MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/2010/November. |
184.168.193.22 (talk) |
||
Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The number of GAs you've written and reviewed, this has been a long time coming. My thanks for your endlessly useful work. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The number of GAs you've written and reviewed, this has been a long time coming. My thanks for your endlessly useful work. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility police]] may interest you == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility police|An attempt by the civility police to obfuscate their shady activities and stifle documentation of their character.]] [[Special:Contributions/184.168.193.22|184.168.193.22]] ([[User talk:184.168.193.22|talk]]) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:45, 21 November 2010
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. |
April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements
- Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
- Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
- Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
- Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
- Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
- Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
- 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
- 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
- Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
- Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010
ANI
I think my advice to you at ANI bears emphasising: "You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it." Unspecified and unevidenced accusations achieve nothing except making you look bad, and making it less likely people will take you seriously when you have something substantial. (You already know, of course, that it's unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, even if people have the good sense to merely ignore such remarks.) Rd232 talk 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thank you for your opinion, which once again demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- In what way? Rodhullandemu 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- In every way. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rodhullandemu, what are you doing here, other than continuing to poke at Malleus? Rd232 has http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/WikEd_align_down.pngno history with Malleus, and if he wants to make a comment, at least he's not here to poke. You've been warned many times to cease your baiting and poking at MF; now heed the warning, or plenty of people will be happy to start on RFC on your conduct. Malleus, I suggest that people are finally heeding the message, and you could advance "the cause" against admin abuse and double standards by letting others take the lead for a while. Heed the message: there is a way to deal with admin abuse, and it seems to be working in the "other" case. I don't think some of Rod's diffs would hold up very well at RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I am not here to provoke conflict; that is not what collegiate editing is about. If, as you suggest, that Malleus takes your second point that patience is wearing thin, fine. But I want to see a commitment to that. In the absence of, RFC must follow, for which ever editor is considered by the cummunity to be out of line. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And this response is constructive because ...? (hint: we are not all on the same peak of adequacy as you, so some education to lesser mortals might be regarded as educational, as opposed to patronising) I detect you're on thin ice, given the responses you've already received, and perhaps the time has come when you should no longer be complacent of relying on your fan club here. Make no mistake, Malleus, wasps are not welcome at this picnic unless they subscribe to Wikipedia values, with chapter and verse, and continued abuse of other editors, bald or otherwise, will not be tolerated. I know I've previously blocked you incorrectly, but your next block is entirely up to you and your behaviour as regards this community. Bottom line is that neither you nor I should receive special treatment for any reason whatsoever. Nobody's fireproof here; but patience can be exhausted, and it is my considered opinion that general patience of you is running out. Rodhullandemu 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep posting, keep adding evidence of how you are unable to disengage from Malleus, and continue to poke at him. You exhaust patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- You do at least make me laugh Rod, so it's not all bad, and at least you've now grudgingly admitted that your block was bad. I only wish that I could return the complement, and block you incorrectly as well. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment (not complement); it's appreciated. But on balance, I find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia when you spend so much other time "kicking against the pricks" here. If there's one human attribute I despise it's arrogance, and particularly intellectual arrogance. It utterly disgusts me. @SandyGeorgia: Why not let Malleus fight his own fights? If you've other issues, you know where to take them. Rodhullandemu 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- In what way? Rodhullandemu 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rod, you've been asked to stop. Saying to Malleus that you "find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia" stretches all credibility about your reasons for being on his page, considering the amount of encyclopedia he has built. If you continue poking here, expect to see an RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clear, Malleus. Rod has lodged a blatant attack and cast aspersions upon you on your talk page, and most likely, in spite of the number of talk page watchers you have, he will not be held accountable. Everyone knows that: the arbs have made it clear repeatedly that RFC/U is the means for addressing admin misconduct. Rd232 came here in good faith, with no bones to pick, so don't shoot the messenger. You probably know that Rd and I have had some rather large differences over content in the past, but he is approachable, reasonable, and you can talk to him (you didn't). Rod, then, came here to stir the pot. Don't judge all admins by the yardstick set by abusive admins; I've never seen Rd232 abuse the tools or make personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- {ec}} I know as well as you do that Rod will once again skip free by claiming some stress caused by noisy neighbours or his imminent demise. Just goes to show how corrupt the admin corps has become, in that they tolerate that kind of nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the solution here is to just let this whole thing go. We're not getting anywhere with this.--Twilight Helryx 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clear, Malleus. Rod has lodged a blatant attack and cast aspersions upon you on your talk page, and most likely, in spite of the number of talk page watchers you have, he will not be held accountable. Everyone knows that: the arbs have made it clear repeatedly that RFC/U is the means for addressing admin misconduct. Rd232 came here in good faith, with no bones to pick, so don't shoot the messenger. You probably know that Rd and I have had some rather large differences over content in the past, but he is approachable, reasonable, and you can talk to him (you didn't). Rod, then, came here to stir the pot. Don't judge all admins by the yardstick set by abusive admins; I've never seen Rd232 abuse the tools or make personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bollocks apart, if you think you are completely beyond criticism, please start the request for comment. Otherwise, please shut up. Rodhullandemu 05:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- A word to the wise Rod, which sadly doesn't seem to include you. Back off. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Standby. I lost all my work because my computer was unplugged without me knowing it and my battery died. I should have it reconstructed shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- A word to the wise Rod, which sadly doesn't seem to include you. Back off. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Came out better the second time: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if a statement intended as an entirely generic suggestion of how to deal with problems came off as an intervention in a specific dispute [that is, taking sides] - and in doing so helped escalate it. In terms of that specific dispute (which I only know a little of), it seems to be heading towards RFCU, though we'll see what happens with the current ANI thread. In terms of your response "you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about" - well I guess that relates to the specific dispute, but it illustrates my general point: if I don't know what you're talking about, it's because either there is no onwiki explanation with appropriate evidence, or nobody's pointed me to it. Dispute resolution is unfortunately hard work but if you can't work things out one-to-one (a helping of letting bygones be bygones can sometimes be rather good), then that's what's needed. Rd232 talk 09:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find it curious that you're now even trying to blame me for your own ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really wasn't, and wrote the comment carefully to make it clear I wasn't (note in particular the word "nobody"). A lot happened today though (I missed it all, being out), so never mind. The bottom line is, you need to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful. This doesn't need to involve repetition - if people ask, you can point them to prior explanation where that exists (if they don't find it or have others point it out). Rd232 talk 00:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't need to do anything, but perhaps what you need to do is to wake up and smell the coffee. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mmm, coffee...:) Rephrasing: "one needs to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful." Rd232 talk 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm smelling the coffee, and the roses. Two threads closed in less than 24 hours each in two days at ANI with admins held accountable! Come on, MF, that's progress, and you get lots of credit. So does Rd232. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mmm, coffee...:) Rephrasing: "one needs to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful." Rd232 talk 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't need to do anything, but perhaps what you need to do is to wake up and smell the coffee. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really wasn't, and wrote the comment carefully to make it clear I wasn't (note in particular the word "nobody"). A lot happened today though (I missed it all, being out), so never mind. The bottom line is, you need to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful. This doesn't need to involve repetition - if people ask, you can point them to prior explanation where that exists (if they don't find it or have others point it out). Rd232 talk 00:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, would you be able to locate-- or tell me where to look for-- those diffs where Rod talked about how much time he spent on Wiki and how it was affecting him? This is an editor in trouble, based on Alison's post and his post, and it's clear that ANI isn't equipped to deal with this, particularly with the lack of respect shown at that circus by people like Baseball Bugs. This needs to go to the arbs, they are accustomed to situations like this, it looks like serious burnout, an RFC/U is not the right thing to do to an editor evidencing these kinds of problems; can you find those diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are this, this, this, this, this, this, this or this what you're looking for? – iridescent 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, saved me a job. Despite our very evident differences I'm rather concerned about Rod– the person I mean, not the administrator, but I'm also amazed at how the concerns about his increasingly erratic behaviour are being handled, or rather ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iri. Malleus, I agree-- the ANI circus now is troubling me more than the original events. Have people no compassion? I'm not sure how to escalate this to the arbs without generating another circus. They really should have a separate sub-committee for handling situations like this, expeditiously, without all the gore. Iri, I don't know if bringing those diffs forward at ANI would really be helpful at this point. Not sure what to do next-- maybe watch and wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what can be done next. With my cynical head on I might suggest that Rod is telling whatever stories he thinks might get him out of the shit, but I sense there's more to it than that, and someone needs to step in and do something. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alison is no dummy (d'oh), so since she is aware, I hope the remainder of this will be dealt with away from the peanut gallery. I think there's nothing left to do; what I thought was a compromised account turns out not to be so, and I'm hoping he won't be poking you any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't bother me whether he does or not. I've had a Damascus moment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least it's apparent that an editor attempting DR to deal with admin issues will be called "petty" and "silly", which at least underscores the problem. What happens to the "little guys" who don't have the <whatever I have> in the community to stand up to this? Oh, right, I know-- I was there in 2007 :) More than once, in fact, with a former arb (I was recalling that case just now, and thinking how fast she'd be blasted in today's current BLP environment if she endorsed what she endorsed against me in 2006). If I start to recall all of the instances of injustice here, I begin to wonder why I give so much. And while the muse doesn't return, it's hard to get motivated to read FAC. Admin abuse affects us all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that Uncle G ought to spend some considering his position, because it really does encapsulate the rotteness at the heart of this project. "Admin abuse" is constrained to mean misuse of admin tools, not abuse from an admin; George Orwell would be proud. For myself, I'd hoped to get this packed up and ready to go at GAN, but like yours, my muse has temporarily gone awol. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I put Uncle in that category of people who just haven't yet had it happen to them :) And we hope it never will, even though that means they'll never get it, and call those who do "silly". The problem is, these governance issues completely sap any motivation to continue working here. But we already know that from Moni's absence, and too many others to count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- And folks wonder why I run from RfA... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Without going into detail, I learned very early as an editor here what administrators are capable of. It's one reason I try to keep quiet, not make friends, do my work, and then get out of here. As it happens, I have made a few friends, and haven't been that quiet recently; but I was put very firmly in place when I had about 500 or so edits. As my first experience with an admin, it wasn't very pleasant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: I don't :) But droves of people don't get it. Read Jimbo's talk some time-- we're a "small but vocal minority" :) @TK: yep, Wiki is a battleground, because of an absence of governance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- They do, and there's clearly no will to address the fundamental problem with wilkipedia's administrators, which is that they're elected for life and are to all intents and purposes unaccountable. In fact even dying doesn't result in desysopping, on the basis I suppose that it would be disrespectful to remove the utility belt from someone just because they're dead. It's a strange world here. I was sorry to see that Moni has decided to throw in the towel, but it's an opportunity to tell an old joke. A guy in a bar hears one woman call another a lesbian. He turns to his friend and asks "What's a lesbian?" His friend tells him that's it's a someone who likes women. "Well, then I guess I'm a lesbian too" he replies. Boom boom. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's structurally very hard to get any significant change implemented. If you put a lot of work in you may eventually succeed, but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd think. One example is the Article Wizard - this took about 2 years from gestation to completing its implementation. And that doesn't really challenge anyone's power, does it? This sort of structural inertia is why I created Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), to at least try and have a space where ideas don't get shot down so quickly. Bottom line, the difficulty of changing the governance is not unique - though it's clearly a special case of being even harder. The only solution is to keep trying to come up with new ideas. PS The problem is not so much being given the tools indefinitely; the processes for removal of tools where that's clearly warranted are not so bad. The difficulty is in handling low and mid-level problems, and a certain tendency from people who've heard Wolf cried too many times to dismiss any problems short of "desysop now" seriousness as either bellyaching from troublemakers or just minor stuff of the "everyone makes mistakes" variety. More organised, constructive feedback might help, eg having a mandatory Admin review every year. Rd232 talk 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Y'know, I worked in state government for about 8 years total out of a 15 or 16 year period. Sad to say, wiki actually isn't all that different... sigh. Looked back at my edit count; the most edits in a month were done the last month I worked for the state and the first month after. Wiki was actually LESS dysfunctional than state government...and that was even including a time when my evil twin tried pulling an ANI on me. We are the world! That IS a scary thought, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 01:46, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
- The obvious and very simple solution is staring you in the face, but you and many others refuse to see it: term limits for administrators, perhaps two years. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's structurally very hard to get any significant change implemented. If you put a lot of work in you may eventually succeed, but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd think. One example is the Article Wizard - this took about 2 years from gestation to completing its implementation. And that doesn't really challenge anyone's power, does it? This sort of structural inertia is why I created Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), to at least try and have a space where ideas don't get shot down so quickly. Bottom line, the difficulty of changing the governance is not unique - though it's clearly a special case of being even harder. The only solution is to keep trying to come up with new ideas. PS The problem is not so much being given the tools indefinitely; the processes for removal of tools where that's clearly warranted are not so bad. The difficulty is in handling low and mid-level problems, and a certain tendency from people who've heard Wolf cried too many times to dismiss any problems short of "desysop now" seriousness as either bellyaching from troublemakers or just minor stuff of the "everyone makes mistakes" variety. More organised, constructive feedback might help, eg having a mandatory Admin review every year. Rd232 talk 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- And folks wonder why I run from RfA... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I put Uncle in that category of people who just haven't yet had it happen to them :) And we hope it never will, even though that means they'll never get it, and call those who do "silly". The problem is, these governance issues completely sap any motivation to continue working here. But we already know that from Moni's absence, and too many others to count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that Uncle G ought to spend some considering his position, because it really does encapsulate the rotteness at the heart of this project. "Admin abuse" is constrained to mean misuse of admin tools, not abuse from an admin; George Orwell would be proud. For myself, I'd hoped to get this packed up and ready to go at GAN, but like yours, my muse has temporarily gone awol. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least it's apparent that an editor attempting DR to deal with admin issues will be called "petty" and "silly", which at least underscores the problem. What happens to the "little guys" who don't have the <whatever I have> in the community to stand up to this? Oh, right, I know-- I was there in 2007 :) More than once, in fact, with a former arb (I was recalling that case just now, and thinking how fast she'd be blasted in today's current BLP environment if she endorsed what she endorsed against me in 2006). If I start to recall all of the instances of injustice here, I begin to wonder why I give so much. And while the muse doesn't return, it's hard to get motivated to read FAC. Admin abuse affects us all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't bother me whether he does or not. I've had a Damascus moment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Alison is no dummy (d'oh), so since she is aware, I hope the remainder of this will be dealt with away from the peanut gallery. I think there's nothing left to do; what I thought was a compromised account turns out not to be so, and I'm hoping he won't be poking you any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what can be done next. With my cynical head on I might suggest that Rod is telling whatever stories he thinks might get him out of the shit, but I sense there's more to it than that, and someone needs to step in and do something. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iri. Malleus, I agree-- the ANI circus now is troubling me more than the original events. Have people no compassion? I'm not sure how to escalate this to the arbs without generating another circus. They really should have a separate sub-committee for handling situations like this, expeditiously, without all the gore. Iri, I don't know if bringing those diffs forward at ANI would really be helpful at this point. Not sure what to do next-- maybe watch and wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, saved me a job. Despite our very evident differences I'm rather concerned about Rod– the person I mean, not the administrator, but I'm also amazed at how the concerns about his increasingly erratic behaviour are being handled, or rather ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but you have to change consensus. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rod, you have been asked to stay off Malleus's talkpage. There is no reason for you to join this conversation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that if I'd done what Rod just did I would by now be blocked. He needs to get his act together nevertheless, and stop obsessing about me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you very possibly would have been. I don't think he took Rob's note seriously. I hope he does mine, because I really don't want to have to block him, but I will if he comes back here, because I think the consequences if I don't might be worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rod is out of control, and he needs to be helped to understand that. I never want to see anyone blocked, but in this case I fear for the man's sanity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's torn it [2].Yes, I do believe his behaviour, what he has said about his circumstances, and even the wierd spelling errors, are indicative of a problem in real life. I hope he takes a break and feels better, but I am afraid that I have seen people in a 'xyz.com is the only thing I live for' phase before, and it has never gone particularly well Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Rod is out of control, and he needs to be helped to understand that. I never want to see anyone blocked, but in this case I fear for the man's sanity. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you very possibly would have been. I don't think he took Rob's note seriously. I hope he does mine, because I really don't want to have to block him, but I will if he comes back here, because I think the consequences if I don't might be worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that if I'd done what Rod just did I would by now be blocked. He needs to get his act together nevertheless, and stop obsessing about me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(ignoring unhelpful interruption from Rod) Term limits are probably a bad idea for Wikipedia, with reasons for and against discussed at great length not so long ago in several RFCs (links not to hand; were you involved there? I don't recall). Compulsory admin review, as an alternative, would achieve something in itself; but if it worked well enough, it could evolve into something quite effective. For instance the expectation might develop that serious issues identified at admin review would lead either to a voluntary RFA, or to a community request to Arbcom to impose on the basis of the review. But a straight re-run of RFA (i.e. voting), at fixed intervals, regardless of activity? No. And even regardless of whether it's a good idea, it's not likely to happen, so something useful which might be a sort of stepping stone is rather more worth pursuing. What do you think? Rd232 talk 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Other wikipedias do use terms without apparently major issues, regarding their admins like local government elected officials it seems to me. the thing with Wikipedia was that the admins started out as sysops (have the tools so you can delete articles) and are crawling towards a role as something else, having got to about the middle ages and baronial fiefs in some cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- All Wikipedias are different. It's not impossible it could work on en.wp, but it's a dramatic change and it could cause all sorts of problems. Hence my suggestion for an intermediate position which could then potentially evolve towards that. Does that make sense? Rd232 talk 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- What do I think? Here's what I think. Wikipedia is ossifying, and nobody can do anything about it, or change anything that matters. We can't even agree on the basics, that admin shouldn't be for life. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well to address your point head on: adminship is indefinite (not "for life") because in theory everyone could be an admin, if the community agreed to trust them with the tools. Sysop bits are not limited resources; it's solely whether the community trusts the user. There are mechanisms for withdrawing the bit on the basis of losing the trust of the community; but it's philosophically muddy to demand term limits. What is needed really is processes for evaluating the trust that the community as a whole places in a user. A "term limits" approach insists that evaluation takes place through voting, which for various reasons is not a good idea here - it should be through discussion. Rd232 talk 02:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- We will clearly have to agree to disagree. It seems very plain to me that RfA is a vote, even a popularity contest, so to baulk at the idea of a re-election after two years seems inconsistent to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- RFA shouldn't be as close to a vote as it is. And whilst it's bad for RFA to be a vote, it would be rather worse to have a popularity contest routinely later on. If voting was compulsory and you had a proper electorate (no sock puppets...), it might work. Absent that, it's too likely that those with unjustified grudges for admins acting as they should have done will cause the re-election to fail, because they'll be far more motivated than anyone else. It might even encourage banned users to sock really quietly in order to be able to WP:GAME the re-election RFA of admins that dealt with them. Besides which, the mere fact that it's a vote will raise the drama level infinitely; it will mean every single issue of the last two years that's brought up being discussed to death, rather than people being able to say "well that's your opinion, you haven't persuaded anyone and it's not a vote...". I have thought about this, and it's why I suggested the Admin Review approach, which achieves a lot of the same goals. Rd232 talk 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with term limits is that people who really wanted the bit would spend the latter part of their two years with their eye on the upcoming vote. Admins, even good ones, make enemies. I would favour a sort of Court of Appeal system. It would have to be set up so it didn't become just another ANI. The idea would be to review tool use and admin behaviour where there were serious concerns about abuse or "conduct unbecoming". Fainites barleyscribs 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's rather naive. RfA candidates already keep their heads down before their hazing, and the "try again in three months" mantra encourages thst dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, picture this ... a grudge-bearing admin is approaching the end of his/her "term", knows s/he won't pass RFA again: what more would they like to do than go out by blocking MF or SG? Won't work !!!! Look at the unprofessional sneering and lobbing of grenades by an arb whose term is expiring! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I don't care what the over/under is on a block of you or Malleus, I'm betting the under. Nothing stops any admin from doing that right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing stops any admin from doing anything right now, so what's new? Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that Rodhullandemu has returned after his "retirement", which avoided any sanctions against him. On a scale of 1 to 10 how honest would you consider that to be Wehwalt? Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I don't care what the over/under is on a block of you or Malleus, I'm betting the under. Nothing stops any admin from doing that right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, picture this ... a grudge-bearing admin is approaching the end of his/her "term", knows s/he won't pass RFA again: what more would they like to do than go out by blocking MF or SG? Won't work !!!! Look at the unprofessional sneering and lobbing of grenades by an arb whose term is expiring! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's rather naive. RfA candidates already keep their heads down before their hazing, and the "try again in three months" mantra encourages thst dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with term limits is that people who really wanted the bit would spend the latter part of their two years with their eye on the upcoming vote. Admins, even good ones, make enemies. I would favour a sort of Court of Appeal system. It would have to be set up so it didn't become just another ANI. The idea would be to review tool use and admin behaviour where there were serious concerns about abuse or "conduct unbecoming". Fainites barleyscribs 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- RFA shouldn't be as close to a vote as it is. And whilst it's bad for RFA to be a vote, it would be rather worse to have a popularity contest routinely later on. If voting was compulsory and you had a proper electorate (no sock puppets...), it might work. Absent that, it's too likely that those with unjustified grudges for admins acting as they should have done will cause the re-election to fail, because they'll be far more motivated than anyone else. It might even encourage banned users to sock really quietly in order to be able to WP:GAME the re-election RFA of admins that dealt with them. Besides which, the mere fact that it's a vote will raise the drama level infinitely; it will mean every single issue of the last two years that's brought up being discussed to death, rather than people being able to say "well that's your opinion, you haven't persuaded anyone and it's not a vote...". I have thought about this, and it's why I suggested the Admin Review approach, which achieves a lot of the same goals. Rd232 talk 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- We will clearly have to agree to disagree. It seems very plain to me that RfA is a vote, even a popularity contest, so to baulk at the idea of a re-election after two years seems inconsistent to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well to address your point head on: adminship is indefinite (not "for life") because in theory everyone could be an admin, if the community agreed to trust them with the tools. Sysop bits are not limited resources; it's solely whether the community trusts the user. There are mechanisms for withdrawing the bit on the basis of losing the trust of the community; but it's philosophically muddy to demand term limits. What is needed really is processes for evaluating the trust that the community as a whole places in a user. A "term limits" approach insists that evaluation takes place through voting, which for various reasons is not a good idea here - it should be through discussion. Rd232 talk 02:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think maybe Wehwalt is aggrieved-- what happened to the humor ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
When term limits for admins are introduced in the hopefully not too distant future I very much look forwards to seeing your reconfirmation crash and burn. No hard feelings of course. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- None taken. I know you'd do as much for any of my colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, you're developing a new artform! Now I've got to go whack some trolls, vandals, socks, plagiarists, and POV-pushers; carry on with your humorous attacks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I hoped to study from the masters!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't even know who the masters are. You're a classic example of a poking administrator, doing all you you can to provoke others into a blockable offence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, Malleus, when was the last time I blocked an autoconfirmed users (in other words, exclude the now and then vandal)?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly you're not paying attention Wehwalt. What usually happens is that one of the admins' friends actually applies the hammer. If you have only come here in an attempt to provoke me, which seems likely, then I would ask that you try and find another editor to annoy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, Malleus, when was the last time I blocked an autoconfirmed users (in other words, exclude the now and then vandal)?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't even know who the masters are. You're a classic example of a poking administrator, doing all you you can to provoke others into a blockable offence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I hoped to study from the masters!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, you're developing a new artform! Now I've got to go whack some trolls, vandals, socks, plagiarists, and POV-pushers; carry on with your humorous attacks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys still at it? There's work to be done at FAC-- Wehwalt, are you the mentor or the mentee? You seem to be picking up some disruptive habits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- No need to stir the pot, Sandy, no one has posted here in 45 minutes. I'm busy with other stuff, having respected Malleus's request to disengage, and Malleus no doubt sleeps the sleep of the ... the sleep of the ... well, he's probably asleep, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't check the timestamps-- been quite busy myself. Maybe I should start reviewing articles again ... in the meantime, it would be really nice if you'd stop attacking people. It's becoming tiresome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I've said it before and I'll tell you again: Saying things don't make them so. You haven't been scarfing on Prop 19 leftovers, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I so do not want to have to take time to deal with your squabbling; have you reviewed any FACs lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I reviewed one a couple of weeks ago. But as a gesture of good faith and peace, I'll see if I can find one. It won't be until tomorrow, I am about to join Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Find your own coffin Wehwalt, mine isn't big enough for both of us. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now, if we can get Wehwalt to stop picking up the habits of his favorite mentee, we might get FAC back on track. Wehwalt, you run lots of articles through FAC-- each FA takes about twelve reviewers' time, and Malleus pitches in everywhere. I think you're behind on the "giving back" score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't imagine what you are talking about there, Sandy, Mattisse is an excellent reviewer and I would be proud to pick up her habits in that department. And it is unfortunate to hear a FAC delegate refer to the hard and expert work I do with articles no one cared about as "running ... articles through FAC".