:::It would be an amazing day if I looked at the RfA page and saw voters actually evaluate candidates on their actions, rather than this "immaturity" thing pulled from the air. I hope you not seriously suggesting only teenagers play with guns either. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::It would be an amazing day if I looked at the RfA page and saw voters actually evaluate candidates on their actions, rather than this "immaturity" thing pulled from the air. I hope you not seriously suggesting only teenagers play with guns either. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I recognized my own maturity issues, and sought to fix them. Most teenager editors start off immature and go on to become great users. It's the quasi-mature, sarcastic admins who drag us down, at least much moreso than the teenage sysops. '''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Optima">ceran</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Optima">''thor''</font>]] 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I recognized my own maturity issues, and sought to fix them. Most teenager editors start off immature and go on to become great users. It's the quasi-mature, sarcastic admins who drag us down, at least much moreso than the teenage sysops. '''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Optima">ceran</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Optima">''thor''</font>]] 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: No, I don't believe that only teenagers play with guns. Yes, I believe that younger people have a limited experience base with which to judge a wide variety of issues outside their knowledge and that they tend to overreact, are significantly affected by external influences: praise and recognition from others, for example. This is not limited only to teenagers, but it occurs overwhelmingly in this age bracket. You're accusing the wrong person here of slights. I'm recommending that everyone judge editors based on their actions and posts. When those actions and posts reflect jumping to conclusions, foolhardy edits, and behavior similar to what I saw when I taught...indeed...what I did what I was an adolescent, then concerns about maturity should be expressed. I suggest getting your dander up when someone is addressing you specifically. I have seen posts here about ignorant Americans, POV-pushing faggots, feminazi bimbos, elitist FA writers...I choose to respond when someone addresses me directly. Otherwise, I waste my time worrying about generalities that do not apply to me.
:::: No, I don't believe that only teenagers play with guns. Yes, I believe that younger people have a limited experience base with which to judge a wide variety of issues outside their knowledge and that they tend to overreact, are significantly affected by external influences: praise and recognition from others, for example. This is not limited only to teenagers, but it occurs overwhelmingly in this age bracket. You're accusing the wrong person here of slights. I'm recommending that everyone judge editors based on their actions and posts. When those actions and posts reflect jumping to conclusions, foolhardy edits, and behavior similar to what I saw when I taught...indeed...what I did what I was an adolescent, then concerns about maturity should be expressed. I suggest getting your dander up when someone is addressing you specifically. I have seen posts here about ignorant Americans, POV-pushing faggots, feminazi bimbos, elitist FA writers...I choose to respond when someone addresses me directly. Otherwise, I waste my time worrying about generalities that do not apply to me. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:22, 2 September 2009
I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here. 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,
I wondered if you could have a quick look at Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), before I consider submitting myself to the flagellation of FAC? I can't really find anything more to add to it, other than a precise list of studio dates (and I don't have the book I need for that, its too expensive). Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I had a quick look through a few days ago, and I thought it looked pretty good. --MalleusFatuorum 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I once helped a girlfriend to write a long essay on that album - the lines paralleling the biographical events. Definitely my favourite Floyd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I'm torn between DSotM and The Wall, but lately while doing Meddle I've gotten very much into Echoes. WYWH is just too harsh at the end of side 1. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look out my vinyl copy of WYWH to listen to while I look through the article—if I can remember how to plug in the turntable to my "new" Bose system, and find the pre-amp that it needs ... assuming that the stylus still works ... --MalleusFatuorum 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have DSotM and The Wall on MFSL 24-carat gold CD. I'm something of a fan. I've also got most of the rest on vinyl, and I'm still nerdy enough to listen through a Roksan and Naim system :) BTW, if the stylus is worn you'll be damaging those records by using it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stylus was OK last time I used the turntable, probably about three years ago. It's a good Shure one anyway, so I'm sure (geddit?) that it'll be fine. --MalleusFatuorum 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have my original DSotM from the initial release in '73 and my (now well-worn) half-speed master of WYWH. Come to think of it I still have all my original vinyl which regularly gets an airing on my now ageing Linn/Naim system. Come to think of it I'm an EMI double dippers delight having got copies (on vinyl) of every version of DSotM including the 20th and 30th versions (I vaguely recall one of them having a load of bumf with it and a sticker announcing Direct Metal Mastering. Having said that I even relented and gave in to the digital age and shocked my then missus for spending several hundred quid tracking down and buying all the PF MoFi releases and the gold disc version of WYWH... and don't get me started on the Waters' gold albums! Sheesh, it's only when it's written down like this do I feel like a PF geek! And I'm still not sure whether I actually like the 5.1 SACD remix of DSotM--WebHamster 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MFSL ones are the 'ones' to get IMO. I have Equinoxe on 180g vinyl, its bloody amazing. What was even more amazing was that I didn't injure myself when I accidently scratched side 2. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this I have to agree. I have a handful of the MoFo 200g vinyl discs, including Oxygene, and yes the sound that emanates is rather nice and less digital. Having said that, the Mastersound 24kt gold WYWH has a very analogue sound and does get a regular workout. --WebHamster 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) All this talk of Linn systems make me feel quite deprived. I have to make to with a Pioneer PL-200X direct-drive turntable, sans elastic bands. Ah well, I'll survive. --MalleusFatuorum 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only Scottish Apple-purchasing zealots buy Linn. Those with any sense ignore the hyperbole and buy Roksan, turntables with sagging plinths :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which reminds me of a friend of mine who mounted his turntable on a massive slab of slate, to isolate it from vibrations. He never really accepted these new-fangled transistors either, valves are best. --MalleusFatuorum 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since slate is a somewhat excellent material for transmitting energy, I think he may have acted in vain. You don't see car manufacturers using engine mounts made from slate. Mind you, I use 2 valve power amps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, the excellent synergy between the hifi industry and the snake-oil salesmen. A partnership made in hell and presided over by Peter Belt (now why doesn't that red link surprise me, heheheh) :) --WebHamster 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Belt was hilarious. Quite how strips of foil sellotaped to curtains could change the acoustic properties of a room is beyond me, and apparently, observable scientific fact. Actually, we should make that link blue - there must be tonnes of material pointing out what a stupid person he is. Hes easily on a parallel with people who use gold-plated 13A sockets, shielded multicore mains cables, green pens on CDs, and gold-plated co-axial digital sockets :D Not forgetting of course people who spend tens of thousands of pounds changing their speakers, while negating the most obvious thing in the room, the room itself. I've had some experience in recording studios, most hi-fi notions are laughed at. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an English PC zealot I have to own up to it only being an Axis/Akito/AT-OC5, but in my defence I did trade up from a Thorens TD160BC / SME3009/II / ADC combo and Roksan were new kids on the block at the time... I did drool (secretly) once over a Pink Triangle at the Manchester HiFi Show once though! And in Linn's defence it was their room at the Last Drop Village HiFi Show that introduced me to SRV and Couldn't Stand The Weather at some point in the late 80s --WebHamster 23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(re PoD) Semi-agree, although that lurch from "Fearless" (possibly Waters's finest moment) into "San Tropez" (possibly the low point of PF's entire career, and I include "Lucy Leave" and AMLOR) is so sudden as to give you the bends. – iridescent 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think I'm the only one that likes "San Tropez". --WebHamster 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus do you know what the 'done thing' is regarding re-nominating articles to WP:FAC? DSotM failed almost certainly due to the comments about the non-free content, but several changes have been made that may make its next passage a little easier. Would it be cheeky to renominate it immediately and should I instead think about WYWH, or can I just plonk it right back at the top as a fresh nomination? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The protocol is to wait a couple of weeks before renominating at FAC. Renominating straight away is very much frowned on. --MalleusFatuorum 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just started writing a new Pink Floyd article from scratch so I have other things to work on at least. This one will take ages I think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given your interests I thought this may appeal
Rather nice little article (Badnjak) for which I was requested to Peer Review ---> Wikipedia:Peer review/Badnjak/archive1. More eyes'd be good to help this fella get over the line at FAC..Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That needs a lot of work to get through FAC; I wouldn't even have passed it as a GA with words like "parallelly" in there. Parts also look perilously close to a "how-to" manual to me as well. Someone really needs to go through that prose like a dose of salts before it'll stand any chance at FAC. --MalleusFatuorum 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn my reliance on red squiggly lines in spell checker which has atrophied my ability to see guffs like the ones you just corrected...what you reckon 'bout the content? Casliber (talk· contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the slight tendency towards a "how-to" manual can be dealt with the content looks reasonable. The big problem I see for FAC is the prose quality. It's generally adequate for GA, but FAC demands so much more. --MalleusFatuorum 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is it possible to upgrade the prose of this article so that it can meet FA criteria? The nature of this subject requires a description of a sequence of actions, which may by itself resemble a "how-to" manual, though it probably can be tweaked into a more literary style. Sorry for the guffs, English's not my native language.
I see no FA whose subject is primarily related to folklore, I'd say with this article a progress could be made in this field too. VVVladimir (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, it's a nice article. I'll see what I can do about the prose. --MalleusFatuorum 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, thanks in advance :) VVVladimir (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenor of discussion
I don't think this was either terribly civil or helpful to the discussion at hand. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep your civility crap to yourself, as I'm not interested. I don't think that your view is logical, consistent, or reasonable, which is all that matters. Go and complain to your mummy, perhaps she'll be more sympathetic than I am, which of course isn't saying very much. It's about time editors like you realised that disagreement is not uncivil, it's just a disagreement. --MalleusFatuorum 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement and debate is great. That's not what you are doing. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is of no interest to me. Keep it to yourself. --MalleusFatuorum 02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are three non-notable primary scores of the same name, doesn't combining them into a single article establish notability? Once combined, do we average their ratings, take the highest one, or add them together to get the highest score possible? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that those arguing for keeping this article on a unexceptionable primary school haven't even taken the care to notice that there are several UK primary schools with the same name, and have willy-nilly mixed them up, speaks volumes. Not a very impressive demonstration of their commitment to reliable sourcing, but rather an impressive demonstration of something else. --MalleusFatuorum 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those who lash out in fear rather than debate lose credibility in a discussion and I indeed have no interest in hearing your opinion now, either. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleBlue, just how exactly does Malleus Fatuorum owe you any civility if you "have no interest in hearing" their opinion?--The LegendarySky Attacker 03:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have read the discussion in reverse. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I'd made it clear to you that I have no interest in your opinion. Why are you still here? --MalleusFatuorum 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Malleus, you were quite civil. Now, the NPA claims by POV warriors I am currently dealing with would probably set you off on to a point that you would be far from the above link. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clever clipping job. If Fatuorum had said something to that effect, It might have been the beginning of a discussion but it was not. It was a snarky, sarcastic, belittling message: "From the tenor of this discussion I have the distinct impression that will only add to the clamour to keep this stub on an unremarkable little primary school. A school sharing its name with other unremarkable schools in the same country surely makes it notable." It added nothing to the debate but an attempt to throw mud at his opponents; it was his hands that ended filthy, however. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really do have to hand it to you. I have rarely seen such an impressive demonstration of stupidity and dishonesty, even here on wikipedia, where such displays are all too common. --MalleusFatuorum 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A comment by an anonymous user was here. However, his comment had no point and was a baseless accusation. It has been removed.
