Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →Happy Guy Fawkes Day: on reflection ... |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Happy Guy Fawkes Day: found the manflesh |
||
Line 383: | Line 383: | ||
Ironic, no? :) You have been Guy Fawked! [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
Ironic, no? :) You have been Guy Fawked! [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
: Don't mention [[Guy Fawkes Night|Guy Fawking]] around Moni. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
: Don't mention [[Guy Fawkes Night|Guy Fawking]] around Moni.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch57#How_to_get_chicks:_with_ducks] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Nope, 27 November was the day. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Nope, 27 November was the day. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:53, 5 November 2009
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 |
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
Buildings and architecture of Bath - help with GAN comments
Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.— Rod talk 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look as soon as I can, but probably not until tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you had a minute could you take a look at the latest criticisms re grammar at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1 and offer any edits or comments re: "The lede as currently written is awkwardly written and difficult to parse. It's too long and there are too many commas, most of which are grammatically incorrect.", "The third sentence is also awkward and tortured and seems to be missing a verb, unless the article is claiming that the buildings themselves were sentient and actively "formed" the streets.", "There are numerous basic spelling and grammatical errors in the body of the article. For example, "however" is misused in the very first sentence of the body. The word doesn't mean "but"; it means "on the other hand". It's a common mistake in UK English but it's still a mistake." etc.— Rod talk 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There looks to be an opening at WP:TFAR for nominating the Mummy for Halloween, but the window of opportunity may be closing soon. Or perhaps I should say the coffin lid may be closing. I suggest 3 points, 1 date relevance + 2 for no mummy articles in the last 6 months. You might want to do the nominating, but if you wait too long I might try to grab the opportunity. Smallbones (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to do the nominating. I'm useless at doing TFA requests. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Sandy's already suggested it to Raul I think, and I've already written a blurb here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok - I nominated it, just copying from the talk page. I do hope you'll support it. Smallbones (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Recall of Admin Sarek
You have expressed before that you wished the recall of User:SarekOfVulcan for his abusive and completely false interpretations of policy that have resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia. I have started official proceedings User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Recall as per the actual criteria User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria (as he can ignore any statements about it on other talk pages). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, not being funny but talk about putting words into people's mouths - "you have expressed before....for his abusive and completely false.....destruction of this enyclopedia". I think you need to rewrite the above as I doubt Malleus has said (typed) any thing in such inflamatory language. Pedro : Chat 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just above he stated - "Ottava's an easy target for the pompous, overly officious, out of control administrators like SarekOfVulcan." I think my statement is a rather mild and factual summary of Malleus's statements regarding Sarek on my talk page and his. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I said, but I've never wished for Sarek's recall. In fact I recall specifically saying that it would be a waste of time if you look up. Neither have I ever suggested that his actions have "resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia", and nor would I ever be likely to use such a hyperbolic turn of phrase. I've no intention of asking for Sarek's recall over this one incident, even if I had any faith in the recall process. I think that Sarek made a mistake in blocking you, but it was soon rectified. Anyone can make a mistake. I would encourage you to think again, and to put this bad block behind you. It isn't necessary to fight every battle, better to choose which battles to fight. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can quote you posts on WR where you have gone on and on about how bad admin destroy the encyclopedia. However, if you believe that someone who persists in pushing something that is 100% directly stated as completely wrong and actually a violation of our policy in a manner that would block content contributors shouldn't be challenged through the system, then fine. I choose to fight battles, instead of making derogatory remarks about them and doing nothing about removing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I said, but I've never wished for Sarek's recall. In fact I recall specifically saying that it would be a waste of time if you look up. Neither have I ever suggested that his actions have "resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia", and nor would I ever be likely to use such a hyperbolic turn of phrase. I've no intention of asking for Sarek's recall over this one incident, even if I had any faith in the recall process. I think that Sarek made a mistake in blocking you, but it was soon rectified. Anyone can make a mistake. I would encourage you to think again, and to put this bad block behind you. It isn't necessary to fight every battle, better to choose which battles to fight. