipedia respond to problems justly or with reasonable due process. People who act and are then unwilling to consider the possibility that they were in error should not be admins. People who will not act because of the possibility that they are in error cannot be admins. The project must live in the middle ground. Asking for initial absolute certainty is paralytic and corrosive. Be smarter than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not a judge-and-jury here, Herbert. If less admins took your "block-first-ask-questions-later", there would be a lot less drama on the project. Your actions remind me of the cop who makes a bad shoot, and then tries to somehow justify it. A block should only be levied as a last resort, not as a means for you to teach lessons to those whom you think need to learn them. UA 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Painting in black and white" is a good description of what you habitually do, sanctioning one editor in a dispute while tacitly condoning the equally poor, if not worse, behaviour of another. You have no moral high ground here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you quite frankly that your dishonesty makes me feel sick. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I know nothing about what happened here but I checked my watchlist for the first time for a long time today and your page was on it (Don't worry not anymore). But assuming admins are fair and objective and assuming you were incivil the block was to allow you to cool down from othe heated discussion, think about your actions and to act as a detterent to you doing it again.--Patton123 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming quite a lot there. And since when was a block required to allow anyone to 'cool down'? All this sorry state of affairs has demonstrated is that the Keystone Cops are alive and well. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since people heated up. All this nonsense about "cool down blocks" you see on RFA is...well, nonsense. That's what civility blocks are for, to allow your anger to wear off so you aren't incivil, as well as to allow you to think about your actions. If you weren't blocked you would continue to do it so it's to prevent you doing it and to make you cool down.--Patton123 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Without putting too fine a point on it Patton123, I think you're talking out of your backside. Who was angry? Why the assumption that GHW is either fair or objective? In my experience he is neither. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know I haven't read up about this incident I just stumbled across this question and provided an answer. That reply to Parrot is just a hypothetical "someone got blocked for being incivil". Anyway we should stop talking about this.--Patton123 (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you were talking out your ass about "cool down blocks" and got called on it? In the future, perhaps you should apply some effort into actually knowing the situation before supporting a block. Otherwise is just makes you look really foolish. UA 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest Unitanode you try and relax a little, or at least consider if you're adding light or just heat here. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't written anything I regret, or from which I need to "relax a little." Thanks for caring, though. UA 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

About this specific abuse of power yes, but not the general and over-zealous application of civility blocks by the likes of GWH. Which, unlike your assertion, are too often not used to give an editor time to cool down, but to punish for the expression of an unpopular idea. It ought not to be a blocking offence to suggest that the regular editors who make a habit of frequenting wikipedia's dark underbelly, like AN/I, are frequently sycophantic admin wannabees, but it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a pity. And Unitanode, what are you talking about? Of course blocks for being incivil are to make you cool down, think about your actions and not do it again. What's the point of blocking if it doesn't accomplish that goal?--Patton123 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of blocking is to prevent damage to the project. Period. UA 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, by preventing you from doing it in the short term by not having access to wikipedia and so being forced to let your anger wear off, and by the threat of further blocks later if you do it again.--Patton123 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it more bluntly than Malleus does below: you are alarmingly clueless about what constitutes sound reasoning for a block. "Being forced to let your anger wear off" is not a valid reason to block, whatever you might want to believe. UA 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a divergence of views in what damage is caused when someone is accused of acting idiotically or dishonestly, for instance, especially if that's true. Arguably the greater damage is caused if they're not called on it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

"After all, when confronted with the imminent likelihood of sanctions that would limit his ability to troll, he chose to leave and not write articles anymore. Doesn't that speak volumes about his priorities?"

Who said I was leaving? I walked away because of statements like this, which, if you looked at them, have nothing even close to the hyperbolic claims. The same claims, echoed by the same people, over and over, with statements that I am "paranoid" tossed in for good measure.

It is hard to bite my tongue and not stoop to their level. Hence why I walked away. I know exactly what civility and decorum is, and I chose to abide by such in the only way that was possible when statements like those are placed without any blocks or warnings against those individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, for everyone reading. The statement about being "banned" on my talk page was a direct reference to Less Heard blatantly threatening me while pretending to have the moral authority or the non-involvement in the matter as if him fighting with me for over a year, constantly attacking me, making some of the nastiest comments about me on WR, and me almost sinking his reconfirmation RfA here by pointing out the nastiness of such personal attacks against decent Wikipedians meant nothing. When such people consider themselves "impartial" and "uninvolved" and no one speaks up or says it is a problem, then Wikipedia has truly gone beyond what is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about anything said about you on WR. I'm no more popular there than you are, but I do believe that it can sometimes serve a useful purpose nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They get away with murder of the same type as proven here, where Antandrus posts multiple diffs of me putting up solid proof that contradicts an individual and constantly shows them with no argument, no evidence, no sources, and yet still trying to push their claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? Ignore them. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to ignore them when they are constantly in your face, warning you, trying to justify a block any way they can, interrupting countless disputes, encouraging others towards such, and the rest. I was forced into being a pawn for these very tactics. I know how they operate. I love how Moreschi admitted twice that he had spies watching my conversations at IRC and yet pretends there is no coordination. All they have ever accomplished is to chase many valuable contributors off Wikipedia, POV push on hundreds of pages that effectively kept them from ever being approved, and get their friends into positions of power to defend them when necessary. Risker got away with revealing that I was the one who confidentially informed Coren that Geogre was Utgard Loki and provided the diffs that ended up getting the sock blocked and a case started against him. Was Risker ever reprimanded? No. Every time there is a legitimate content dispute, Folantin always claims that a typo where I put the Morte D'Arthur instead of the Alliterative Morte D'Arthur as poetry somehow proves that I don't know what I am talking about. [7] and [8], verify off site stalking of my contribs and derailing various discussions. Notice how I keep asking the same question and Folantin wont provide any answer to it? And yet -I- am called the bully, the troll, the one who does nothing around here. I am -one- person and I have single handedly did more for content around here than all of them combined. I would have done far, far more if I wouldn't have to deal with them constantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I asked ArbCom over 2 dozen times to intervene in the constant blanking and edit warring at the Persian Empire page by multiple admin even though there were three RfCs and two straw polls with none of them having consensus to blank the page. Did they bother to intervene or stop it? No, they didn't. They just watched it deteriorate. I told them exactly who would come in for their support and those people showed up just as I said they would. It wasn't a coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, can I just say, most people who come to Wikipedia do so to read articles. Articles like the ones you write. They're the ones who are important, and really you should take comfort from the fact that you write excellent articles. Take a look at the traffic stats on some of your best work. I'm sure 99.9% of those people very much appreciate what you do. I don't want to sound patronising but really, if you bear that in mind, and ignore the people here who make less than 50% of their edits on articles, you'd be much more content. By the way, I nicked some of your text from Rookwood (novel) for Dick Turpin, so thanks for that :) Parrot of Doom 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yuriatin deletion proposal

Hiya - saw that you nominated the article on Yuriatin for deletion; I removed the tags. The reason that I added this article was that, in the course of my research of that period of Russian history (you'll be able to see the articles that I've worked on,) I've run across pages that actually identify these fictional spots from Dr. Zhivago as being real places. (Wishful thinking? Good Lord, I hope people don't want to go back to the Perm of 1919, but there is no accounting for taste!) I added the two pages on two of Paternak's locations - Yuriatin (Yuriatin) and Varykino - to state clearly and in this encyclopedia that these places aren't real.