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now, Wehwalt, you've been reading my prose long enough to know my writing and how to read it; that one won't work. Now take a day off and go pick on someone your own size (125 here). Or go review some FACs. Or even better, break out your shiny tool kit, read the manual, and see if you can DUCK Susanne2009NYC, so I don't have to do yet another thing tonight. You do have some experience with sockmasters, don't you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't imagine what you are talking about there, Sandy, Mattisse is an excellent reviewer and I would be proud to pick up her habits in that department. And it is unfortunate to hear a FAC delegate refer to the hard and expert work I do with articles no one cared about as "running ... articles through FAC".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now, if we can get Wehwalt to stop picking up the habits of his favorite mentee, we might get FAC back on track. Wehwalt, you run lots of articles through FAC-- each FA takes about twelve reviewers' time, and Malleus pitches in everywhere. I think you're behind on the "giving back" score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Find your own coffin Wehwalt, mine isn't big enough for both of us. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I reviewed one a couple of weeks ago. But as a gesture of good faith and peace, I'll see if I can find one. It won't be until tomorrow, I am about to join Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I so do not want to have to take time to deal with your squabbling; have you reviewed any FACs lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I've said it before and I'll tell you again: Saying things don't make them so. You haven't been scarfing on Prop 19 leftovers, by any chance?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't check the timestamps-- been quite busy myself. Maybe I should start reviewing articles again ... in the meantime, it would be really nice if you'd stop attacking people. It's becoming tiresome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, Malleus-- Wehwalt can't provoke me into anything, and he knows it. He's already tried it, dozens of times and places (mentor or mentee?). Wehwalt, I thought you were going to sleep? Tomorrow's a new day; try to be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sandy, I know, you addressed that comment by email with me during my arb run. I thought that ended it. Obviously, I was mistaken. I suppose it could be worse, you could be reading my amazon.com reviews under my real name and bringing it up on the wiki, not that that would happen, huh?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you telling us you have a COI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sandy, I know, you addressed that comment by email with me during my arb run. I thought that ended it. Obviously, I was mistaken. I suppose it could be worse, you could be reading my amazon.com reviews under my real name and bringing it up on the wiki, not that that would happen, huh?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus, Malleus-- Wehwalt can't provoke me into anything, and he knows it. He's already tried it, dozens of times and places (mentor or mentee?). Wehwalt, I thought you were going to sleep? Tomorrow's a new day; try to be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Edmond Malone in Johnson and Boswell bios?
Hi Malleus,
Sorry to ping you directly about this (I know you're probably as busy as Sandy, whom I've also bugged with this, is), but if you could possibly take a quick peek at my query here I'd much appreciate it. Oh, and please don't feel obliged to do any actual research on this; you're just a likely victim by sheer edit-count on Samuel Johnson and I'm hoping to get a rough idea from what you can recall off the top of your head (unless you happen to have the relevant books' index immediately to hand to check without too much effort). Thanks, --Xover (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far as I recall, pretty much all of the sourcing on that article came from Ottava Rima, an editor who was subsequently banned, so I'm afraid that I can't help. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Not much choice this week...
Walter de Coutances, who got to "gift" the land for Château Gaillard for King Dickie Boy or Alexander of Lincoln, the cousin/brother of our good friend Nigel. Burnell's passed, and I don't have anything quirky in the queue, I'm sorry to say. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not much to choose between them really ... which one do you fancy? Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the link to William de Briouze that you added. I'm going to look around to see if wikipedia has anything on measuring to a saint, 'cos that's going to need an explanation in Cragh's article. I also need to add a bit about Cantilupe's successor as bishop of Hereford, Richard Swinfield (there's another one for you), as he was the one who petitioned the pope for Cantilupe's canonisation. Beyond that I think it'll be about done once the lead is expanded a bit. It's taken forever! Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Ye of little faith... Richard Swinefield - spelling in the middle ages is a bitch. He's already a GA too! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should have more faith, you're right. Well, William the Scabby is up at GAN now, so we'll see what happens. I think it's a nice little article, but then I would. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Walter. Just ran across an article that MIGHT be needed on Alexander (probably not, and even if so it'd only be a small bit, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Biff!, pow!, bang!, zock!
Looks like you will be able to start work on this very shortly. Look forward to seeing what you do with it. it's a good story, I hope to be be near Hanslope some time before Christmas and get a photo of the gravestone. Regards. Giacomo 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows, perhaps Cirt will decide to fix it, instead of continually whining because nobody else has. Or in this case that they tried to, when he wanted the article to be delisted in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Folk etymology: Your input requested
Greetings, MF-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My experience tells me that when a page is locked because of edit warring that's a good sign to skedaddle. FWIW the view of the linguists is pretty my own as well. The term "folklore etymology" doesn't really make much sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite some time ago I asked you to copyedit an article and you did a great job. I was wondering if you might take a look at the above article. I may be fooling myself, having only posted it two days ago (with a lot of work done offline before that) but I'm thinking it's near ready for FAC, though I am waiting on one crucial source from WP:RX. If you can't (or won't), I'll understand.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's nicely quirky. I'll try and take a look at it over the next few days. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. I enjoy strange little articles on quirky subjects. I got an added benefit in that it's obvious some of the people who watch this page saw my post above and stopped by the article. It's already better.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Question
Why is other referencing necessary when a link is provided to another page on Wikipedia?