Bullshit, Mr. Anonymous. Your comment is the same as saying "Your criticism makes me uncomfortable. I would rather not read it. I don't have the stones or maturity to look inside to find out why, but here I'll call it incivility and try to legitimize my own criticism. Then I'll sneak in pseudo-psychobabble about obsession simultaneously trying to make poor allusions to your emotional stability while pretending that I give a shit about you." Just use the words you actually mean. It's much simpler. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gazing at a crystal ball. I'm seeing Malleus read your comments. I'm watching, as in the near future he replies to your message. I'm now looking at my future self, laughing at that reply. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-hum. Yet another middle-American, thin-skinned, politically correct yank wishing the world would follow his/her naive lead. --WebHamster 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anon's early edits were to tell Malleus that he/she had been monitoring his contributions at RfA... so who's obsessive? The first pages people stumble across aren't RfA and few know about talk pages, so it makes me wonder who it really is... Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who (s)he is, but I know what they are. --MalleusFatuorum 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you very much for your concern 174.103.152.118. It's really reassuring that so many compassionate editors like you and Ipatrol are motivated only by a shared concern for my welfare. I'm really touched, although obviously not as touched as you are. --MalleusFatuorum 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know who is organising this hate campaign against me, and where?[1] --MalleusFatuorum 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pupils of said school, perhaps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If so it's a waste of their time. Wikipedia's broken consensus policy will undoubtedly lead to this unremarkable school's article being kept, as all it requires is a load of fans to turn up, without the slightest understanding of what they're talking about. Very few administrators are brave to assess the arguments instead of counting the votes, no matter what the glossy brochure claims. --MalleusFatuorum 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did I tell you that I found an admin who is a great new Essjay candidate? Fun times. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your persistence in tackling wikipedia's very many problems, but I just don't have either the will or the motivation to deal with the idiotic dishonesty that has become endemic here. --MalleusFatuorum 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is my many years of service to the Vatican along with quite a bit of work opposing heresy and protestant attacks that gives me an inquisitorial edge and fuels my willingness to hunt after those who operate in such ways.... or perhaps it is just bad luck that I am in these places while people decide to just go crazy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You may wish to re-evaluate that comment about "very few administrators"! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the AfD closure. You have gone up in my estimation immeasurably Pastor. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 01:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous
This sums up my feelings. Multiple people say for the talk page to be given a break for a few days. I declare that I will do it. What do they do? They try to take advantage of it by posting the same old tired lies over and over and act like it is appropriate. I expect this will need an RfC soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What they really meant was that you should leave the page for 48 hours, not them. --MalleusFatuorum 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I sent Nathan a lot of links about use of "Persian Empire" between 1100-1400, which contradicts Folantin's and John's claims directly. However, he still thought the "Bulgarian Model" (i.e. that ugly stub of Folantin's) was correct. He opened an RfC on the matter. I love how they claim that they are all about RS and V, but ignore sources on the matter. They then go back to that "secret truth" argument. Do they not realize how horrible their arguments make them look? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So long as they succeed in chasing you away I doubt that they care. --MalleusFatuorum 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just preparing an RfC now. We should ban the real trolls instead of some of the recent crop of bannings. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of blocking people, but that deserves a block. He has been informed to the contrary directly dozens of times over the past two days. The mere attempt of him trying to pretend it didn't happen is proof that he is a POV troll that isn't fit for the encyclopedia and a fraud about his academic credentials. I would be surprised if someone who is so far in denial was even capable of graduating high school. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my untutored eye it looks like there's a failure to agree on what the topic of the Persian Empire article actually is. My understanding is that there were two Persian Empires, the first under the Achaemenid dynasty between 558 and 331 BC, and the second under the Sassanians, from 224 AD to 651 AD. There were undoubtedly other empires established in the area know as Persia, but not by the Persians. So if this supposed to be an article on the two Persian Empires, or to cover all of the empires that have occupied the area, whether Persian or not? --MalleusFatuorum 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I provided many links to say that what the Mongols invaded was the "Persian Empire" (along with them having one of the dynasties of the Persian Empire in the same way they held one in China). Many traditional sources call the Sassanids and earlier as Persian empires with a lower case e. The Persian identity as we know the term came after the Islamic invasion. It is the same as the difference between Old English England (Anglo-Saxon) and post 1066 Norman Middle English England. Sure, there is some continuity but there is a striking difference in culture. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that deserves a block? As opposed to you saying I was incapable of graduating high school? john k (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is evidence that you are unwilling to accept evidence or facts. Such an attitude makes it hardly likely that your papers or assignments were ever approved of enough for you to pass, or that standards are so lax that they let anyone through. You claim black when everything points to white. That is normally called "trolling". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice point
[2] I agree with you that Peter Damien shouldn't have been banned. He doesn't fit in the MMORPGish culture of en.wikipedia, but he was more than qualified enough to write solid contents. BTW, do you know that Deacon of Pndapetzim may have left the encyclopedia? AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a shame that Deacon decided to throw in the towel, but understandable. --MalleusFatuorum 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inflatable horses
Hi, Malleus. I've had a chat w Ealgdyth at Talk:Miss Meyers about inflation adjusted prize earnings in horse racing. She's been using {{inflation}}, which considers indexation by consumer prices. In articles about prize money for human competitors, e.g. Howard Staunton, I headline earnings-based adjustments as prize money is a reward for labour, although I also include the indexation in consumer prices so I can't accused of WP:mortal_sins. I've no idea what drives horse-racing economics. The two measures differ because of increases in real earnings. What do you think is applies best to racing prizes? --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably neither of them. The {{inflation}} template should only be giving a rough comparison anyway, so all I'd be concerned about with it to make sure it's not giving a spurious illusion of accuracy. --MalleusFatuorum 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! No inflating horses! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring Worth gives the following comparisons for US $28,727 (Miss M's earnings) dated to a central point of 1954 and adjusted to 2008 values:
$230,097.07 using the Consumer Price Index
$191,095.85 using the GDP deflator
$323,155.14 using the unskilled wage (the comparison indexes only to 2007)
$581,555.28 using the nominal GDP per capita
and a couple of less useful ones. The lowest and highest adjusted figures differ by a factor of 3. So choice of index matters a lot. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would only matter a lot if they were accurate for horse-race winnings, which I doubt any of them is. --MalleusFatuorum 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think the GDP indices are the least useful of the lot generally, and wage comparisons are only valid for, well, wages. There are very few occasions that I think anything other than the CPI makes for a useful comparison. GDP perhaps for major construction projects funded by the state is about the only one that springs to mind. --MalleusFatuorum 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking about the earnings of a professional sportsperson of 50 years ago, I'd think the most useful numbers would be: a comparison with average earnings of 50 years (comparing the earnings of sportsperson and Joe Bloggs, without worrying about indexation); using an income-based index to compare the sportperson's earnings with to-day's Joe Bloggs (ignoring the "winner take all" effect of increasing media coverage). So for horses' prize winnings in principle I'd go for one of the income-based indices, unskilled wage or nominal GDP per capita, as these give a relationship to present-day incomes, to put in present-day terms the return that the owners get for all the expenditure, much of which is labour. However that would be questionable if the greatest return was a result of breeding from a successful horse - stud fees for stallions, sale of foals for mares. --Philcha (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're analysing this too deeply. The adjustment is simply to give readers some idea of what $X would be worth today, and for most people that would be in terms of what would that amount of money buy today. Hence I think CPI is the most appropriate measure most of the time, which is