It's like trying to convince people that the massacre at Odessa in the Battleship Potemkin really didn't happen - but you know the power of a good movie.

Best to you! PR (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your motivation in creating the article, but I think you could have achieved your aim better with a redirect page to Dr Zhivago. Anyway, it's not my decision whether the article's deleted or not, other editors will have to decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning

Not sure why I received a CSD warning regarding Cumberlandindustriesuk. All I did was move the article to correct punctuation, etc. I didn't create the article or add/remove content, etc. Singularity42 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's because you created the redirect for that page.[9] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah, okay then :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving mess

Greetings Malleus! I noticed we both moved George somers clarke (senior) to different locations at virtually the same time, which created a small mess. I requested a move to George Somers Leigh Clarke (which appears to be his full name), so things should be cleared up shortly. Just letting you know of the mess I created to avoid confusion. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, hope it can be easily sorted out. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problems. Cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been tagged as not notable now though, ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

David Lewis (politician)

Thank you for the copy-edit work on David Lewis (politician). I think it is ready to go on to the next level, from GA to Featured Article, what do you think? --Abebenjoe (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would stand a pretty good chance at FAC, so I'd give it a go if I were you. Before you do though I'd make certain that all your citations are consistently formatted. Some are written "Caplan, p.133" and others "Smith, p. 87". Either always leave a space after the "p." or not. FAC reviewers can be very particular about that kind of thing. Also, sometimes you've included the year, as in "Stewart 2000, p. 210", and sometimes you haven't. I'd be inclined to always include it, as in "Smith 1989, p.  199". Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I completed standardizing the spacing in the citations. I only put years after authors if they have more than one book in the reference section, as per MLA citation rules in a bibliography. I've just nominated the article for FA review. Thanks again for fixing the numerous typos, grammatical, and just silly mistakes I've made on this article over the past two years.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as you can argue your case about why you've done it the way you have I'm sure it'll be fine. It's difficult to see that anything much else to say about David Lewis though, so I doubt you'll get called on comprehensiveness. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Barrett (Fenian)

I now see what you meant, with regard to the Manchester Martyrs arguments. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. These Fenian articles are almost uniformly in a shocking state, little more than Irish republican propaganda. I'm determined to get the Martyrs up to GA though, even if I die in the attempt. All the past battles would have been wasted otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I have no intention whatsoever of getting involved, I only found it after reading about Newgate Prison, but I couldn't let it pass. Its like reading Irish history, starring Mel Gibson. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cycles_copy.jpg

dont worry, just blindly delete it.........thanx--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I can't. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Cycles copy.jpg as opposed to Cycles copy.jpg ? Article deleted as G7 but the big fat lower left tag on the image file looks a little concerning to me. Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:United Arab Emirates GAN

I'll not review that article, please go ahead. As I recall, the nominator had no contribution to it, thus, without any disrespect to him/her, I would post quick comments first and see if xe can handle the GAN. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant to do, as I see your comments of a month ago about the referencing haven't yet been fixed. Cheers. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

"the stage he's currently in (expressing resignation/regret over past mistakes while still defending his intentions as honorable and/or justifiable)" - Since you saw this and agreed in part with the results, I wanted to know where I did any of this. :)

By the way, when have I ever said I was under stress? Being upset means that you are angry. Stress normally means the opposite. I walked away because I wanted to express how I felt in terms that I do not consider decent. I find it interesting how people are viewing me. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about WR? The only thing I agreed with was that you ought to consider stepping away from your computer for a while. Please take advice from SandyG, she's been through something similar before. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why people think I'm stressed or in pain. No matter what they do, they can't affect my career or anything in my real life matter. Angry at lies and attacks, sure. But they can't destroy my life. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I think of myself as a world class expert. I wish I would have known that earlier because they I could take a break from researching and trying to write for actual publications all the time. I do wonder how things get warped, twisted, and how hyperbole sets in. Anyway, the reason why I point this out is that Milton Roe may have admitted who he really is: "See evidence above. It wasted many people's time just collecting it." Would be quite interesting if true. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got to step back from this for a while Ottava. Life's a bitch and it's full of dishonesty, idiocy, and the plain ludicrous. But so what? Surely you already knew that? I really don't think you're helping your case by making it so plain that you care what others think. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do care about Milton admitting that the copy and paste of "evidence" he provided was his work. It sure does explain quite a lot about Milton's various comments on various issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't explain anything at all to me I'm afraid, as I really can't be bothered with all the wikipoliticking that goes on, both here and just as much on WR. I really couldn't care less who Milton is, and neither should you. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember you caring about who some of the others are. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was simply curious. Big difference. WR's a funny site anyway, with all its cloak and dagger secrecy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I just be simply curious? Why do people have to act like I am obsessed? Haha. Its as if the only thing people can do when thinking of me is treat it in such extremes. By the way, after I am done prepping for some Tennyson stuff, some Eliot stuff, some Keats stuff, some Coleridge stuff, and some Blake stuff, I am thinking about going around to Ainsworth again. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is irony in using a philosophical concept from a devout Catholic in order to justify not believing in an afterlife. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, hadn't really occurred to me before. Or obviously to Occam himself come to that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or the simplest explanation is that since there is creation, it is more likely that God, a single infinitely powerful being, did it all instead of it all being a series of infinitely unlikely random events coinciding. After all, even sandcastles don't tend to appear naturally. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple explanation of thunder is that it's Thor striking on his anvil, but it's hardly the most convincing explanation. At the microscopic levels structures far more intricate than sandcastles are formed perfectly naturally, without the need for any outside agency, simply by the linking together of organic molecules that have differing affinities to water. The bottom line though is that the well-known phrase beginning "to a believer no explanation is necessary ...", is only half right, because a non-believer demands explanation, and in lieu of one remains sceptical. God is an explanation of nothing except our own ignorance. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You think so? In your explanation, you would need to define 1. who is Thor, 2. how did he get an anvil, 3. how the anvil is not apparent, etc. It is more simple to say it is just a series of electrons. However, nothing can be simpler than saying an all powerful God set everything in motion. No question of who, what, where, why, how, etc. Hence Aristotle started with the Prime Mover and even Darwin accepted it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thor is a god. I will explain where Thor came from when you explain where your God came from. Darwin was a clergyman, so no real surprise that he accepted a prime mover hypothesis, but let's also remember that he was completely ignorant of genetics. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. I learn from WR that you're likely a Jesuit, which concerns me a little as a confirmed Catholic. Am I in danger of excommunication? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thor is a specific God with a specific history, background, type, etc. "God" is an infinite being that is greater than the universe itself. By definition, it has no origin nor any definition at all. You can read Aristotle's Physics for an explanation. The Prime Mover is a very simple concept and is the only possibility to explain the origin of life. It can be as simple as "the starting point", "the big bang", etc. or it can be as complex as the Christian God. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read anything to know that our understanding of the universe, such as it is, only extends back to a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang. I see no need to invent some "infinite being" to explain that ignorance. Thor, like your God, came from the minds of us human beings, searching for an explanation of what we see around us, using concepts that are familiar to us. The history of AI is also littered with similar "explanations", from clockwork to computers. Without us, there would be no God. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Infinite only meaning that it is not within descriptive terms. As Aristotle proved, the Prime Mover is required by logical analysis. One is mathematically required, Thor is just allegorical. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

