Geometry guy (talk | contribs) →Meetup: Thanks again |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Meetup: spirit of kind words |
||
Line 671: | Line 671: | ||
::I hadn't forgotten that. There are some here like yourself who consistently speak with reason, and there are others like me who occasionally explode like a supernova with reason, but are otherwise pretty resistant to argument: 'cos we're right, or at least we think we are. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
::I hadn't forgotten that. There are some here like yourself who consistently speak with reason, and there are others like me who occasionally explode like a supernova with reason, but are otherwise pretty resistant to argument: 'cos we're right, or at least we think we are. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I still recall an encouraging comment you made on my talk page a year ago about an edit to Maggie. In the spirit that kind/generous words (such as your comment here) should not pass by without notice, thank you again. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
::::I still recall an encouraging comment you made on my talk page a year ago about an edit to Maggie. In the spirit that kind/generous words (such as your comment here) should not pass by without notice, thank you again. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::So I grab the opportunity to thank you for what you just added to an AN thread: "Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not." - Ready to frame it, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Huh, you went to the pub and didn't invite me. I'm only 200 miles away as well! Seriously speaking, do you think you could hve a wee look at that GAR you alerted me to a few days ago? I don't think there are serious grounds for concern, and in fact the one editor who seems to have a problem with the article has made some useful and valid points, once you get past the chip on their shoulder. I think it would beneit from your input if you feel like it. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
:::Huh, you went to the pub and didn't invite me. I'm only 200 miles away as well! Seriously speaking, do you think you could hve a wee look at that GAR you alerted me to a few days ago? I don't think there are serious grounds for concern, and in fact the one editor who seems to have a problem with the article has made some useful and valid points, once you get past the chip on their shoulder. I think it would beneit from your input if you feel like it. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Most people are actually quite nice, once you get to know them a bit. And the more beer you both drink, the nicer you both seem to get ... [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk</span>]]) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
::::Most people are actually quite nice, once you get to know them a bit. And the more beer you both drink, the nicer you both seem to get ... [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk</span>]]) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:44, 28 February 2012
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. 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 see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Civility policy is to Civility as Diversity training is to diversity
I wonder if this civility policy should just be scrapped, even if everybody agrees that civility is a good thing.
Civility policy seems to increase incivility, in the way that Diversity trainings are often blamed for increasing racial conflict, while doing nothing for working-class women or racial minorities (but benefiting middle-class white women).
(Sweden talks endlessly about gender equality but still lags far behind other the US in women in high positions, particularly at universities.)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that diversity training adds to racial tension--we can do that well enough ourselves. It does, however, greatly increase sleepiness and a general disregard for authorities that impose such training. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've never heard of diversity training. Is it a peculiarly American thing?
- If you care to look, you'll find Diversity Champions (or even whole departments) deeply embedded in the corporate stuctures of large organisations the length and breadth of the UK. Large Unions seem particularly keen to force their members to elect National Executive reps soley on the basis of their representation of "diverse groups", be they religious, ethnic or LGBT minorites. It's probably enshrined in company (and indeed union) law by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's like DARE: "Dare to keep kids off drugs". Useless, but good for elites who wish to demonstrate righteousness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, dare to vote for someone you've never heard of, for a policy that will never affect you, in an election that has too many candidates. sound familar? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's like DARE: "Dare to keep kids off drugs". Useless, but good for elites who wish to demonstrate righteousness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you care to look, you'll find Diversity Champions (or even whole departments) deeply embedded in the corporate stuctures of large organisations the length and breadth of the UK. Large Unions seem particularly keen to force their members to elect National Executive reps soley on the basis of their representation of "diverse groups", be they religious, ethnic or LGBT minorites. It's probably enshrined in company (and indeed union) law by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Kiefer: the civility policy may have been fit for purpose when it was first drawn up (10 years ago?), but as I said above, it's long been subverted by those who use it as a weapon against those they've taken a dislike to and want to get rid of. That phrase "a tyranny of virtue" is very prescient and relevant to what's gone wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm being asked in too many words to apologize for telling an obvious truth. Someone's feelings get hurt and they want redress. I may need civility training. Yes, diversity training may be an American thing. It's obnoxious and never gets to the