what the template uses. For large capital projects that are publicly funded perhaps one of the GDP comparisions would be more appropriate, but that certainly isn't the case here. --MalleusFatuorum 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're talking about an equine celebrity. For a human celebrity, the question would be what a similarity would earn to-day. --Philcha (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no answer to the question "If Miss Meyer was running in comparable races today, what would her winnings be?". The issue isn't how much would her winnings be today, it's what was $X able to buy in Y. IIRC England football captain Billy Wright earned something like £20 per week at the height of his playing career. Would we be saying that's the equivalent of however many millions a year David Beckham earns today? Doesn't really make sense to me. What's important is what could £20 buy in 1959, not what Billy Wright might hypothetically be able to earn in 2009. If I may say so, I think that you demand too much of GAs. Which of the GA criteria demand that inflation adjustments must be made according to your personal criteria? --MalleusFatuorum 21:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Does it really MATTER which is used, as long as which system is used is explained so that if folks really WANT to know, they can look at it? As I recall, the measuring worth page goes into great detail about what each index does. As far as I, as a general reader, goes, I just want a general idea of what it's close to. As long as the way it's figured is explained, it really isn't worth this huge amount of discussion, honestly. Talk about fretting over how many angels can dance on a head of a pin! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been trying to say Ealdgyth. The general reader, like me, just wants to know what Miss Meyer's winnings would be able to buy in 2009. If it's really felt necessary—and frankly I don't think it is—then a note could be added saying that all figures are adjusted for inflation according to the consumer price index or whatever. It really doesn't seem like anything to be worrying about to me. --MalleusFatuorum 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrub that. {{Inflation-fn}} already explains that it uses the CPI, so I really can't see any problem here. --MalleusFatuorum 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I hadn't planned on taking the Ole'Missy to FAC, but after putting her through her paces, I'm thinking we might as well do so. I don't think I can beat the ditch on size, since I'll have to bulk up some more stuff just to make the Missy understandable... but...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If Philcha's been through the article and passed it at GA it's pretty much an FA already. He's a pretty tough reviewer. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should start reviewing at FAC, but he swears it's an MOS mine-pit or something like that. I'm going to tear my hair out over Chicado, Ling wants the bit about explaining starts out, and I just know I'm going to have Xandar come swooping down and make my life hellish about the whole thing. (mutters) I hate that part of FAC. Everyone wants THEIR way, not interested in any other way to word things, it has to be done their way, no matter that you've put something in for someone else's specific request. Blech. Sorry, tired, hot, sweaty and generally grumpy. It's always nice to come whine to you, you don't tell me to "cheer up" or something equally blechy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I'll strike the "chin up" from your talk page, if it offends. I know I personally get actually pissed when people leave those damn smiley face icons or wiki-cookies on my talk. I just didn't know that you are a kindred soul. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem that both GAN and FAC have Ealdgyth; reviewers don't always review against the criteria, too many review against their idea of how they'd have written the article. --MalleusFatuorum 00:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly and openly review against "is this interesting", "is this accurate", "is this properly sourced", "is this comprehensive" and "are there any glaring flaws", and no formatting-wonkery whatsoever. It's why I never review anything at GAC any more; at FAC there are enough fanatical i-dotters and t-crossers to cover that angle, but I don't want to be the one failing Parsnip for non-compliance with WP:MOSROOTVEGETABLES subsection 32.6(c). – iridescent 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute poppycock. I've never heard such philandering wikishite in my life. It's 32.7(c) and you know it, Iridescent. – B.hotep •talk• 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I wish I'd picked a better example—that article is very possibly the worst Wikipedia article on a major topic I've ever seen. "Parsnips are easily mistaken for hemlock"? – iridescent 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A major article? I don't give them a second thought and buy them frozen from Morrisons. And if I were to put my trust in my root vegetables in a major supermarket from Bradford... I would have to say I will be checking for hemlock from now on. – B.hotep •talk• 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't advise eating dinner with whoever wrote that. Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:327722296 ee38b0dd33 b.jpg
One of the better illustrations, though. Is this what they mean by Wikipedia porn? I don't mean a "major article" as compared to France or Cat, but "major" in the sense that people would actually miss it if it turned red. – iridescent 23:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually make you question your disbelief at people who see Jesus' face in a potato when you see anatomically correct vegetables like that. – B.hotep •talk• 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, that image does have a very poor choice of file name. Majorlytalk 23:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just can't make it up, can you? Although someone clearly did, and made a passable job at it. :) – B.hotep •talk• 00:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the only file link at the moment is to this page! Ha! Where's featured image again? – B.hotep •talk• 00:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson
Hey, Malleus, hat in hand here. I've never written a blurb before (I don't envy Raul that job), and Ottava roped me into nomming Johnson at TFA, but the blurb added there by someone else needs a re-do. Are you interested ? [3] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can do better than that Sandy. What's the protocol? Can I just edit the blurb, or does there need to be some discussion somewhere first? --MalleusFatuorum 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article at Ottava's request, then someone else added the blurb ... it really needs a complete re-do. I think anyone can edit, but since it's technically my nom, certainly you can do whatever you can to improve it. I do appreciate the help ... I'm afraid most people reading the nom will think I wrote that blurb ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful work, Malleus ... thank you so much ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some recent work you've done, and I was truly impressed with your tact, timing, and calm efforts Mal — Ched : ? 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's possible that you hold little regard for such things as barnstars Mal, but I hope you'll accept this in the spirit that it is intended. — Ched : ? 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very thoughtful of you Ched, thanks. --MalleusFatuorum 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh font of all wisdom
As I sometimes think you're the only person on the entire project who actually understands how GAC works – what category ought Alice Ayres to be listed under? I really want to avoid the dreaded "Misc", but I have a feeling this one may not fit comfortably anywhere else. (This began life as a footnote, but I think you'll agree that it's a little too big for that. The more I dug on this, the more surprised I am that this was a redlink – maybe the legendary Maintenance Phase is further away than certain people think.)
Oh, and if you can think of better section headings, please go ahead with them. This is a weird case, as it's essentially a two-paragraph stub with a 30kb "Legacy" section, and I was having trouble summing up the concepts I was trying to describe in pithy two-word headers. – iridescent 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always seemed rather strange to me that GAN doesn't use the same categories as GA, as Alice Ayres clearly falls in GA's "Historical figures: other" category. IIRC I had the same problem with the Manchester Mummy. Nominating Alice in the Miscellaneous category may not be such a bad thing though; it's far less busy than Roads for instance, and so may attract a reviewer more quickly.
PS. I think it's a great article, well deserving of GA. --MalleusFatuorum 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GAN does use the same categories as GA, but is organized by the top two levels of the hierarchy. So if it falls under subsubsection "Historical figures: other" at GA, that is part of subsection "World history", which is a GAN heading (check the "Includes:..."). Geometry guy 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, I stand corrected. So much for Iridescent's misguided opinion of my understanding of how GAN works. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 23:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, will move it. You learn something new every day. – iridescent 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - except for a few bits of sandwiching and some minor things, it is a good article. If no one reviews it I will pick it up tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA? FA, more like. A fantastic read, well done, Iridescent. – B.hotep •talk• 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it - I wasn't expecting it to grow the way it did, but the story's more interesting than I expected it to be when I started. Some parts of the narrative make me wish WP:NOR weren't so strict, as there are so many potential asides on the social mores of the 19th century. My personal favourite is the women dying rescuing the children, while their father died rescuing the cashbox.
Will submit it as "misc". The worst that happens is it sits there for a month. I'm now just waiting for some clown to AFD it because they can't find anything about her on Google.