... and Gödel's theorem appears to prove conclusively that there are some things we can never prove to be true based on a mutually agreed set of basic axioms. Indeed even Kant had to admit that there was no logical basis for a belief in God, it was just a practical necessity. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had many nights arguing about what Kant did or did not say that I am just going to have to state that I disagree with your view of Kant. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• "I learn from WR that you're likely a Jesuit" Oh dear. Where do these rumors start? I went to a Lasallian school, which has the opposite approach to Christian education (i.e. we do not stab them if they refuse to accept Christ). At the age of 15/16 I began to work as an altar server every day during 7 AM mass held for the Christian Brothers and I began preparing for a life in which I wanted to become a Dominican, go to a seminary that primarily emphasizes research, and spend my life in that manner. Yadda yadda, things happened. I do not have any official ties with any orders, and I have worked with many on various projects. I am particularly fond of the Dominican House of Study in DC but I have not taken any orders and I probably wont. I do work in ethics and politics, and I have my newspaper column about various Catholic issues that Marylanders deal with. Though I deal with conversions, I mostly have spent my time combating organizations like the Jehova's Witnesses that try to use various propaganda books to convert lax Catholics. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm about as lax a Catholic as you're ever likely to come across, I don't even believe in God. Your Jehovah's Witnesses friends would find me a tough nut to crack. Probably have to show me a miracle. Like you calming down and taking SandyG's advice as to how to deal with your ArbCom case. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Miracles are looking for something great. I am primarily focused only in what is small. Regardless, I only help people who wish to be helped. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, what is relevant here is that other people perceive that you are melting down; that they're wrong is irrelevant. "Big boys and girls" know that anyone can write anything on the internet, but you should be concerned that you're giving that impression to those who don't know you, and consider changing your writing style. Do you practice the 24-hour rule? When something bugs you, think about it for 24 hours before responding publicly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If something bugs me I tend not to respond to it. Regardless, people have all sorts of strange impressions of me and probably always will. When I use to say that there was quite a few people who called me the Wiki Satan (especially in random hate mail), I wasn't joking. Cary Bass once said I was way too nice for such a thing to be true. I thought that was interesting. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

James Chatters

Hey why do you want to delete the Dr. Chatters page, he helped discover Kennewick Man and he's on the page for that find in Wiki and he's in the news a lot too. He's an important man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKole (talk • contribs)

Then it should be easy for you to find reliable sources to support your claim that he's "an important man". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Doughnut Drive 2009

Hi Malleus. You are most cordially invited to participate in this historic event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that doughnuts are a peculiarly American obsession. I still remember my astonishment at being offered coffee and doughnuts for breakfast during my stay in Lake Tahoe. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At least they spelled it correctly. Majorly talk 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the event has a very international flavour to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(totally random interjection) Hey Malleus, you a ManU fan? Soxwon (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, certainly am. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But I thought you were from Manchester? – iridescent 2 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...Anyways, I'm an FC Barcelona fan just so you know...Hope that doesn't put too much of a damper on things. Soxwon (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Iridescent): I am, in fact I live about two miles from Old Trafford; it's a complete myth that nobody in Manchester supports ManU, as you'd see every match day.

(reply to Sixwon): Great team; certainly deserved their European Cup win last season. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, football. A bunch of people kicking around a dead pigs bladder.... Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not as good as people whacking cowskin with dead trees but still pretty good. Soxwon (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as sports go, I would say the ring toss is more consistent with the sweet beginnings of this thread. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

William Longchamp

How are we looking? I added a bit to the lead since it felt kinda skimpy, but everything I'm looking at says the major expansion is pretty much done. I should be around a bit more .. I'm finally almost well again and while still wanting to be a lazy bum, really do need to get some stuff done. My child is spending Vet's Day (or Armistace Day if you prefer) playing video games, so nothing too much will get accomplished today, but the rest of the week should be good for work! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's looking pretty good now, although FAC can always throw up some surprises. I'm not certain I fully understand the story about Richard's ransom though. Longchamp is exiled from England, but still has the authority to negotiate a deal with the Holy Roman Emperor? Seems a bit weird. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's Richard for you. Don't forget that the Angevin's still had all those possessions on the continent - Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Aquitaine. Longchamp could still remain an important advisor to Richard without ever stepping foot in England. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Richard didn't seem to spend much time in England anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think a "background" section on the reign of Henry II would be helpful for the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I don't see what it might add to Longchamp's story. I could be wrong though, I often am apparently. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.

I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.

Oh I don't know...- Wolfkeeper 22:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested in participating in any more talking shops if there's some, even slight, chance that things might actually change. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

		Dear Eric Corbett/Archives/2009, I apologise for deceiving you.
		JoeKole was me posing as a newbie as part of the wp:NEWT experiment. Analysis of this particular test is at Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Atama and your input would be most welcome. -- Atama頭 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apologise as much as you like, but I'm not interested in apologies. For two or three days, just as a matter of interest, I looked at the New Page Patrol, and was appalled at the rubbish that passes for encyclopedia articles in far too many new editors' eyes; that's the problem you ought to be addressing. I don't know how many articles I tagged for speedy deletion during that period, maybe 50 or so I suppose, but you can be sure that after this deceit I won't be tagging any more. I stand by every single one of those taggings, including that of your beloved James Chatters. I'm beginning to wonder if there's no end to the childishness around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• IMHO.. it's these very types of foolish and childish games which continue to lower the credibility of our project. We're here to build an online encyclopedia, not play little "what if" games. — Ched :  ?  02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Favor from you and your TPS

I have just rewritten an article that I have no business doing (but you should see what it was like before...). I need as many critical eyes from all sides of all oceans on it. I would appreciate any commentary on Amazing Grace. It has a peer review here. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sholes and Glidden typewriter

Hi Malleus, I've opened a peer review here and would welcome any comments. I've added some prose since your copyedit, so you might encounter more of my typical, decidedly un-brilliant prose if you decide to have a look. Эlcobbola _talk 14:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Plot aka An Almost Victory

I've been watching you work on the various pages related to the day of Our Almost Miraculous Victory but Still a True Martyrdom and I am dying to just put some wonderful additions to Saint Fawkes and the rest, but I believe my CoI may cause me some problems. I wonder if there can be some way to get a group of people willing to watch me and keep me from changing every other line to: "we almost got those Anglican bastards". ;/

But seriously, I'm getting excited already. Once you are done, we are going to have to flush out the Guy Fawkes novel page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking you to WP:ANI for being a filthy Papist. Parrot of Doom 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I wrote an article that I haven't gotten around to submitting on Milton's religion as it is similar to Hobbes's. I wonder what poor Milton would think about -me- writing on -that- topic. He is probably crying somewhere (which is funny, because he believed in soul sleeping and he was wrong :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW there's plenty of Ainsworth in Dick Turpin now, have a look and see what you think. I've ordered a book from the library to pad the sources out a bit but it may take months, else I'd have nominated it at FAC by now. Parrot of Doom 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I kept two of the sources that I was going to use from the Ainsworth novel page. If I have a chance I'll go through them and add information. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A bad taste in your mouth?