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Quote away, but can you quote me anywhere as having said that I believe that SarekOfVulcan is destroying the encyclopedia, as you claim that I have done? Or that I believe his interpretations of policy are "abusive and completely false"? I very much doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you, Ottava, seriously believe that your recall request will result in the removal of SarekOfVulcan then you are sadly mistaken. It's far more likely to boomerang back on you. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- At least I can say that I tried. I take pride in following the rules, following the process, and actually -acting- instead of sitting on a talk page throwing out random insults without ever actually doing anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you, Ottava, seriously believe that your recall request will result in the removal of SarekOfVulcan then you are sadly mistaken. It's far more likely to boomerang back on you. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it Ottava, I'm not worth it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, seeing as how you were right. Apparently, I can't count as certifying it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it Ottava, I'm not worth it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you take the trouble to read the recall criteria? You've had four blocks in the last four months, one of which stuck. Surely you've got better things to do than this? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read Daniel Derronda. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't this one stick? "11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days (Disruptive editing)". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Nandesuka was a close friend of Geogre and Moreschi. 2. It was going to be an indef block but he blackmailed me in return for it not being one, and I wont get into that. 3. It happened in 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't this one stick? "11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days (Disruptive editing)". --Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read Daniel Derronda. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you take the trouble to read the recall criteria? You've had four blocks in the last four months, one of which stuck. Surely you've got better things to do than this? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Feel I need to say this
Comments by several over the last few days supposing that they know what I think about certain issues, like Ottava's block and what ought to be done about, and my attitude towards "civility" here on wikipedia leads me to believe that my position is widely misunderstood. So I'd like to clarify it.
David Hume said that truth springs from argument among friends, an idea with which I very much agree. Friends sometimes disagree, but a disagreement on one issue, like say a bad block, does not mean that there can't be agreeement on other issues. What I object to on wikipedia—strongly object to—is the facile notion we're all either enemies or friends, and that those who don't agree with us, or who describe one of our friends as "pompous", must be chased away as uncivil pariahs. I find that childish, just as childish as the idea that we all have to be nice to each other, all of the time. Life ain't like that. What we should be aiming for is to be friends, in the sense that Hume used that word, unafraid to speak the truth as we see it, yet adult enough to acknowledge that we will never agree about everything, and it would be unhealthy if we did. And if we can't be friends ... well then we can always strive to avoid each other. Let's try and behave like adults, not like squabbling children. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well said, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Imperial War Museum North
Hello there. I'm sure you're busy, but was wondering if you'd be interested in GA reviewing Imperial War Museum North? I think it's come along a fair bit in the last six weeks or so. Best regards. --IxK85 (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd love to yeah. I've seen you doing some great work on it over the last few weeks. Let me know when you've nominated it at WP:GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Civility blocks again
Any proposed wording I can add to User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me as it is. I don't think anyone takes my views on civility or civility blocks seriously anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Malleus; feel free to copyedit that page if you see any of my ... ummmm ... usual :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, feel free to correct any of my typos anywhere you encounter them (which is just about everywhere, except on pr/aring :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Malleus; feel free to copyedit that page if you see any of my ... ummmm ... usual :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your improvement of my inadequate writing during multiple copyedits of Overman Committee. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Did yer like that?
I'm about to nominate Fred Dibnah at GAN (the waiting list is long enough for me to tidy up the last few bits), and wondered if you wouldn't mind having a quick read and telling me your thoughts? Parrot of Doom 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. I can't imagine you'll have too much trouble at GAN with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think my main concern really is the amount of text that's sourced from the Hall book. I use Amazon a lot to buy books for £0.05, I'll see if they have any more Fred books I can nab. What do you think about the bit at the end, where his estate is valued? Bad taste? I'm not sure its relevant unless I include the stuff about his last wife being cut out of his will, and since nobody but Fred knows (or maybe he wasn't thinking straight) about that, I can't see it ever being included. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm always on the lookout for cheap books at Amazon as well. Can hardly remember the last time I paid for a new one. I don't see a problem with giving the value of his estate; it's even given in his ODNB entry, which you could also use as a source for his mother's maiden name of Travis, which I notice is currently commented out as uncited. It's probably in the wrong place though, better as the closing sentence of the Death section I think. I don't see a problem with the reliance on Hall either; it's not as if any of this stuff is contentious. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This article seems kind of fun and might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- You couldn't make it up. Any suggestions for suitable images? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- How did the terms buttocks go from referring to a prostitute to another name for a person's backside? Is there a connection to bullocks? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- According to the OED it was the other way round. Buttock was first recorded in the modern sense in 1300, but it wasn't used to describe a prostitute until 1673. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with bollocks, which is a relatively recent word, dating from 1940. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Mal, do you have any good sources on the origins of pissing contests and ego battles? A new article I started is under fire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Three hours after you started the article it's up for deletion. Classic! A good place to start would be the OED. Do you have access to the online version? Seems to be a surprisingly modern term, dating from 1943. The slang dictionary would also be worth a look, for starters. There's also an entry in the Canadian English Dictionary. Should be pretty easy to save this article I think; I'll help if you like. Needs a picture though. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha great minds think alike, I was about to add a photorequest to the talk page. :) How do I access the OED online? You're welcome to help of course, but if it's not a subject that interests you, no worries. I was curious about the terminology and was surprised that it wasn't included. I did notice that previous versions were deleted via the old "not a dictionary" trope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you're a member of a subscribing public library, then just type in your library card number here. Personally I'd dump the "big ego" stuff and concentrate on "pissing contest". There's no obvious connection between the two terms, and attempting to make one will inevitable draw citicism of OR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense. One never knows (or at least I never do) how these things will evolve once they're launched. Should battle of egos be its own article then? I think so. Although they do seem closely related to me. What about beating one's chest, strutting one's stuff, peacocking, etc. I thought it could cover the subject somewhat broadly. Is there an overarching descriptor? I will have to ponder this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd definitely separate out battle of egos. You're inevitably going to be charged with OR for making a link between it and pissing contest. You'd probably be surprised how much can be said just about the historical usage of pissing contest. It may never be a big article, but it could well become a comprehensive one. None of the other terms you mention derive from a schoolboy game, which is a theme that the article obviously needs to explore. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense. One never knows (or at least I never do) how these things will evolve once they're launched. Should battle of egos be its own article then? I think so. Although they do seem closely related to me. What about beating one's chest, strutting one's stuff, peacocking, etc. I thought it could cover the subject somewhat broadly. Is there an overarching descriptor? I will have to ponder this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you're a member of a subscribing public library, then just type in your library card number here. Personally I'd dump the "big ego" stuff and concentrate on "pissing contest". There's no obvious connection between the two terms, and attempting to make one will inevitable draw citicism of OR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha great minds think alike, I was about to add a photorequest to the talk page. :) How do I access the OED online? You're welcome to help of course, but if it's not a subject that interests you, no worries. I was curious about the terminology and was surprised that it wasn't included. I did notice that previous versions were deleted via the old "not a dictionary" trope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not "sweat" the deletion discussion. I have faith. ;) And if an article on that particular a notable and intersting topic is deleted (which I think is highly unlikely) it will live happily in my userspace until such time as common sense makes its triumphant return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Halloween 2009
The Halloween 2009 Limited Edition Barnstar | ||
For your work on the Manchester Mummy article, which was featured on this year's Halloween themed main page and contributed a lot to its success. Keep up the good work :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) |
I took the liberty of improving the image for this article. There's a closer shot here if you have the space for it. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like the improvised appearance of File:SSEM Manchester museum close up.jpg. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Brady
I haven't watched it, but apparently this is quite good. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at expanding this article and wonder if it's anywhere near suitable for submission as a GAC. If you have time, would you have a look at it and advise? And if it is fit enough, maybe a little copyediting too; it's been surprisingly difficult to make a lucid article from the sources. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Congrats +
If I'm reading the article traffic pages correctly the Manchester Mummy article was viewed by about 84,000 folks over the last 2 days. Thanks for your work, congratulations, and the above barnstar is well deserved! I checked for vandalism 4-5 times during the night and noticed that there wasn't very much and that it was being handled pretty well.
I noticed a minor disagreement today on the article between you and User:Piledhigheranddeeper and, without taking sides, will note that Piled is a very good editor in general.
Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Piled and I probably need to discuss the issue of safety coffins on the article's talk page, but I'll take some persuading that a development almost 40 years after Hannah Beswick was embalmed is relevant to her story. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, great stuff. You have definitely topped anything I've produced in terms of hits. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- You must have missed a certain lane of gropeage then :) Parrot of Doom 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I saw, but I didn't produce that one either. :P I think I also applauded the popularity back then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- You must have missed a certain lane of gropeage then :) Parrot of Doom 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
J3Mrs again I'm afraid
Hi Malleus, You were very helpful with the Tyldesley article and as I now have crammed just about everything I know into Leigh, Atherton and Astley, the townships that made up the old Leigh Parish, I wondered if you would be so kind as to cast your eye over them for me. I think I'd do the GA thing again if you thought any of them close enough. I think I am sufficiently recovered to try it again, (famous last words) No rush, it was just a thought. Cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a first look through Leigh and let a few notes on your talk page. I'll take a look at the other two over the next day or so. I was wondering, since Leigh is pretty well known locally for the cat and dog's home, whether or not that ought to be included. It's been the subject of several investigations for illegally putting down retired greyhounds if I recall correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea about the cat & dog's home ???? By the way I nominated it. Not the cat & dog's home. I think Astley & Atherton needs some pics, so a visit might be necessary--J3Mrs (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC).
- The cat and dog's home has been in the press repeatedly over that greyhound issue. There was even a Sunday Times expose.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the economy section, as they seemed to make quite a bit of money from their scam? </joke> More seriously, what about the Landmarks section? I'm not necessarily saying you need to include anything about the animal sanctuary at all, I'll leave that for you to decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page
[2]--Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: User talk:Beeblebrox and the ANI report
I have made the point on ANI that calling established editors trolls is not civil and not an appropriate way to comment on a dispute.
However - that point made - your behavior on Beeblebrox' talk page was atrocious.
We expect that editors will treat each other with respect. Wikipedia as a project fails when people are abusive and rude. It degrades the quality of conversation for everyone involved, does not help solve any problems in any way, and drives people away from the project. It's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.
Please consider this a formal warning against future provocative or uncivil behavior.
We count on editors being adults and treating each other that way. Our policies expect and demand it. Please respect Beeblebrox and other editors as human beings and treat them as such.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't think any repetition of edits like this would be a good idea. Please don't do any more stuff like this, as I know you are a good content editor. Why not get on with editing content? Anyway, just a friendly warning, as I probably wouldn't block you myself, but somebody else inevitably will. Then we will have even more drama, all of which takes away time from volunteers... Just please don't, ok? --John (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus, the rules for User Talk pages appear to be a bit different from those for "public" Talk pages (on articles, guidelines, Wikiprojects, etc.) As far as I can see, the User gets the last word on his/her Talk page - unless you can make of charge of some sort of misconduct at the User Talk page stick. If you can't, you'd be making yourself liable to charges of misconduct.
- Of course the same rules make it possible for you to copy diffs or the actual words at your own Talk page. Since your Talk page is one of the better known ones, your point of view will be noted. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are no rules, just open season on anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Beeblebrox's behaviour was appalling, but I'm the one all the admins come to warn. Pathetic. For anyone who doesn't know, this is what I was objecting to. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have a nice cup of tea, Malleus. If you think Beeblebrox is distorting your words, report your intepretation calmy and concisely on your own Talk, with diffs and add then post a note to Beeblebrox, including one diff that summarises the post on your Talk - and then drop it. Tactically I think you'll at least break even. --Philcha (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've got no further interest in Beeblebrox or what Georgewilliamherbert or anyone else thinks. The facts of the matter are plain enough for anyone to see. That so many appear so willing to call my behaviour "atrocious" while ignoring the at least as "atrocious" behaviour of an administrator speaks volumes; no need for me to say anything else on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- At least Karanacs did the decent thing, for which I thank her. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see you being harassed by these abusive and bullying admins Malleus. Clearly these are desperate characters trying to defend the indefensible. Refactoring another editor's comments to change what they said is obviously totally inappropriate. That anyone, let alone an admin, would try to defend that kind of misconduct is deeply troubling. That these individuals are choosing to take the side of an admin who repeatedly made edits to preserve a dishonest change that mirespresented what you said is shocking. I guess it's no more disgusting than the defenses being made for disruptive and incompetent admins who find it appropriate to make a point of their drug abuse. The disruption and damage they're doing should be stopped. But it seems that many of the most uncivil and brutish thugs are at the controls of this project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I had seen a couple threads there full of trolling and drama mongering. Of course the trolls and drama mongers there are shouting and pointing their fingers at the whistle blowers and scape goats who dare expose admin incompetence and misbehavior. I guess it's just more of the same. Oh well. I hope you have a good week otherwise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty disgusting behaviour. I don't want such people having any kind of power on this project. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Too late. They already have it and there's no way they're going to give it up with a fight. Which all their friends and supporters will attempt to characterise as needless "drama". It's a corrupt system that without any checks and balances well suits corrupt individuals. --Malleus Fatuorum
- I stand by my statement, and ask what constructive purpose this edit summary had? Soxwon (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- What other explanation do you offer for Beeblebrox's repeated attempts to alter my posting? Ignorance? Malevolence? Stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Presumably you mean this statement? Since when was correcting an obvious error the action of a troll? It shocks me to see people defend such idiocy as that demonstrated by Beeblebrox. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- What I know damn well is that you have turned up here simply to goad me into making a comment that will give one of your chums an excuse to block me for incivility, pretty much the definition of trolling. I have to tell you though that it won't work, as I don't have even the slightest interest in anything else you have to say and will blank any further comments you make here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And, in other news...