I don't think the sandwiching is a problem - I've played about at various settings, and the images only sandwich at very wide screen settings, where there's adequate room for the text to flow. I think it's more important to have them attached to their correct places in the text, as they all illustrate particular paragraphs.
Might go to FA at some point, but its sisters in this triptych are at FAC and at FLC respectively, and if you nominate two at once Sandy yells at you. – iridescent 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, congratulations on getting this on the main page, and thank you for writing it. It's a really interesting read. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 09:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a record for the time to get to the main page? Great work. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't even know it was going to be on the main page until yesterday, but I guess Raul thought it was on a subject that's been under-represented at FA in general, never mind at TFA. I was optimistic that the Pendle witches would eventually get a slot, but I never really imagined that the Samlesbury women would. In fact I never really even intended to take the article to FAC, as there's so liitle information about them. What pleases me about the article though is that it's almost certainly the best source of information on the trial of those three women to be found anywhere, certainly online, just the sort of thing I think wikipedia is good at. --MalleusFatuorum 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's so daft I have to admit that it made me laugh. Whatever happened to "Care in the Community"? --MalleusFatuorum 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its the ghost of Syd Barrett, come to haunt me because I'm writing funny things about him here. BTW I think that article is going to be a bit big when finished. Probably 150k or such. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hint from another life; Pete Jenner is generally very helpful if you're willing to pester him. – iridescent 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have any contact details, however if you do I'd be happy to give it a go. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would violate some policy or other to post the contact details, but google "Sincere Management" and you'll find them. – iridescent 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←Malleus, take a look at this comment after it was featured and on the main page, and then someone comes up with their opinion. Just let it slide. Like everyone's said, you can have it back to scratch after its day in the sun. :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar comment when Pendle witches was promoted, too lazy to find the diff right now. That's water off a dick's duck's back to me, but the volume of crappy edits today took me by surprise. What on Earth is the point of showcasing an article on the main page if for most of its time there it's been reduced to shit? --MalleusFatuorum 22:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freudian slip there Malleus? Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that myself. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have a day in the shade, than get sunburnt. I noticed the faux pas, Malleus, but thought you were referring to today's drive-by "critics". :) – B.hotep •talk• 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, you think the emdash warriors are bad, come dip your toe into the war against intelligence at Michael Jackson. This is the general level of debate at the moment. – iridescent 23:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read in the press today that Michael Jackson was killed by his doctor, something that seemed quite apparent right from the start. But his is an article I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole long enough to push the Moon out of its orbit. --MalleusFatuorum 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fun
People keep mentioning that writing articles or the FAC process should be fun and that they get upset when things go wrong. Perhaps I am "weird", but I see this as work. Hell, I do this for a living, and I tend to use Wikipedia as a way to not only organize my notes into a decent structure and make a reference for later, but I use it to help challenge my own understanding and gain a better grasp on a subject. Most of the time, I am drained after writing and am tired. I don't get the hobby writers or people who come here for fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAC and fun don't automatically go together in my mind either. --MalleusFatuorum 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I use wikipedia is that writing articles is a good way of learning and getting to understand a subject. If I'm interested in something, I can find out more by writing an article, which may in turn help others. For me anyway, the information sticks much better if I actively have to think about rephrasing it and assessing what is important rather than just plain read it. FAC is a challenge, it's satisfying when articles are successful and disappointing although usually educational when unsuccessful, but fun? It's too demanding to be "fun". Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, FAC draws a line under a subject that I've become sufficiently interested in to do some serious research on. I'm just as often happy enough with GA though, if my obsession level isn't quite up to FAC standard on a particular subject. --MalleusFatuorum 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I'm retired, have spent a life doing "work", and have descended to WP as a deviation from getting bored. For me, it's not work, but a way of "amusing" myself, AND doing something which I hope is of benefit to the world (and as a by-product to me, it keeps me sane and thinking - and learning). There's room for both. Of course it's serious, etc. But why should I get hurt by some of the responses I get from ****? Let's work AND enjoy ourselves in the process - then everyone is a winner. Malleus knows I take WP seriously, but I hope to enjoy the experience and not get hurt (as has sometimes happened). (For those who don't know, I've made significant contributions to 1 FA, 3 FLs, 13 GAs and 80+ DYKs) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the daily rough-and-tumble it's easy to forget what it was that drew us here in the first place. For me, it was a hope that if people understood more about the world around them and its history, particularly their own local history, then they might just have more respect for where they live, and what others had to go through to give us the relatively comfortable lives that most of us enjoy today. That's why the Peterloo Massacre was such an important topic to me it just had to get through FAC. Hopelessly idealistic I know. --MalleusFatuorum 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia has the power to educate and make readers look at the world differently. And although I do edit for mostly selfish reasons, this edit made me smile. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, if I have gained knowledge, I want (need?) to share it - freely (and if WP survives - for ever). It gives me much personal satisfaction with the thought that maybe I've done a bit of something sort of useful in my life. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article from The Times made me smile. Ferret legging, an article I helped to save at AfD only a few weeks ago, considered one of wikipedia's 10 best articles. :lol: Peter, I used to run a lot of IT training courses, and in my "train the trainer" sessions one of the things I was told to remember is that knowledge is one of the few things you can give away but still have. --MalleusFatuorum 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And chlamydia. – iridescent 21:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of the old joke: "What's the difference between herpes and true love? Herpes is forever." --MalleusFatuorum 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was nice, particularly following the nasty exchange I had regarding the article's content the day it was on the main page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really does make it all worthwhile Moni3, you're making a real difference there. I, on the other hand, am becoming increasingly frustrated at the "improvements" being made todays featured article. I think all I can do is to ignore it for another hour or so and then repair it when everyone's turned their attention onto the next victim. --MalleusFatuorum 22:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I often wait a day or so and revert when anon IPs or others who don't seem to have a real interest in article integrity move on to their greener pastures. --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always liked this one, as well as the seal of approval of Broadwater Farm being constantly ripped-off uncredited by the local authority. It's sometimes easy to forget in the chorus of whining and bitching that real people read these articles. (I confidently predict that Alice will be "borrowed" for at least a dozen essays by Southwark schoolchildren next year.) This is rather surreal, too. – iridescent 22:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the quiz, that's great. Wikpedia has yet to get over its reputation for unreliability, but many of us try as hard as we can to source everything, so that it can be checked—even when doing that really breaks up what could otherwise be a better narrative flow. Recently I've started to hear regular readers of wikipedia making a distinction between articles with proper sourcing and those without, so maybe the tide is beginning to turn. --MalleusFatuorum 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me its two things. One, I have a natural inclination to build an empire. That doesn't mean I like to collect bronze stars, its just I like the feeling of building something from being nothing, to impressive. I've always adored games like Civilization (video game). The other thing is that I learn as I go. As Nev1 said, you read, you type, and the information just sticks in there. I've learnt more general history editing articles on here, than I ever did at school or college. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a stalker
Check out this lovely thing. Apparently, my comments to others and why they opposed my RfA are some how proof that I am out to get her, and yet she is going through all of my stuff and the rest. I'm sure an MfD would easily take care of it, but something more would have to ensure such unstable people aren't around to destroy Wikipedia like she is hell bent on doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot, this happens to be the user who edit warred on Ludovico Ariosto to try and claim he wasn't writing a Christian Epic even though there are hundreds of articles. She also claimed it was a "romance" because some translator called it such even though the experts call it an epic. And then she edit warred on the 18th century page and against Wizardman about this recent stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you could have that deleted quite easily at MfD; constructing a grudge page is clearly an inappropriate use of userspace. --MalleusFatuorum 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some great stuff. Fullstop, Folantin, and Dbachmann tag teaming on multiple articles to push a fringe POV as if it isn't fringe. This all but admits that they love to operate as a group. You can see how many of them are really bad admin. I think it is about time to draw up an RfC and start breaking up this wannabe cabal. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal
An open letter to Malleus Fatuorum,
Can I be so bold as to make a proposal here. The banner at the top of your page, Malleus? Get rid. "I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here." – you are only just beginning your time. "There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change" – you have had enough "back-up" recently to say otherwise, you might be looking in the wrong areas. "I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other." – more of the former, the latter are a dying breed and destined to burn out (believe me, I've seen them do it). "Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site," – out of step? out of STEP?! you are the most in step person I've seen since the Changing of the Guard, MF! And the "children" are the ones grudgingly tolerated, if we are honest. So please get rid of it.