Malleus, would you explain in more detail? Did you mean you objected to Fergus or to the treatment Fergus was given? Durova³⁶³ 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to the deception. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to you listing the one page at CSD and not at AfD. :P But yeah, Malleus, wtf, why even bother with NPP? I ditched that area long ago because of the problems. You have better things to do than deal with crazy newbiews/people pretending to be crazy newbies. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious, but I won't be bothering again. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, one of the things that inspired WereSpielChequers to start the NEWT project was this article and in particular its creation. There was nothing intentionally deceptive about it. About a year ago WikiVoices did its first article creation episode, which was pretty well organized (a DYK and a featured sound came out of it), but we stumbled on the first edit. I was editing under my real name and expected to get tagged or, at worst, prodded. Instead the article was deleted in under two minutes despite a hangon tag.

Our intention had been to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of ragtime; we weren't setting out to test new pages patrol. At first it felt quite embarrassing to get speedied (although the article didn't actually qualify for speedy, not even in the state it was in when it got deleted). Then a set of people who were worried about the declining rates of new article creations and new account creations pointed to our recording as a case in point of a problem that they believed existed: overzealous speedy deletion.

I was a bit slow to get on board with Newt, partly for the same reasons as your misgivings. It seemed to be an accepted project though and it did appear to be looking for solutions to a real problem. Am curious why it's my experiment you chose to express unease with, since the username was readily Google-able to me and I would have disclosed immediately to anyone who asked. After it was over I informed everyone promptly and (I hope) politely, handed out five barnstars, and didn't call anyone out on the carpet in the report. In the aftermath I've begun coaching one of the speedy taggers in the use of GIMP software. She hasn't been offended by it.

Is there something that could be changed to make it less objectionable to you? Or is your misgiving inherent to doing this at all? Durova³⁶³ 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Check a section or two above on this page, Durova, for a probable explanation why. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, well Malleus does have a point. That's why I also do new pages patrol. The really hard stuff is the back end where remaining unpatrolled pages risk falling into the general pool after 30 days. Those are the articles nobody wanted to make a decision on. That's where I patrol. And yes, a lot of dross does get created. Yet it's usually effective to prod or AFD instead of speedy. I rarely speedy unless something is copyright infringement or a BLP attack page. Sometimes a few days' opportunity at improvement turns a dubious-looking page into a real article. Durova³⁶³ 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that too many articles are speedy delete tagged then I'd probably be inclined to agree with you. I've seen it argued somewhere (WR perhaps?) that the NEWT project is analogous to the mystery shopper programmes employed by retailers, and I guess there's some sense in that idea. Your moss articles were a clear case of underdeveloped content, and obviously not candidates for speedy deletion. I recall that during the same period another editor was creating sub-stubs on Chinese railway stations, a similar situation. What I refute entirely though, and what really pissed me off about this exercise, is the automatic assumption that those editors creating the articles were in the right, and those tagging them were in the wrong. The James Chatters article referred to above, about a rather unremarkable archaeologist, is a case in point. If I cared enough I'd be inclined to AfD it, but I don't. Keeping rubbish content is more important than scaring off newcomers apparently. The effort wasted on NEWT ought to be focused instead on making it easier for new editors to create articles that will not be tagged for speedy deletion, not on chastising those who do the hard work of patrolling new pages for not being welcoming enough. The priorities are completely arse about face, like so much else here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough balance. AFD and PROD usually work better if there's any room for doubt. As in This article about an improv theater group has a promotional tone but it isn't a copy/paste from their website. Maybe they've been written up in regional magazines but we've got a four hour window on the back end of NPP and there really isn't time to run Google searches right now. That leaves a reasonable window in case genuine evidence of notability exists, and gets rid of it otherwise. Of course it's usually those kind of borderline things that reach to the back of NPP without anyone deciding to patrol it. Durova³⁶⁴ 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From my limited experience of NPP I'd say that its most obvious problem is that those patrolling tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit, and to ignore anything that requires much in the way of thought. Another objection I have to the NEWT project is its emphasis on new articles. I'd have thought that most new editors start out by editing existing articles, not by creating new ones, so if anything's worth a mystery-shopper style investigation then it's how new editors who're actually editing are treated. That may admittedly be a function of my own bias though; I've been here for ages, but I've probably created fewer than 30 articles. I don't see article creation as the goal, but improving the quality of the crap that's already here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. There have been studies on the rate of reversions of unregistered users, and perhaps of new users too. Would be interesting (if people are okay with the idea) to create a new account and do encyclopedic article building with a completely redlinked userspace. Durova³⁶⁴ 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And with an article at FAC...

It's time for another begging pleading request for help. Blame this one on the Featured Topic folks, who are upping the reqs, so that Mellitus (and Justus later) need to be dragged up to FA status. I need to add alt text to Mellitus, but I think I've managed to pull out everything I possibly can. Luckily, we have Gregorian mission to give us most of the background, so I can avoid long background sections. Help??? I've got Johnbod looking for any missing art history bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Where would you like comments? (Oh, yes, I do have some.) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page of the article is perfect. I expected them...Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your request for assessment

Your year-old request for the assessment of CUPS has been handled :). Airplaneman ^talk 05:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I don't recall asking for an assessment. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC musings

[10] - you've edited 123 different FACs. For comparison, I've edited 210 and Awadewit an impressive 558.

Sandy only has 2062 and Karanacs has only a paltry 433. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? That I'm a lazy bastard? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, a comparison of FAC edits to Gimmebot isn't valid, since GimmeBot came into existence relatively recently (nor can this comparison measure the helpfulness of responses). MF, you lazy bastard :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to search it other ways and nothing really seemed to help. I just found the number interesting. :) You never realize how many of those pages you actually work on until you bother to look. I'm surprised I had over 50, haha. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Some assistance

Hey M, I don't know if this is your thing or not, but I know you're good with prose so if you get a spare moment, I'd appreciate if you'd take a look. I'd like to take it to FAC, with the plan on nominating it for the front page either on its release date, or on Christmas day itself. Thanks, Majorly talk 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're quick, Majorly, you'll be able to outflank the current suggestion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending of Christmas 1994 nor'easter... Bencherlite^Talk 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to... at least 2 points. Majorly talk 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through it now, there are some questions I've raised in clarification tags - you can see them if you edit. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So it's going to run to a straight choice between a freak, miserable, soul destroying and life degrading occurence ....... or a cyclone. :) Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bah, humbug. Looks like Pedro has booked the part of Scrooge for the Wikipedia Christmas panto. Bencherlite^Talk 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, No - I'm already playing the good lady ! Unless, of course Giano has already learnt the lines, in which case I will humbly defer... Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have more look with this as an 'on this day' nomination, unless you can pad things out. There's only half a kb or prose, and that's pretty small for FAC (Gropecunt Lane was just under 1kb) Parrot of Doom 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think I covered the important things. I could try and find out which albums it has appeared on, but really, is that worth noting? There must be hundreds... Majorly talk 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got more than enough for covers. I think you need to expand more on where the single was recorded, what technology was used, perhaps also a section on the musical construction, keys used, timing, etc (a songbook would be more than adequate for that). You should also add a music sample, for illustrative purposes - see The Dark Side of the Moon for an example of a template to use. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane seems to be about 8 kb of prose... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The DYK tools say that the Lane is 8449 characters, as against 5483 characters for Slade's timeless classic. Bencherlite^Talk 23:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft

You have some connection to Manchester I believe. Should you not be, I dunno, asleep at this time of day? Thank you for your work at the above article, and my apologies for the occasionally second third rate prose. I feel I may be slipping from a standard that wasn't that high in the first place :-) Given that, amongst other things, my day job involves writing, editing and supervise other researchers, it ain't a good sign. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And why I'm increasingly scared for GA...