Here's a book for you ...
Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the social history of death ed. Joachim Whaley 1981. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article might be interesting ... will pick it up this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- And this one just sounds like something right up your and PoD's alley... wow, *I* hadn't heard that one before. Also picking up. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo
Hallo Malleus, I just wanted to say keep up the excellent work you do on what are, quite frankly, the most interesting and fascinating articles on Wikipedia. I always enjoy reading the end result of your efforts; keep it up! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but thanks anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Witches..
A google scholar looksee turned up : this and [3] which I'll try to secure this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the true Southern Belle, I think another term is "having vapors", though that also implicates a certain degree of hyperventilation and hysteria, none of which I would EVER associate with Ealdgyth! LOL! And why IS it that associating with the fellows with pointy boots and hats does so very much to enhance one's vocabulary? I mean, I must have been in first grade before I discovered (the hard way, via teachers) that "goddamn" was not the proper qualifying adjective with which to precede all references to recalcitrant animals, ill-placed inanimate objects, white-collar professional city-dwellers, and most of the neighbors! Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you seem very protective of the edits made to the Belle Vue article regarding the Granada Bowl's building current use as a bingo club having reverted several people's attempts to introduce this as an interesting fact. Its going to be very difficult to deliver a "reliable" source for this fact - and perhaps the most reliable source would be a google street view map of the building. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=L3C&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=m18%207ba&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl. If you go onto street view above the "A" marker on the link above you will be able to see that the bingo club is on the map on the location of where the Great Lake (or whatever it was called) was located. Not sure if we could use that as a clear and reliable source since it implies verification rather than clearly states it, but I'll put it in the article as the reference for the snooker hall is far more tenuous but has been allowed to stay in. Seedybob2 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm protective of every wikipedia article, not just this one, but you surely cannot seriously believe that a comment on a forum counts as a reliable source? Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- No fair play on that one I suppose, but you can't always rely on book sources such as "Cronin, Jill; Rhodes, Frank (1999), Belle Vue, Tempus, ISBN 0-7524-1571-9" which I doubt many have read to verify but has been accepted as a source for the snooker hall which is in the bingo hall's car park according to the map. Do you accept the Google Map as a ref then? Seedybob2 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the unconstructive comment MF. If I'm wrong fine. If you could have helped with some guidance that would have been better. I would appreciate if you could remove the above comment as it was a bit unnecessary - I've removed my own "claim to be god". Wikipedia has lost an editor today if that's the contempt fellow editors communicate. Seedybob2 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they are for forging agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your way is better.
I did see your point of view even I was being very protective of my edit, but you've not been very courteous in this discussion which is a shame. Overall you seem to have a good reputation on wiki, but I remain offended by the tone of your responses. I'm sorry you feel that wikipedia has lost nothing today. I wish you luck with your editing in future. Seedybob2 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please take whatever grievance it is that you believe you have elsewhere, preferably to the article's talk page. If you believe that I've not been sufficiently "courteous" then you have the option to make a formal complaint here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of explanation instead of offhand comments about "a Google Map link that shows me nothing" (that's not what Seedybob was talking about, he gave instructions to get from there to the relevant bit of streetview) would have been helpful and the edit summaries in the article aren't explanations. That throws up a stone wall to less experienced editors, and to then have their efforts thrown back in their face when they clearly don't understand what they've done wrong isn't what we should be doing. This isn't worth losing an editor over.
What Google streetview provides is a snapshot of a point in time. Historians use visual sources all the time but I think as far as Wikipedia is concerned there are problems of synthesis and perhaps original research. Possible issues related to this might be provenance, for example when was the picture taken and how does it fit with the chronology, and are we certain that's the correct building. It's safe to assume it's a recent photo because of when Google streetview was set up and because they took their own photos; as for whether it's the correct building you just have to check against a map. But this probably constitutes synthesis. Is that more or less it or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely? Nev1 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of explanation instead of offhand comments about "a Google Map link that shows me nothing" (that's not what Seedybob was talking about, he gave instructions to get from there to the relevant bit of streetview) would have been helpful and the edit summaries in the article aren't explanations. That throws up a stone wall to less experienced editors, and to then have their efforts thrown back in their face when they clearly don't understand what they've done wrong isn't what we should be doing. This isn't worth losing an editor over.