Thanks for your pre-FAC help, and your support, on the Nuffield buildings FAC, which has been closed today as "promote". Your generous use of your limited time to help me, and many others, improve our articles through copy-editing and reviewing at GAN and FAC is fantastic. With best wishes, BencherliteTalk 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith assumption
Just so we are clear, I think that this is a disgraceful example of bad faith, and a bit of a fucking cheek, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that you read what I said again, with a dictionary if necessary, without missing out any of the words. Quite frankly I think that you ought to be looking very closely into why it is you're so intent on having an article written by someone you call your "agent provocateur" deleted. I understand though that the truth can often hurt, so I forgive you for your disgraceful outburst. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know CoM wrote the article, and it really doesn't matter whether he did or not. I am not the type to engage in that sort of petty drama, though it now appears that you are. I've had quite enough of your bad faith, your baseless insinuations and your mischaracterizations. I now see that you are basically acting as one of the antagonist's henchmen, rather than doing what is best for Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't directly accuse me - that is true. But you suggested, twice, that my !vote (and subsequent comments) were based on who created the article. That is a clear assumption of bad faith. Then you had the audacity to suggest I remove myself from the discussion on the basis of your bad faith suggestion. Whether or not your insinuation was implicit or explicit, it was still inappropriate for an AfD discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI
No, you know very well that's not what I mean. "Opening a dialogue" by roundly attacking someone - and I'll point out again, without a shred of evidence for any of the accusations - is always going to end unproductively. Black Kite 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know exactly what you mean; we just don't agree that voicing an objection to the actions of an administrator is the equivalent of "roundly attacking". Sadly too many here see any and all disagreement as harassment to be eliminated at all costs, a very unhealthy state of affairs. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's always a point in between, though. There's a big difference between "You're wrong about this, and I think your actions have been unfair" and "You're an arrogant disruptive drama-mongering admin who should be blocked". To be honest, the latter is actually less likely to gain you any traction - I know I would just have ignored it. Black Kite 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- We're probably struggling to agree. My general view is a Machiavellian one, that the rational person ought to act in the way most likely to achieve the desired outcome. When faced with intransigence though, as in this case, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. Also in general, I think things would go a lot more smoothly here if more people didn't take such comments so personally, and go running off to WQA or AN/I whenever someone upsets them. That's just part and parcel of everday life, sticks and stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, I agree with the last bit to an extent. Of course, that's partly because WP:CIV is a dense block of text that says nothing useful, and takes its time over it. And WP:NPA is even worse. Black Kite 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much agree with that too. Contrary to popular opinion I'd be very much in favour of a clear and unambiguous NPA policy that was applied consistently, to both regular editors and administrators. I do though think that the present civility policy is a ridiculous and childish waste of space that shelters some of the worst of the abusive administrators, allowing them to block unpopular characters on the flimsiest of pretexts. Like using the word "sycophantic", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit much ...
... when I have to post my own block notices.