Yours sincerely, B.h (big B, little h) – B.hotep •talk• 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it, but I really don't feel secure here. It's easier for you admins I think; you've at least been nominally considered to be trustworthy, but I've been clearly told that I'm not. You're also not subject to the arbitrary crap that we peons are expected to put with. Do you really think that you would ever be blocked for using the phrase "sycophantic wannabees" for instance? --MalleusFatuorum 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd called you a cancer my feet wouldn't have touched the ground, yet it's perfectly acceptable to abuse me. --MalleusFatuorum 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bubba hotep, when I first saw comments by MF about the corruption of the admin class as a group, I thought he was exaggerating. But in the last year I've concluded that MF is right. For example the conduct by an admin described at this ANI thread is considerably worse than the phrase "sycophantic wannabees" for which MF was blocked; this case was made worse by the actions of the "presiding" admin, who make unfounded accusations of collusion, block-shopping, disruptive editing and feuding - and then tried to sweep the matter under the carpet with a premature close. --Philcha (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People who demand consistency from Wikipedia are generally disappointed. Those who demand fairness from Wikipedia are, unfortunately, often disappointed as well. That's a problem. I do think things have moved in an overall positive direction in the 3 years I've been here, but status differences are real. A block of an admin is almost automatically an extreme controversy; not so for a non-admin. If you're looking for an injustice against which to crusade, they're a dime a dozen around here. Some of them need to be called out. But at the end of the day, this is a hobby that people pursue in their free time. It's essentially escapist. So the question is how much of your free time you want to spend fighting these sorts of battles. Personally, I see enough effed up things in the real world that, should I feel compelled to take up the Sword of Righteousness and crusade against injustice, I'd probably start off-wiki. MastCellTalk 04:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inequality eventually becomes intolerable though, or at least it's become that way for me. I've been considering for some time now what exit strategy might best make the point, even though I know that nobody really gives a fuck about me or any other editor on here. --MalleusFatuorum 04:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know that's not true. There's a lot of people here who are just here because they like writing, and they like producing quality sources of information, and there are those who are here because they've got a god complex and like pissing people off with the extra tools they have. But I don't think the latter groups represents Wikipedia. I think they're vocal, but I think your own supporters are just as vocal, and they express it on this page, as well as other places. To suggest you wouldn't be missed if you left would just be plain wrong. Apterygial 05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MastCell that there will never be true equality or fairness, since nothing is centralized on Wikipedia. It all comes down to individual editors (and in particular, individual admins), and to a number of heterogeneous but roughly like-minded groups, and it's all one huge tug-of-war of multiple ropes pulling in multiple directions (maybe a DSGE). "Multiple directions" is the key phrase— as long as there's no top-down leadership (and I for one emphatically do not worship the lack of it, as many, many do), then there will be this multi-pronged tug-of-war that can never be equitable or just. Some folks have figured out the system, and have created power systems for themselves. There's no "cabal", but there are multiple "cabals" operating for and against each other, according to whichever way the wind blows. There are few or no adults in the room, both literally and figuratively,, It will never change. We worship our lack of top-down leadership, and at the same time it's certainly in Jimbo's financial interest to preserve the status quo in order to attract the largest number of editors possible.
So what's to be done? Nothing. Live with it. Make editing friends, and edit with them. Make influential friends to protect yourself from admins with grudges or with ego trips. Advocate for a better system, but don't expect more than incremental changes. Above all else, never never never take it personally. It's not about you, it's about a poorly-designed system of governance. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ling.Nut, the problem with "Make influential friends to protect yourself from admins with grudges or with ego trips" is that they can't protect you all the time. The only cure for admins with grudges or with ego trips is quick de-sysop - Roux has the best proposal I've heard of. --Philcha (talk)
See, I feel uncomfortable (even embarrassed sometimes) to be lumped in with The Admin Corps(tm). I like to see myself as an editor like anyone else but with an extra set of buttons to help with the maintenance around here. I don't hang around the dark, dingy parts of Wikipedia like AN/I and such like and I try to get along without giving the impression that I am a level above everyone else. I was admin'd some 2 and a half years ago, and I must admit, it has changed a lot since then. Half the policies around here are made by a select few (users and admins alike) and change almost on a daily basis. Anyway, I'm rambling and not entirely sure what my point is, but Malleus, yes you have suffered the injustices of the 'Pedia moreso than many others, but you are likely not on your own in that respect. I urge you to keep up your fantastic work here. You've proved time and time again that you can work in a collaborative atmosphere with great results, so that should really piss on the cornflakes who says otherwise or resorts to disgraceful attacks such as the "cancer" incident. I don't think we'll ever get that Utopian state where everyone gets along, but maybe I am a bit blinkered to some of the darker corners. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, because admins are rather exalted, it is quite hard to "prove" or convince people that they are acting in bad faith, which is why if there are mutual accusations of stalking, the admin always wins. I've seen admins stalk some rather combustible folks from the lower castes. No, the admin didn't get in trouble but the untouchable did for lashing out. In diving, they automatically scale out outliers, but in WP they don't. It's also easy for a guy to only block people from one side of a conflict when they make fiery comments, and "seem to not notice" when the others do it. There is no punishment for failure to keep control, so it's easy to just block a guy from one side, general editwarring 3 reverts in a week, and not block another in the same region for 4 in hours when it happens at a separate time. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Obviously I can't see what's been deleted, but judging by other comments made by this vandal I assume that it claims my name is Kurt, that I live in Levenshulme, and that I'm a sockpuppet of WebHamster. There may well be someone called Kurt living in Levenshulme, but it certainly isn't me. --MalleusFatuorum 19:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected
I have semi-protected this page for 1 week due to the trolling that has been happening here. I hope this is an acceptable solution for you. Chillum 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me Chillum, thanks. --MalleusFatuorum 16:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Myra Hindley
I have Inside the Mind of a Murderess by Jean Ritchie. I won't have an internet connection for the next few days as I'm away, but I may have spare time to copy the article onto my laptop and add stuff from this book.