Check out User talk:Hamiltonstone#Your GA nomination of Bronwyn Bancroft. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If no article was attached to that, it'd be kinda funny. Course, I'd be pretty pissed off if it were an article I wrote ... --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this rather ironic given the discussion immediately above this one. The prevailing culture at wikipedia seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of not upsetting new editors, while at the same time deliberately discouraging established editors. I guess that makes sense though, given the constant need to replenish those editors who finally get so pissed off with the stupidity, incompetence, and dishonesty here that they leave in disgust. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for information, Bronwyn Bancroft is now a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Atherton

Just to let you know Pyrotec is reviewing the Atherton article, he has advised me to get in the cake and wine, already done that one :)cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in good hands then. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, another GA! This is entirely thanks to you, I didn't even have to change or add anything! Thank you so much, you really are the most generous person I've come across on Wikipedia.

PS you will put it on the map won't you? --J3Mrs (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Atherton's on the map. Wigan looks quite healthy now, with five GAs, three of them yours. You're obviously getting the hang of this GA lark. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Never even touched the cake! I think I might try my hand at Wakefield :( I have contacts there who have a few books, and the article is, well, poor. I'm also looking for a book on Bolton.... Anyway thanks again. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just so long as you managed to get to the wine. The Yorkshire Project is pretty active, so I'm sure they'll try and help where they can with Wakefield. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

>:o We don't want any improvement of the Yorkshire articles, thanks (speaking as a Lancastrian, and not trying to inflame the Leeds thing) Parrot of Doom 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry PoD :(, well it is pretty dire! Anyway aren't you a "Greater Mancunian"? (trying not to inflame the red rose brigade)

Born and brud in Bury :) Parrot of Doom 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked!! it's not even a GA!! --J3Mrs (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither is where I was born. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well get on with it then! Mind you PoD won't be impressed as it's not in "Lancashire".

There's so much to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tired

[11]. I am tired of it. This is the fourth FAC in which people have changed things to what is improper and someone else claims that the page is bad because of those changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on any but this most recent FAC, I think you were wrong to blame Karanacs for closing it early. Whoever was responsible, the prose clearly wasn't up to the FA standard, and hadn't been right from the start. I'm not saying I agree with every one of F&f's points—I think some of his suggested improvements were nothing of the sort—but he did make some valid points nevertheless that you ought not to have rejected out of hand just because of where they came from. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod just stated that he would support it. That makes three people so far. Tony's only concern was about use of "the play". That is far from a major concern. SlimVirgin's was about the nature of the section on the history, which isn't a major concern. I already pointed out why Fowler's points were invalid, and Noir did the same. Having someone post on a FAC while simultaneously posting it as evidence, and having disrupted multiple FACs again is clearly inappropriate. If you cannot see that, then I don't really have much else to say. Even Iridescent saw a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of Fowler's points were "invalid", but by no means all of them; you opted to throw the baby out with the bathwater in a fit of pique. I too have been concerned at some of Fowler's comments at FAC, but the way to deal with them is to, well deal with them, not ignore them. Even after the FAC was closed I quickly came across several obvious problems with the prose, some of which were mentioned by Fowler, which ought to have been dealt with but weren't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What I "opted" to do was say that I would ignore his statement of "oppose". Anything valid was addressed by NocturneNoir or myself. Noir makes his thoughts known about the type of Fowler's oppose here. With statements like "What is a more serious concern for me (and for Wikipedia) is that in his relentless drive to add "content," he has taken unacceptable liberties with paraphrasing, and has introduced unacceptable errors in the content. And this is his FA work. Part of the reason for this is that the FAC process, driven in part, in my view, by people with an surfeit of ambition and a deficit of application and effort, tends to create cabals.", or the statement he made at during The Lucy poems FAC where he would prove that every one of the pages I edit show major grammatical errors and that I don't know how to write English show that his statements are not in good faith and are ignored. I will not give him the pleasure of acknowledging that his harassment affects my judgment in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly poor judgement on Fowler's part, given his comments elsewhere, to offer the criticism that he did on an article you'd nominated, some of which were indeed excessively pedantic and even plain wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Now do you understand why we turned to Tony1 to get his opinion on the page and why I may be frustrated when I didn't have an actual chance to see if his concerns were addressed? I waited a month for someone like him to give a review. I don't beg for reviews. I just sit patiently to see if someone will bother. I review other articles, I help out, etc. I am not happy that the article say there for an extended period of time with nothing. Yes, pages can -always- be improved. However, they can't be if no one bothers to talk. I just want comments and the ability to address comments. Why do people act so surprised? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What I understand Ottava is that nobody can fight every battle that needs to be fought, and that a project like wikipedia needs to have neutral zones. The various review processes are those neutral zones, and personal feelings ought to be left at the door. Whatever your view of the merits or otherwise of Fowler's comments you ought not to have responded by pointedly stating that you intended to ignore them. Things spiralled from then towards their inevitable conclusion.

I'd point out as well that you've given me a grilling at FAC not unlike that offered by Fowler, and a good deal more extensive. We none of us need to agree on everything, or indeed on anything except that it's best if we can reach a productive working relationship, and if we can't, then it's best that we avoid each other. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Sandy and Karanacs have told me before to simply leave a statement that says I will be ignoring the concerns. And at Samlesbury witches, I did not oppose nor would I have opposed on the matter. I did not assume I was correct about them, and allowed your rationale to dominate. [12] - "As I said, you can take or leave my comments as you will. :) Now, after my eyes stop bleeding I will attempt to review the rest of the page or do something constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, Ottava, you're a grown man. Do you always do what women tell you to do? I listen to what they have to say, and then I generally do what I was going to do anyway. Your response clearly soured the FAC, and you ought to have considered that instead of diverting the blame onto two poor defenceless women. (I was laughing as I wrote "two poor defenceless women", just so there's no misunderstanding here. I've yet to meet a "defenceless woman".) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You better be (laughing :) Dork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a diversion from Ottava's woes, my comment about "defenceless women" reminds me of a story in our local paper a few years ago. Two 14-year-old girls were walking down a street when they they saw a younger girl, about 9 or so, shouting and screaming as a man was pulling her into his car. They ran up to the girl and asked her if she knew the man. When she said no, one of them thumped him and the other grabbed the youngster and ran off with her. Not exactly "defenceless". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Women from Karanacs' part of the world can't be called "poor defenceless". On the other hand ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Women from this part of the world can be pretty formidable too. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but did you like the tag lines in the Youtube? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Until about half-way through I thought that was a real news report. Brilliant! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, the story of my life. One side attacking me for not doing what others say. Another group attacking me for doing what others say. I just need to find a way for them to attack each other and leave me be. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's "attacking", simply advising. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the humor in having them advise each other? Sigh. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ferret wrestling