01:14, 5 November 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=324002285)
Sloppy admining I call it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is the sort of action that brings civility blocks into disrepute. Durova357 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking someone for 24 hours after having countless civility warnings for saying another editor has "shit for brains" brings civility blocks into disrepute? It is one thing hearing that sort of thing from the peanut gallery, but hearing it from someones whose work as an admin I respected is a bit disappointing. Our editors do not deserve to be abused and preventing such abuse is exactly why the community made civility a policy. Chillum 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technically he said several people have shit for brains. Doesn't make civility blocks any more appropriate though. They're still stupid. Lara 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I'll get back with you tomorrow sometime about Longchamp... (gaze up) Good thing I got sick, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's a wikipedia for adults somewhere? I think I may have to go looking for it, 'cos I think this one stinks. --Malleus Fatuorum
- Well, you could always join the Simple English Wikipedia. ;) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop collecting chocolates, and make you and Ottava pay for my next visit to color my hair! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) x 4. I cursed over the last one. Hate that shit. Anyway, I edit conflicted with you to make basically the same post. Unprofessional to say the least, not to mention it is a pretty lame block as the comment wasn't really a personal attack and it sure as hell wasn't harassment. It's not even as if you were speaking untruths. Lara 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
People walked into my cube at exactly the wrong moment, for five minutes of important conversation. Not predictable ahead of time, or I'd have waited a b it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Damn co-workers, interrupting your wiki-time. You should complain to your boss about their insolence. Ask for a raise while you're at it. Lara 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, waiting a bit is not appropriate. Blocks are preventative after all and clearly things were getting way out of hand here and action was necessary immediately to protect the wiki. Lara 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You have been blocked. Bad dog! - is that better? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec * 4) For goodness sake Malleus, you can be so... exasperating. I'm more or less aware of your views about WP:CIVIL which i to some degree share, but you do appear to hate putting down the stick, and you are pretty formidable when you're waving it. Which seems, I don't know, kind of often. You are such a great editor, a source of amusing if at times terse commentary and an asset to WP. But if you want to be handed a special mop, why keep whacking people on the head with the one you've got, fully charged with dirty water? I'm all set for a support, but I just don't get why you can't resist the impulse to keep typing, when someone on the other end of it might not share your sense of humour! BTW this is not a comment on whether the block is/was appropriate. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're confused about Malleus' actual desires when it comes to adminship. Lara 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no desires when it comes to adminship in truth, and certainly none to do with the self-aggrandizing glory that so many seem to feel goes with the job. My major motivation was the imminent trialling of flagged revisions, nothing else. I've got absolutely no interest in waving my willy around blocking other editors for using naughty words or arguing unpopular cases, for instance. So sue me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- What is a "willy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- here, but be warned, not safe for workplace consumption Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I imagined; why are you not "wagging" it, MF? (And don't answer with any weird websites, because I haven't yet installed virus protection on my reconfigured computer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it was a reference to his "porn star proportions". >_> Lara 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmm, "porn star proportions" aren't all they're cracked up to be: I hope MF isn't bragging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I bed to differ... >_> Hhaah. But, the reference is one of my own where I once stated that Malleus is a "dick of porn star proportions". I was pointing out that he would not take offense to that just as I wouldn't (haven't?) take offense to him calling me a bitch. Lara 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ah, yes, it all comes back to me now ... one of your finer posts :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec*4 - crikey it's hard to get a word in edgewise here!)I'm well aware of some of the discussion from Malleus on this, but I don't think RfA is a good vehicle for irony or making a point. I was happy for it to be played with a straight bat and to give the guy a mop. I'm all in favour of mops being wielded by people who maintain a high bar before intervening on grounds of incivility, I just wish a slightly better example could be set. However, I'm hopeful that he will stick to his principles and wield the mop as light-handedly as he wishes others would do, whatever intemperate remarks he might make sometimes as an editor (sorry about talking about you in the 3rd person on your talk page, Malleus, and yes I know, you will probably point out that you don't regard the remarks as "intemperate" on the grounds that they were carefully thought out :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't think you get it. :/ Lara 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- <shrugs> It wouldn't be the first time. Groucho Marx made a remark about not wanting to belong to a club that would have him as a member. When it comes to administration and politics, there's something to be said for the opposite approach—to only give the job to someone who doesn't want it. I thought Malleus fitted that bill, but perhaps his post below suggests excessive enthusiasm for being helpful, so perhaps not :-) On an unrelated point, and having pottered around WP for a few years, I have a hard time discerning coherent policy control by an "administrator corps" (Malleus, below), but