- Let me put it this way. I don't doubt that what Seedybob2 says about the development of the car park is true, but he's been told by several editors, not just by me, that he has to provide evidence from reliable sources to back up his claims. He has consistently failed to do that, and has consistently failed to understand what "reliable sources" means. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure that what Speedybob2 said is true, but where was it explained why Google streetview wasn't a reliable source? Those multiple editors are you and PoD, and frankly PoD's comment didn't add any weight in this instance as it was about Google maps rather than streetview and still didn't explain why it wasn't reliable. If you don't know why what you're doing is incorrect, it's difficult to fix. I can see where he was coming from. In the real world a visual source can be as reliable as a text sometimes and until I sat down and thought about it, it hadn't occurred to me that it might be a breach of WP:SYNTH. Perhaps I'm just tired though. Nev1 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did, and "Undid revision 397378609 by Seedybob2 (talk) that can in no way be considered to be a reliable source" and "Undid revision 397407203 by Seedybob2 (talk) yhe map proves nothing" do little to explain why Google streetview is not reliable. There's also no explanation on the article's talk page or Seedybob's. Am I still missing where this was all explained? Nev1 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I agree with MF, only last week I removed an unsourced entry on the same thing and in the edit summary should have used the word reliable. Whilst helping get this article to FA I was told sources I suggested weren't good enough but I didn't demand an explanation. Is it feasible that the editor who added the info could have asked first on the talk page? I know I wouldn't jump into a FA and expect to be taken seriously with those references.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I've read the removed comment. [4] You really shouldn't do that on someone else's talk page Seedy Bob. The book doesn't mention the bingo hall he manages and so its reliability is called into question. Well that's books for you, you just can't get them to say just what you want.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Bentworth
Thanks for reviewing Bentworth. I had a long look at the review you had given and studied it. I have fixed all the prose you have suggested, and I will continue to work on the lead, Geography section and the Notable People section. Once I have done all the things the GAN Review mentioned, can I ask that would there be anything else at all that might need addressing for building it to GA Status? Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that if you fix up the prose and add the missing sections I mentioned it would stand a reasonable chance at GAN next time. Good luck! Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Flying Duckworth
Did you have any look getting those books for this? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a shame. I'm still waiting for a good source to tidy up Hanged, drawn and quartered. Annoying, it may never arrive. I still have Straw Bear (man dressed like a bear covered in straw) on my mind. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've got enough sources now to finish this off, which has been on my to-do list for far too long. We're planning to move next year though, so my wife is constantly on my back to repair things, help with the redecorating, get the MGB back on the road, tidy up the garden, clear out the cellars, repaint the outside of the house .... :-( Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Only Robert Keyes left to tidy up, and then I think I'll nominate my first Featured Topic. If anyone starts whinging that there aren't any priests in it, I'll murder them to death. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- With my Psychic Powers hat on, if there is an objection it will be that Monteagle ought to be included. (I disagree, but I can see the case for it.) – iridescent 13:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Query
Would you consider a run for arbcom? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought it was "lolz", but that might just be the American spelling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've offered to help out with the chores a couple of times already, most recently here. To be honest I didn't find the experiences to be particularly amusing ones, so I'm afraid that wikipedia will have to do without my assistance. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
GA review second opinion...
Codex Cyprius... can you look it over? I'm still not very happy with the idea of passing it, but the nominator's done a reasonable amount to get it up closer to snuff. The nomination waited over two months before anyone looked at it, so Im hesitant to just fail it, but I'm pretty sure the nominator is not a native English speaker... argh! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at that a few times myself, but I wasn't sure about it either. I'll try and get there later tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK
Your talk page has over 2 million views, more than any other I could find. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC).
- Can't believe Sandy and Slimmy aren't higher. Malleus is quite a way down the most watched pages list. – iridescent 10:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's been awhile since I looked at those lists. There's quite a bit of weirdness there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the top entries (such as Little Barrier Island or Richard Evans (British author)), have a look at their move logs for an explanation. It's quite weird what moving pages can do (and hence why it's probably one of the most disruptive things a non-admin can do, technically). AD 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's been awhile since I looked at those lists. There's quite a bit of weirdness there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This weeks poser...
Council of Austerfield. Anything DYK worthy in that? One thing I like about DYK is that it gets other folks looking at my newly started articles, so that they catch my grammar-spelling-context-prose flow mistakes, so if possible, it's nice to get something to DYK. I *think* this one can go GA, but won't make FA, that's for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- OO! Anglo Saxons! I would think it was generally interesting that here was a meeting of most of the bigwigs of the Anglo Saxon church, to de-bishop (or keep de-bishoped) a troublesome bishop, but how you'd turn that into a DYK hook....that 1300 years ago, the Anglo Saxon church in England met at Austerfield to dethrone the Bishop of York.....
- "Did you know… that when Aldfrith and Berhtwald met at the Council of Austerfield they spent the entire time bashing the bishop?" – iridescent 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- OO! Anglo Saxons! I would think it was generally interesting that here was a meeting of most of the bigwigs of the Anglo Saxon church, to de-bishop (or keep de-bishoped) a troublesome bishop, but how you'd turn that into a DYK hook....that 1300 years ago, the Anglo Saxon church in England met at Austerfield to dethrone the Bishop of York.....
Pour toi
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
The number of GAs you've written and reviewed, this has been a long time coming. My thanks for your endlessly useful work. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility police may interest you
An attempt by the civility police to obfuscate their shady activities and stifle documentation of their character. 184.168.193.22 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)