No, I haven't read that yet. I've been focusing on trying to get the basic facts straight, so I've been largely relying on Topping's book for that—he was the detective in charge of the later investigation, so I'm assuming that he's about as reliable a source as there is for that at least. There's still a big gap in the article though, in trying to explain how it was that Hindley allowed herself to get caught up in the murders, so hopefully there'll be something in Ritchie's book to help out with that. --MalleusFatuorum 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll take it with me and add stuff in my lappy's text editor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had roughly 2 hours to myself, work went on much longer than I thought. I'll do this later this week. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush, I've found the article a bit heavy-going anyway, so I've not been doing as much as I had hoped. In my defence I've been taking a bit of light relief at Manchester Martyrs. Having successfully roused the religious warriors I thought I might as well see what I could do with the Ireland warriors. :-)
Thanks :) I got up at 6am, drove 150 miles, worked almost 12 hours, an hour to the (shit) hotel, bed, then up at 6am again, 45 min drive, 12 hours work, and finally a 150 mile drive home. I am, to be polite about it, fecking knackered :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just do what I used to do when chasing my ass all over the country doing stuff I didn't want to be doing in places I'd rather not be. Close your eyes and think of the money. :-) --MalleusFatuorum 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close my eyes and think of Konnie Huq. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samlesbury witches (2)
I wonder if you'd consider backing down slightly from your confrontational demeanor. I understand you disagree with a lot of recent edits and are probably frustrated, but you can challenge edits on the talk page without doing things like threatening FAR (or asking if people are calling you a liar). There are no emergencies on Wikipedia, so having a calm discussion on the subject, such as simply asking why people might assume Calvinism influenced the incident, might work out better instead of threats. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to wonder, because the answer is no. What I have decided to do though is to take the article off my watchlist until the religious warriors have stopped bickering over it. In a month or so I'll go back and take another look at it, and if I think it's been damaged beyond repair by their squabbling then I'll take it to FAR. That's not a threat, that's a promise. --MalleusFatuorum 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am incredibly disappointed that you can't conduct this debate without resorting to personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Personally, I don't care whether you take it to FAR or not, threat or promise. I'm interested in trying to work collaboratively to improve the article by reaching consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the day after the article has appeared on the main page is not the best day to go making huge changes, mainly because the main author is almost always incredibly stressed from fighting vandalism all day when it's on the main page. As someone said above, there are no emergencies, so taking time to discuss before editing is probably a good plan, no? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should all just shut up and let Malleus take his break from the article. Equazcion (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do with the article as you will Equazcion, I'm done with it. Your accusations of "personal attacks" and not "assuming good faith" just stink of hypocrisy to me. There is no intention to "improve" the article, just blatant attempts to present a particular religious viewpoint that is at best tangential to the story. But of course you know best. I wish to God that I'd never written the bloody article now; it's distressing to watch it being destroyed by pov warriors. --MalleusFatuorum 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, I am confused why both Equazcion and Scott are not yet blocked. Disruption alone would warrant 24 hours. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I would be blocked. I have no side in the POV war, as I don't know enough about history to feel strongly either way. I was just trying to help come to some compromise between the two sides, and to that end I edited the article a total of twice, once to implement Malleus' compromise suggestion and the next directly afterward to clarify my own edit ("in" to "during"). Malleus, I didn't accuse you of personal attacks or AGF violations. Equazcion (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I am incredibly disappointed that you can't conduct this debate without resorting to personal attacks and assumptions of badEquazcion" faith." So who the fuck were you talking to there then? Yourself? --MalleusFatuorum 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC) " Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I'm really sorry Equazcion, I guess the red mist had descended. I think you were doing your best to help reach a compromise, but things have obviously got a little out of hand since then. I initially thought, perhaps like you, that this was simply an objection to the phrase "a product of", which seems to mean different things depending on which side of the Atlantic you live, but it's subsequently become clear that the agenda is far deeper than that. I have no problems at all with what you've done, and no hard feelings I hope. --MalleusFatuorum 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let's hope the warring subsides and the talk page discussion remains relatively calm. I've actually requested temporary full protection for the article, though I'm not sure what the general feeling is towards full-protecting today's featured article. I hope your break from the article is productive. We all need one once in a while. Equazcion (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the case then I redact to just Scott. I assumed like Malleus that you were referring to Malleus. Scott's reading things that are not there in any regard is really bothering me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, but just to clarify, I haven't seen Scott do anything that deserves to be blocked either, and I'm not sure exactly what disruption you're referring to, that might be worthy of a block. He participated in a heated discussion as all of us did. Also to clarify, I wasn't referring to Scott in any accusation. Rather, I never made any accusations. I was correcting Malleus regarding who made the accusatory comments in the first place -- The piece of dialog Malleus quoted actually came from Scott, not myself, which is why I pasted his signature from that comment in response. Equazcion (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption is claiming that the word "protestant" refers to "Calvinism" in a situation where it very clearly does not. To try to change a page while promoting such a believe is in violation of many editing policies and just completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not. You seem to disagree with Scott's edits, and people don't get blocked for disagreeing with you, even if you're entirely convinced that they're wrong. Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement is one thing, being able to count the number of his reversions is quite another. It seems ex-sysops are not obliged to conform to 3RR. --WebHamster 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because no one complained, I think. Regardless, if one side was guilty of that then both were. It's over now anyway, I think, at least for a while. Equazcion (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's over for a day because of the protection and because it got locked on 'the wrong version'. There was only 1 editor there with a 5RR+. I'm steering clear of the discussion simply because there appears to be no point in arguing with someone who shouts POV as foul then simply wants to stamp his own POV on the article. That is what gets editors blocked, ie the editors who truly don't have a POV that is. The POV warrior will just blissfully carry on thinking he's right because a mate of his is able to block the editors arguing with him. Just another example of Mal being correct about the corruption within the admin fraternity. --WebHamster 11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... okee doke. I'd say AGF, but I get the feeling you're not interested. Have fun fighting. Equazcion (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign of POV editing, but there does seem to be a misunderstanding between those who are aware that the Scottish