yes, I agree, the dohickeys shouldn't all be parcelled up together. But that is quite another discussion. Have a pint for me Malleus, and see you back at 'work' tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't think you get it. :/ Lara 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty hard to upset Hamiltonstone, and even when I am it's soon forgotten as I've got a rotten memory for stuff like that. But I didn't mean at all to imply that I would be "making a point", simply that the introduction of flagged revisions places an extra burden on administrators that I felt I might be able to help with. That's all. That the position comes laden with an increasing number of dohickeys that even most administrators don't understand is an unfortunate feature of the mediawiki software's inflexibility, or perhaps more likely the reluctance of the administrator corps to delegate authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some things need to be said. Whether those who ought to be listening want to hear it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- No Malleus, some things need to be heard. I'm pretty sure that, once someone believes they are being placed in the category of 'shit for brains', they may, just possibly, not continue listening. Just a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, here's a final thought for you. Once I've decided that someone's got shit for brains then I don't much care what they think. If they subsequently prove that there's intelligent life between their ears then I'll do as I always do, take people as I find them. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No personal attacks
this was a clear violation of WP:NPA. You know better than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
- I've lived long enough to know a great many things GWH, one of which is that the greater fool is the one who argues with a fool. So I will not argue with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This should be a valid experiment, Malleus. For the next two weeks you and I post at the same number of Wikipedia conversations about civility and admin abuses explaining why we think someone's reasoning is faulty. I say in my normal respectful way, "Your reasoning is flawed." You say "editors here have shit for brains". At the end, let's see how many opinions I have changed with my statements, and how many have been changed with yours.
- My hypothesis: you'll have gotten blocked 5 more times and caused the equivalent of a 10-car pileup. Several editors involved in your discussions will have re-evaluated their stance and will have shifted to moderate or outright against a civility policy that suppresses criticism. My comments will go ignored by all.
- A tragedy on many levels. --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some people climb over walls, some people break through them, some people circumvent the walls, and some just complain about them being there. The thing is in all situations, the wall existed to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Does this mean I didn't accomplish anything with that little chat on your talk? No more breaking walls, Ottava ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If any walls are broken because of me, it is because other people in the discussion have picked me up and used my head as a battering ram. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wow. Ottava is getting deep. I think he's trying to impress. ;)
- Moni's hypothesis is close to perfect. But swap "blocked 5 more times" with "hauled to ArbCom, skipping the requisite RFC." Lara 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Does this mean I didn't accomplish anything with that little chat on your talk? No more breaking walls, Ottava ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some people climb over walls, some people break through them, some people circumvent the walls, and some just complain about them being there. The thing is in all situations, the wall existed to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You make an interesting point Moni3. For instance, women in Britain didn't get the vote by asking nicely for it, they got it by getting in the faces of authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- So literal do I take nonviolence that I consider harming with words and issuing insults to be the same. In fact, I was so good at it in my youth that I am paying penance by refusing to do it now. Women got the vote by chaining themselves to lightposts and prime ministers' carriages. People with AIDS got attention from the government by pretending to die in the streets. What's the verbal equivalent of chaining myself to the prime minister's carriage without slaughtering the horses and slinging arrows at the passengers? In what way will someone who cares about words be heard? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- You make an interesting point Moni3. For instance, women in Britain didn't get the vote by asking nicely for it, they got it by getting in the faces of authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I make a distinction that I hadn't really thought about before. In face to face conversation I can see your body language, and I can react to that, as you can to mine. In this written medium though I have to make clear to you in words what I might otherwise be able to suggest in a facial expression or tone of voice. Hence I make no excuses for phrases like "shit for brains". Those who care about words need to consider how those who only understand a smack in the face can be made to listen to the subtle nuances of what you're trying to say.
- BTW, there's a very famous video of one suffragette, Emily Davison, who rushed out in front of a horse at the Epsom Derby and was killed. Sometimes you have to be prepared to be killed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Guy Fawkes Day
Many years ago, an man with honest intentions entered Parliament and almost succeeded in bringing the change that was needed. Like all honest men, he failed. But happy Guy Fawkes Day! By the way, weren't you supposed to run for RfA today? I guess the whole 24 hour block puts a damper on that.
Ironic, no? :) You have been Guy Fawked! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't mention Guy Fawking around Moni.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, 27 November was the day. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like my version of your statements more. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- On reflection, Bonfire Night would have been a good choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)