Well, not quite. These bizarre articles never cease to amaze me. Parrot of Doom 00:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Start working on April Fools. Now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cock Lane Ghost? Parrot of Doom 00:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like ferret wrestling, I much prefer the Cock Lane Ghost. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert

Hi Malleus. I noticed this. Could you please take this to WP:DR? George has asked you not to post at his talk. Can you please respect this request? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of taking it anywhere, as I'm fully aware that there would be no point. GWH is what he is, and there seems to be some misguided support for his misguided application of policy. So be it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested, we should take it to P&W's User Talk page. GWH has asked you to leave. P&W won't and, since it's P&W's User talk page, GWH and others will undoubtedly steer clear, or be on their best behavior. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not interested. GWH is very selective in his choice of victims, but he's hardly alone in that. Wake me up when administrators are required to go through a periodic reconfirmation. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Somerset

Would you be kind enough to take a look at the prose on List of civil parishes in Somerset. I'm aiming for FL - still a few photos to find etc, but I think its getting there & you know what my English is like!— Rod ^talk 11:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sign your co-nom

I've given ole Donnie a second nom. I invite you to sign your co-nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish you the very best of luck with Donnchadh this time round, but I can't take any of the credit for it. Besides, I've got a co-nom for the Gunpowder Plot running now, so SandyG would shout at me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.For speedy deleting article that are notable. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be a little confused Arie. I'm not able to speedy delete anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about tagging for speedy deletion even if it is notable and valid. --Arie Scheurwater ^{(User Page | Talk | Global Contribs)} 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I look forward to seeing if you are able to demonstrate the importance and notability of Hillsong Church Stockholm in its article. I suggest, btw, that you look up the definition of vandalism before you shoot your mouth off here again. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Vandalism warnings should always be delivered under a section header in the form "November 2009", so that others may more easily keep track of my vandalism. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

old pics

I thought you might find this handy for tracking down old pics and things. There's a decent selection of high-quality images in there. Parrot of Doom 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks handy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Charles Benedict Cook

Haha, must be a time traveller; "Born on 4th of October 2009. He lived in (...) London for five years". Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There really ought to be a CSD category for complete and utter rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calculations

Political calculations? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me a political calculation of the amount of gunpowder needed to blow up a building. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While you're here, can I ask you a question? On a current FAC you made the comment: "Your citations lack year brackets, your bibliography has them. Confusing style." The Gunpowder plot, using the standard {{Harvnb}} template, does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure I agree that it's "confusing", but are you arguing for a "Haynes (2005) p. 12" style instead of the present "Haynes 2005, p. 12"? If so, it would be useful to raise that issue at the template page. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We should blow up that awful imperialistic godless template. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I like templates. They provide a consistency that can be universally changed at the stroke of a pen. Anyone who disagrees with me is a papist luddite. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comrade, all wikipedia citations should be given in Turabian footnote & bibliography style, using short titles for subsequent footnotes, join me in the glorious workers paradise of Turabian's Leadership Cult over UChicago Thesis Submissions' 2c criteria. You can't blow up a social relationship, but you can explode the myth that templates produce verifiable citations. I shall break the frame of your jenny of automated citation upon the back of rare and obscure citation requirements. "Citation of allowable material located in an archive!" "Exhibit held in a museum!" Ha! Take that APA-alike wikipedia style!!! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All you will succeed in doing, I think, is in driving nominators away from FAC. And reviewers as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dump 2c then, accepting that WIAFA is wrong about, "is distinguished by professional standards of [...] sourcing." A significant proportion of material appears at a "workshopping" quality level, PR and GA not appearing to make up for much. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the FAC criteria, and neither do I plan to propose changing them. My view is that you are interpreting the criteria rather too pedantically, and I wish that you'd stop doing that, as it's achieving absolutely nothing except ill will between reviewers and nominators. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's no visual distance between footnotes and bibliography in wikipedia, I find it a bit visually glaring to change between two date presentation styles so rapidly. I gently push the assumption of a unified footnote / bibliography style where I can. But if I'm complaining about 2c in those terms, I'm so very happy with an article already. See other FACs for very upsetting 2c practices. At the moment my template complaints are much more closely related to the cite journal issue with dates when an author versus no author is present. Foo (Date) Title versus Title [every other damned thing] date. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of the FA criteria address your aesthetic concerns about "visual distance"? None? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, putting together Malleus's comments and mine ... consider FAC from the point of view of a first-time nominator. They get hit with an image review like they've never seen before, alt text, citation formatting, a technical review, a sources review ... all before anyone even looks at prose and comprehensiveness. I disagree a bit with Malleus that the writing has been on the wall for a long time, but perhaps I'm being a bit egocentric about that, because as a reviewer, I used to wait until the important stuff was done before I chimed in with the little fixes needed before promotion. Nowadays, nominators are getting hit with the technicalities before anyone even looks at prose, and worse, reviewers are ignoring the core policy of WP:V! Anyway, the image reviewers, alt text people, etc. have to have extreme patience, and have avoided offending most nominators, so it's good to take great care, particularly with new nominators. Our goal is not to scare everyone off of FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Albert Rimmer

Dodgy though it looks, I don't think this is quite obvious enough a hoax for db-g3. The book cited actually exists, to my surprise, and the first version of the article could be by an enthusiastic schoolchild. The 1876 date is obviously nonsense, but could be a misprint for, say, 1846. I have de-tagged the article, marked it {{hoax}} to encourage others to look at it, and will do some searching and probably PROD it if I find no confirmation. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure there's no Southport artist called Albert Rimmer, and bumping into Louis Napoleon III on Lord Street doesn't strike me as very plausible either. I'd expect to find a few ghits for an artist important enough to have work in the Louvre's collection as well. The book, as you say, does indeed exist, but its topic is: "Against the backdrop of the New Woman movement of the 1890s, Tamar Katz establishes literary impressionism as integral to modernist form and to the modernist project of investigating the nature and function of subjectivity. Focusing on a duality common to impressionism and contemporary ideas of feminine subjectivity, Katz shows how the New Woman reconciled the paradox of a subject at once immersed in the world and securely enclosed in a mysterious interiority.Katz reads Walter Pater's aestheticism in the context of Victorian domestic ideology, a world split between safe interiors and risky exteriors. She uses some of the central debates of the 1890s on women's knowledge and interiority to illuminate fiction by George Egerton, Sarah Grand, and Henry James." No harm done by being cautious though; it's not a copper-bottomed certainty that it's a hoax I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

According to his article, Napoleon III, having been imprisoned in the fortress of Ham, "finally escaped to Southport, England in May 1846 by changing clothes with a mason working at the fortress." The museum exists and has an email address - I'll see what they say. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberty truck