Reformation and the Church of Scotland are Calvinist in character, & those who are not. It was Malleus who introduced Calvinism into the article, though he seems not to realize it - his source - "product of the Scottish Reformation" - assumed more general knowledge on the matter than he or Ottava seem to have. Anyone who looks at our respective lists of articles will see that Scott's interests include Church of Scotland topics & mine Catholic ones, yet we seem to me to have no difference as to facts that could or should be in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that the Church of Scotland is Calvinist would be like claiming that Augustine's influence over Calvin makes him a Catholic. Obviously, to make either claim is laughably absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, right. You'd better change the infobox on our article on them, & maybe you should write to them suggesting they resign from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as seems likely, you're determined to continue talking bollocks then please do so elsewhere. I'm just not interested in your half-understood ideas, perennial misunderstandings, and extreme pettiness. --MalleusFatuorum 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem to disagree with Scott's edits" - What I disagree with is someone edit warring in order to push something that is not only historically inaccurate but grammatically absurd. His acts are vandalism of the highest order. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History lesson
Here. I think that shall help enlighten the people there who would rather make things up about history than actually talk about what really happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when people lie about history or ignore it, but I hate it even more when they lie about church history. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your persistence with this Ottava, but once the pov warriors get their teeth into something it's a lost cause. Particularly if it's anything to do with religion or Ireland. I'm resigned to the article being trashed in the cause of religious dogma. It's what'll happen sooner or later to every article anyway. --MalleusFatuorum 18:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus - I will see a ban on him if he keeps it up. It is historically impossible to claim that the Church of Scotland at the time of James the First was Calvinistic, and it was not formally so until the purging of the Bishops. One of my strongest areas is the lead up, events during, and the times following Milton in terms of religious politics. The Bishops' Wars was when Scotland can be claimed as Calvinist. It would be almost impossible to predate those events by more than 10 years. 1612 is clearly 28 years -before-, and the Bishops' Wars were more than 58 years after James the First was influenced by the Scottish Church. To make claims like he was doing would be a major time warp. Utterly ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this furore over a simple phrase: "a product of the Scottish Reformation", attributed to a reliable source who uses almost the exact same phrase, "a product of the strict Scottish Reformation". I just find it unbelievable. --MalleusFatuorum 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently 1 of 3 trouble makers has left. I think that I have put up enough of the history to show the impossibility of the POV push. If anyone keeps going at it, I would just take it to AN and ask for a ban from the page. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to demand a rewrite of history. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... after accusing you of being a troll I notice. I really do appreciate your help with this Ottava. --MalleusFatuorum 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through verifying quite a bit of it during the FAC and I have an extensive background in the area, so it meant something to me, and I just dislike people who act like that in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THAT was easy... Up for looking at Barbara L? I'll be doing source stuff at FAC tonight, and be gone over the weekend, so no rush, since I won't put Babs up until next week. I've tried to do as much of it as I can... I even did non-breaking spaces! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. That's just about as smooth an FAC as I've ever seen; obviously you chose your pre-FAC "nitpickers" well. I'll be happy to take a look at Barbara L. --MalleusFatuorum 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She'll be a lot of repeat stuff from Chicado: race mare, big broodmare, lots of babies. Her racing career was a bit longer, but not as prestigious (no year end titles). More babies, but not as many became big name stallions. Any of the jargon from Chicado will aplly with Babs. MM will come later, I'm not totally convinced there isn't something lurking in my files somewhere that I can use for the divine MM. (I have no desire to dethrone you from the shortest FAC title, which MM as she stands just might.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the ditch? I couldn't find it but I know you nom'd something on one of the small dikes... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that short. Quit talking about me. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Meyers currently 604 words (can only add 25 words to her..) After Babs, I think she's next. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I've said to you before Ealdgyth that size doesn't matter. --MalleusFatuorum 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being such a disappointment to Moni, in that I'm definitely hetero, I knew that a long time ago (grins). I'd just like to see something smaller than a hurricane project FAC, where no one can go "it's not really notable" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been occasionally mentioned when being POINTy, Hypnodog is only lacking a picture to meet every FA criteria... – iridescent 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a citation. ceranthor 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article help
Perhaps you could be persuaded to assist on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard? I warn you, it's a mess. Your editing talents and clear understanding of both policy and common sense would be helpful. Frank | talk 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Bring on the bitching about all those horrible teenagers. Bring on all the insulting comments and sweeping assumptions that all teenagers are the same. Conveniently ignore the fact we have dozens, if not hundreds of teenagers participating on Wikipedia, both as admins and ordinary editors – often doing a much better job of it than the "grown-ups". Majorlytalk 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should you then bring on the invalid comparisons to racism? How about if we evaluate individuals on their actions and begin by holding off on jumping 10 cognitive leaps from research about teenagers playing with guns to editors mass opposing all RfAs because of maturity issues? --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an amazing day if I looked at the RfA page and saw voters actually evaluate candidates on their actions, rather than this "immaturity" thing pulled from the air. I hope you not seriously suggesting only teenagers play with guns either. Majorlytalk 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recognized my own maturity issues, and sought to fix them. Most teenager editors start off immature and go on to become great users. It's the quasi-mature, sarcastic admins who drag us down, at least much moreso than the teenage sysops. ceranthor 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that only teenagers play with guns. Yes, I believe that younger people have a limited experience base with which to judge a wide variety of issues outside their knowledge and that they tend to overreact, are significantly affected by external influences: praise and recognition from others, for example. This is not limited only to teenagers, but it occurs overwhelmingly in this age bracket. You're accusing the wrong person here of slights. I'm recommending that everyone judge editors based on their actions and posts. When those actions and posts reflect jumping to conclusions, foolhardy edits, and behavior similar to what I saw when I taught...indeed...what I did what I was an adolescent, then concerns about maturity should be expressed. I suggest getting your dander up when someone is addressing you specifically. I have seen posts here about ignorant Americans, POV-pushing faggots, feminazi bimbos, elitist FA writers...I choose to respond when someone addresses me directly. Otherwise, I waste my time worrying about generalities that do not apply to me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]