Hi there, I removed the speedy notice from the above article. I believe per this notice on the website "2. Information presented on www.nationalmuseum.af.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." it is public domain. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it's just plagiarism then, which is OK? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I attributed it in the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go and rewrite that to avoid the plagiarism. It just hurts me too much to see it, attributed or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, public information means available to the public (i.e. not classified, confidential, privileged, etc.) It's not necessarily a statement pertaining to copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"may be distributed or copied" seems clear though. Majorly talk 00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ::True. The rest of the line "and may be distributed or copied" indicated that it is PD, and everything from the US government is public domain. (See WP:PD#U.S._government_works). Rewriting is obviously even better. Great work! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read critically. I'm not commenting on the status of this particular information, but on the reliance (implied by your first post) solely on the "public information" phrase. Not all material on .gov/.mil sites is public domain, thus the reason to be cautious about that particular verbiage. Plagiarism, however, is a serious issue regardless of copyright status. Эlcobbola _talk 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting

Imagine my surprise to find you a supporter of secret balloting. Yikes! I do hope you'll come to your senses soon. :) Transparency, accountability, and community are important dontcha know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to make sure the members of our cliques can be bullied encouraged into voting the way we demand. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to vote early so it's clear "which way the wind is blowing". ;) I thought Malleus was going to run for Arb? No? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Me run for Arb? Definitely not. Not ever, no way. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were already a member of the Arbitrary Commenters? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am, but you don't need to go through a process of ritualised abuse to be one of those. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right. You only go through a process of ritualised abuse while being one. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand I notice there are already way too many questions, many of them ridiculous. And on the other hand the window of opportunity for asking "general" question ended Nov. 10 before the nomination process was even complete? Unless I am misreading. And sadly, the "are you smart enough to be an Arb" type question (the reverse is also a good question!) was removed by a wikicop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For all practical purposes arbitrators have to be administrators, so they're quite used to ridiculous questions, having been asked enough of them at RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the issue of whether a non-admin could be an arbcom was raised, but I didn't see a clear resolution. I think it would be good to have some. Perhaps a set aside quota would even be helpful. And yet no sign of any non-admin content contributors stepping up to take one for the team. :) Can't say I blame them. Poor SOBs. ;) Malleus is your support for secret ballots because you think people would be freer to vote their consciences? Are there other considerations? It seems like transparency and accountability would be even less than at present under that type of system. So I was surprised by the level of support for that option. Someone suggested a side by side process to see and compare outcomes which sounded interesting. But I find it difficult in any case to think that secret ballots is a wise idea. Wouldn't it be hard for mere editors to follow up and review how people voted, or to see what socks were up to in their past after they get caught or to investigate other collusion? Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am in favour of secret voting too. Voters could easily sign their name on a list which could be scrutenised simultaneously with voting. It's too late for this election, but not for the next. I think their is immense peer pressure to vote in an approved way - perhaps even fear or repurcussion if one does not. No one wants to be thrown out of the club. I also don't think Arbs do have to be Admins, being an Arb is not being the head of an aristocracy, but of a judiciary; if you like, the Admins are supposed to be the policemen and civil servants supporting and executing the orders of an elected government - one does not see Barak Obama or Britain's Lord Cheif Justice wandering arownd with a set of hadcuffs and tear gass cannister. One of Wikipedia's main problems is that many of its police and civil servants no longer know their place and have climbed above their station and have begun to make the laws as they go along, and then pass sentence rather than uphold the prescribed law as instructed.  Giano  08:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I would also like to see no indication of the voting or tally given until after voting is closed. This prevents tne "Oh hell, he's going to get in, tell your friends to oppose/please change your vote" type email, which we all know exists.  Giano  08:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall not be giving any thanks for secret voting... but I do hope you and Giano enjoy very happy, healthy and prosperous Thanksgiving and holiday season. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wot's this "Thanksgiving" of which you speak? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Bare-knuckle Boxing

Why was this page tagged for copyright infringement? Umma Kynes 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

As explained in the tag, part of it appears to have been copied from here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

You wrote "the Church is opfficially the "Catholic Church", not the "Roman Carholic Church" ". The point, though, is surely that this article is in British English, which for good historical reasons uses "Roman Catholic church", especially in encyclopedias. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out Catholic Church. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the title of the Wikipedia article on the hierarchical organization, but WP isn't itself a reliable source. The church calls itself "Catholic Church" largely because it is uncomfortable (understandably so) with the idea that it is not the whole of the Catholic Church. Whether it is or not is a question WP couldn't ever hope to resolve, but in any event the point remains that British English, and especially historians who write in it, generally prefer "Roman Catholic church" for good historical reasons. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that you're correct. Northcote Parkinson for instance, an undoubtedly reliable source, doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic" even once in his account of the plot. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What was the formal name of the Church (as spoken in England) back then? Parrot of Doom 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Church. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"all English followers of the Catholic Church." - you could just say "English followers of the Papacy" and avoid any dispute. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I should agree with Ottava Rima if we had to deal with only one sentence, but this article is littered with religious descriptions. My suggested compromise is to use 'Roman Catholic' (the traditional English term) at the beginning, at least. It doesn't need to be repeated ad nauseam. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Littered? The "Catholic Church" only appears as a word once. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any article with the word "Catholic" in it is best avoided. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have my wonderful CoI to protect me from having to deal with such articles. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An idea

Why don't the civility police either leave me the fuck alone or else take it to ArbCom? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If I mentioned names I'd be accused of all sorts. The system is stacked. So be it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Just wondering... And yes, the system is stacked.. not only in one way; in many ways. Some ways probably even favor you personally... but many of them do not. In general, admins cluster together and protect each other, regardless of facts. We have always known and always said. It becomes wearying to even bother to repeat it. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC), m

I really can't adequately describe my contempt for the way that wikipedia is governed without risking another block. Heaven forbid, I may even deploy the word "sycophantic" again, which is apparently a blockable offence. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You could take it to ArbCom yourself? Or put up an RfC at Civil to remove anything on the policy except what constitutes a blockable offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not interested. I know I can't change anything here, my views are way too radical. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rfa?

I thought you were starting it today... ;) ceranthor 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind. There's very little I want to do that I can't already do, and I see no reason to invite abuse to be able to do what little I can't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what you say. Personally I see lots of editors furious at their inability to object to your request, and I think you knew that all along :D Parrot of Doom 22:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

When have you ever seen me bothered about what anyone else thinks PoD? I mostly doubt whether they have the necessary equipment for "thinking" in any rational meaning of that word anyway.

I've thought a lot about this over recent weeks, and my conclusion is that I want nothing to do with an unaccountable policing system that also acts as its own judge and jury. My interest, like yours, is in content. I would swap a great deal of "incivility" for one decent article, any day. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool to nom yourself for a non-RfA, just for the fun of "I see lots of editors furious at their inability to object to your request". --Philcha (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've teased them enough. I was initially serious believe it or not, but it became obvious that I'm not made of the right stuff to be an administrator—for which I thank the God that I don't believe in. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think stepping back is the right decision. I was watching some ArbCom page or other many months ago and people kept saying again and agin (about different editors) "...and editor X has been an admin since" as if it were a commendation of some sort. It made me really wanna be an admin, because about half of the folks they were complimenting thusly were prime bozos. But... why do I need the tools? I can't think of any reason. Do I wanna invest time every day involving myself in the power struggles of admins? Not really. So... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought I would see an interesting one today (I would've supported you)...--Caspian blue 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You would probably have felt quite lonely, but I thank you nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You should have run. I definitely would have supported you. Then you could see how much it sucks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why anyone over the age of twelve would run. I can understand why the kiddies would do it, but not adults. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You've run twice. I think what you mean is that you fail to see how anyone over the age of 12 can succeed, right?  :-) Keeper | 76 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're about right. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How've you been Malleus? Hope you're well. It's a bit of a holiday this side of the pond, nice to be away from work for a bit. You taking care of yourself? Keeper | 76 03:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to know, life has been shit over the last few weeks. Details available on request. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, friend. Regret I don't have email, I don't mind being a sounding board slash punching bag. Have a beer, on me. Keeper | 76 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll live. On to more interesting stuff though, what car do you drive? Mine's a totally and completely impractical Jaguar XJ-S. I love that car more than life itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A beautiful, high-maintainence car, the XJ-S. Speaks volumes about those that choose to drive them :-). I've got a few in the garage to pick from (don't hate me), but my favorite is a domestic, from a now taxpayer owned, bankrupt company. Couple of decades old, had it from new. For your viewing plesure (no, none of those are mine, or pictures I took). Is yours a ragtop? (Mine is) Keeper | 76 04:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The rag top is a beauty, but mine is the standard hard top, in what I think is a striking metallic turquoise colour. The last of the line, a celebration model. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very nice. Mine is black on black with a black droptop. Don't know if I'll ever own a jag, but they are gorgeus vehicles, I'll give that. I've rented one for a long weekend. Keeper | 76 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You should try driving a TVR Chimaera. That'll bleed you dry very quickly. I still miss it though. Parrot of Doom 09:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not as quickly as a Lotus Europa (remember those?). I never had one, but someone I worked with did. It was hardly ever out of the garage. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The car I miss most is my Triumph Spitfire; that was great fun, but pretty fragile. All of which reminds to get back to work on my MGB GT restoration, which has been languishing in my garage for far too long. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

hah, it'll be a pile of orange dust by now. I do fancy another Chim at some point (this was mine) the acceleration and noise were astonishing, and they're great looking cars, but I have so many hobbies its difficult. At some point I just know I'll be buying a Canon 5D MkII or similar, and OFCOM's selling off of the frequencies in 2012 has left me with a huge bill for replacing the radio mic systems I use for work. Buying books for this project is just about the cheapest hobby I have! Parrot of Doom 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review vs. FAC Signpost Dispatch needed

See Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Peer review vs. FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ben chan

Hello Malleus Fatuorum, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ben chan - a page you tagged - because: articles in trade magazines indicate significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh  21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I did actually check the online index for Strad Magazine here, and found no mention of Chan, but I suppose that you prefer to believe everything that the author of a biography claims about him or herself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the CSD criteria should be broadened. Having an article in a magazine doesn't indicate any significance. The person is simply not notable. There are just too many ways to get around CSD when the case is rather clear. I'm sure I saw one earlier along the lines of "related to so-and-so, thus makes them notable". Majorly talk 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Malleus, get off WT:RFA! :) Majorly talk 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A timely reminder Majorly. I consider my wrist well and truly slapped. No more from me on there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found looking at the new pages to be quite illuminating. I'd considered myself until fairly recently to be on the inclusionist side of the divide, but it's become very clear that I'm not. I've got no idea how many of the articles I've tagged for speedy deletion have survived, but I do know that I'd have tagged many more if the CSD criteria were rationalised and, as Majorly says, broadened. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to your contribs. At the bottom, it has a thing called "Edit count". Click it and it will tell you how many edits you have that are deleted. That should give you a fair estimate or narrow it down some. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that I've got 504 deleted edits, but that could be for a multitude of reasons, and as I've only looked at 300 or so new pages most of those deletions probably have nothing to do with CSD tagging. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Having thought about this a little bit more, what really pisses me off is the assumption that the administrator is right and the tagger is wrong. Still, administrators know everything and are infallible, so I guess that's inevitable. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tis gone....!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The hit and run thing

At the risk of being identified as suffering from terminal density, if what you're really after is making sure that reviewer / patroller rights aren't handled out by admins like XMas candy to editors who have been good this year, why not cut to the chase and open up a discussion on reviewer rights for the trial at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers? Of course, if this completely off the mark, I won't apologize for being abysmally stupid, you wouldn't accept such apologies anyway. MLauba (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm really after is making sure that no rights are handed out by administrators, especially when those rights didn't exist when they themselves were voted into office. I'm under no illusions though that very little here can now be changed, so I'm sure you'll understand that I have no intention of wasting any time in opening up yet another discussion that will inevitably fail to reach that mythical "consensus". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That would mean no new features ever getting added to Wikipedia's mediawiki implementation, though. What would be the alternative when a new extension comes with new rights? Give them to any autoconfirmed user? 3 days and you can patrol revisions on BLPs? Create yet another special comitee that deals with managing permissions for new features and will create more drama? Arbcom? Jimbo (snort)?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a damn about who touches edit filters, as for reviewers, once we get the ball rolling, either automated granting or manual vetting by established reviewers is fine by me. On this specific case I really don't see the point of having admins involved at all. But that's just me.

That being said, the trial's about to start and the way it is now, there's no consensus on any promotion method, which means defaulting to the admins. Not sure that's ideal, but I handle copyvios, not BLP issues. MLauba (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it would mean looking at, and sorting out, the mess that is the current administrator package. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Won't help with the flagged revisions trial but my proposal is on record, for unbundling (and happily ignored, as usual). MLauba (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My own view is that I'll just ignore any and all articles where my edits have to be approved by an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point, the bulk of the reviewers should not be the admins, and even less so for the trial. MLauba (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just the way it is though. There's a culture here that nobody can be trusted except the administrators. Live with it. The rest of us have to. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also the other culture here that nobody is less trustworthy than an admin, but in any case, if nobody acts, the default ends up in the admin laps. MLauba (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

... but nothing changes anyway, that's the rub. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As Majorly quite rightly pointed out earlier, I've wasted far too much time on WT:RFA. It's a lost cause. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A warning

If any other daft admins want to come here warning me to read up on the CSD criteria before tagging any more articles then they ought to consider the wisdom of wearing the very best quality flameproof underwear before they do. Just a word to the wise. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Go work on content where your work is most appreciated, Malleus. Admins and such affect a very small area of the project; you can easily avoid it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I avoid it? I'd be very happy never to encounter another admin ever again, but they keep bumbling in here with their half-assed ideas. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stick to the same articles you're working on and only deal with the FAC admins. Do your best to stay away from RfA and the like - too many nutcases. ;) ceranthor 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That might have been feasible before flagged revisions, but not now. The die is cast. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Old archive

Any preferences on what I could do with User talk:Malleus_Fatuarum/Archives/2008/June? I'm trying to clear out Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space and again, and I'm not sure what to do with this one, since you already have a june 08 archive. Cheers--Jac16888^Talk 10:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest deleting it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

great, done Was hoping you'd say that, I just wanted to check--Jac16888^Talk 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David Lewis (politician)

Hi Malleus Fatuarum

I've nominated David Lewis (politician) for FAC again. I believe the article has overcome all the issues that caused it to fail the first time. If you have the time, and you still like the article, could you please support it? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Lewis (politician)/archive2 --Abebenjoe (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)