real problem. The scenario I was shown on video involved a white supervisor who incorrectly called a black employee into her office. "Did you call me in because I was black?" "Yes, I'm terribly sorry, and you did nothing wrong." "Well OK then--Kumbaya." The more interesting and more useful scenario is where the black employee did do something wrong and has to account for it without the blackness being made an issue, because those are the tricky situations. And in the scenario I summarized--the white woman realizing and apologizing, yeah, that's not likely to happen. She'll invent a complaint: after all, her supervisor is probably white also, statistically speaking, and they'll make it stick. As far as I can tell, the reverse scenario, in a mostly black organization, works the same way--at least at the university right up the street from me, if I believe anecdotal evidence and the occasional report in the paper. We prefer not to talk about that, or about the more likely scenario at the white-run place. That's real "civility"--don't want to offend the raci(ali)sts who still run the joint. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- We obviously have had, and to a degree still have, problems with racism here in the UK, but it's widely recognised as completely unacceptable, and nothing even conceivably on the scale of racism in the US; just look at the current furore over the captain of the England football team. I'm reminded of a comment a young nephew made after one of my brothers got engaged to a coloured girl from the West Indies, who was frankly gorgeous. Someone raised the issue of whether their children might be disadvantaged because of their colour, and he was absolutely stunned: "Why didn't someone tell me she was coloured?" He just saw the person, not the colour. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the saying? Race is America's obsession, class is Britain's? Actually class is America's obsession, too. Ours just comes with colors. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There may be some truth to that. I think very few British people could understand segregation in the 1960's US, or apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps one of the things the British Empire can feel proud of is the efforts of the Royal Navy to eliminate the trade in slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which an entire class of American Lit students knew nothing about. They had never even considered the trade, only the peculiar institution--and thought it only got abolished (even in the North) with the Emancipation Proclamation. As for class, well, "I'm not worried about the poor." Drmies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I blame the teachers. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- We actually have rather a nice article on the distinction between abolishing slavery and eliminating the trade in slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nice to see a nice Methodist boy like Wilberforce mentioned. :)
- Steven Spielberg's Amistad deserves more attention in the U.S. and U.K. The British Navy is portrayed admirably (not admirally) , much more so than in parliamentary debates---there was no hint of "the only traditions of the British Navy"! ;) One doesn't have to tell anybody that Matthew McConaughey remains fully shirted throughout the movie. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which an entire class of American Lit students knew nothing about. They had never even considered the trade, only the peculiar institution--and thought it only got abolished (even in the North) with the Emancipation Proclamation. As for class, well, "I'm not worried about the poor." Drmies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There may be some truth to that. I think very few British people could understand segregation in the 1960's US, or apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps one of the things the British Empire can feel proud of is the efforts of the Royal Navy to eliminate the trade in slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the saying? Race is America's obsession, class is Britain's? Actually class is America's obsession, too. Ours just comes with colors. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm being asked in too many words to apologize for telling an obvious truth. Someone's feelings get hurt and they want redress. I may need civility training. Yes, diversity training may be an American thing. It's obnoxious and never gets to the real problem. The scenario I was shown on video involved a white supervisor who incorrectly called a black employee into her office. "Did you call me in because I was black?" "Yes, I'm terribly sorry, and you did nothing wrong." "Well OK then--Kumbaya." The more interesting and more useful scenario is where the black employee did do something wrong and has to account for it without the blackness being made an issue, because those are the tricky situations. And in the scenario I summarized--the white woman realizing and apologizing, yeah, that's not likely to happen. She'll invent a complaint: after all, her supervisor is probably white also, statistically speaking, and they'll make it stick. As far as I can tell, the reverse scenario, in a mostly black organization, works the same way--at least at the university right up the street from me, if I believe anecdotal evidence and the occasional report in the paper. We prefer not to talk about that, or about the more likely scenario at the white-run place. That's real "civility"--don't want to offend the raci(ali)sts who still run the joint. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Growing up in the 50s and 60s in America certainly gives one a certain perspective of many of the "isms" in the world. Times have and are changing though. — Ched : ? 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- [ec with Ched: age before beauty.] An article that's about to get slapped with a serial motherfucking comma in the first sentence. Interesting! I am somewhat reminded of W. R. van Hoëvell. And there's Pitt the Younger again, who I got to add to Palinurus the other day. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I think a serial comma is appropriate in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why? For me that's automatic, for you it's an editorial decision. Why? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Put simply, because Americans are comma crazy. I get really fed up with seeing all the "In 1892, XYZ did PQR" rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, sorry, that's not what I meant--my question was, why stick it in here? (I like the looks of it, but I'm trained to like that. As for "In 1982,...", I use and teach that as an editorial decision, with a general guideline: if that prepositional phrase is short the comma is optional.) Drmies (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Put simply, because Americans are comma crazy. I get really fed up with seeing all the "In 1892, XYZ did PQR" rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why? For me that's automatic, for you it's an editorial decision. Why? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I think a serial comma is appropriate in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- "he managed to pass his examinations"--nicely put. It's a joy to read, that article. Oh, I have a student in a junior-level Business Writing class who didn't understand one of the exercises, in which one had to "translate" some horrible bureaucratese into "plain English", which he seemed to think was some kind of template for a business letter. Apparently "plain English" also needs to be translated into plain English. Go ahead, MF, and blame the teachers! God forbid that parents ought to get their kids to read...(tonight we read Madeline and Happy Pig Day!.) Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I blame the parents as well, obviously. I have no children, by choice, but in moments of reverie I sometimes think how lucky those unborn kids were. I take no prisoners, and I'd have insisted on them achieving, in the nicest and most supportive way of course, but failure wouldn't have been an option. My parents encouraged me to read, which I did voraciously. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, I have two by no choice. Keep your fingers crossed for me that number 3, also by no choice, turns out as nice and inquisitive as the first two. Parents...here, parents are the people complaining to the teachers (not me, but Mrs. Drmies) about bad grades (usually, not As) for their children. It's part and parcel of the whole "get the parents involved" movement--and in general, people have a low opinion of public schools and take that out on the easy target, the teacher. I'm stopping before I go into a lengthy diatribe about making five-year olds take exams to get into decent schools, giving them grades that may already decide their future (and their parents' financial position twenty years hence), etc. Happy days Malleus--some summer I'm dropping my kids off with you and Mrs. Malleus while I go hiking in Wales and Scotland. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know when you're thinking of coming over and I'll make sure I'm out. Nothing personal, kids in short doses are fine, but it's always a relief to be able to give them back undamaged. BTW, Sitush tells me I have something to thank you for, or at least will have in a few weeks time. Malleus Fatuorum 06:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, I have two by no choice. Keep your fingers crossed for me that number 3, also by no choice, turns out as nice and inquisitive as the first two. Parents...here, parents are the people complaining to the teachers (not me, but Mrs. Drmies) about bad grades (usually, not As) for their children. It's part and parcel of the whole "get the parents involved" movement--and in general, people have a low opinion of public schools and take that out on the easy target, the teacher. I'm stopping before I go into a lengthy diatribe about making five-year olds take exams to get into decent schools, giving them grades that may already decide their future (and their parents' financial position twenty years hence), etc. Happy days Malleus--some summer I'm dropping my kids off with you and Mrs. Malleus while I go hiking in Wales and Scotland. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I blame the parents as well, obviously. I have no children, by choice, but in moments of reverie I sometimes think how lucky those unborn kids were. I take no prisoners, and I'd have insisted on them achieving, in the nicest and most supportive way of course, but failure wouldn't have been an option. My parents encouraged me to read, which I did voraciously. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The civility policy needs a total overhaul, I like serial commas, and kids should love to read! (My younger daughter taught herself to read at age 3, and voraciously read absolutely everything that had text of any kind on it. She must be one of the few pre-schoolers who could not only pronounce "riboflavin", but wanted to learn more about it ...) My grandchildren all got books for Christmas (much Winnie-the-Pooh for those old enough to appreciate him). I found with mine that being lavish with the praise for any sign of wanting to learn more about something produced quite incredible results. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't remember ever not being able to read, but I vividly recall my first year or so at school being groaningly tedious, and being held back by those for whom a book was a rather mysterious block of paper and cardboard. In fact I remember that even at the age of eleven there was one person in my class we all knew couldn't read, but the teachers seemed oblivious. God knows what happened to James McNulty. Malleus Fatuorum 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- One of my favourite memories is of the time when said younger daughter had one of her standard kiddie-development check-ups; she was rather obviously scathingly contemptuous of the checker-upper, and disinclined to co-operate with the pathetic requests. Checker-upper gave her a pencil and paper, and asked her if she could draw a circle and a straight line. Younger daughter gave checker-upper The Look (yes, she was precocious, and had mastered The Look by age 3, too!). Checker-upper whispered, "If we just let her play with the pencil and paper, and see what she does on her own...". Sprog took pencil and paper over to the table, came back a couple of minutes later and presented it to checker-upper, wordlessly. On it, she had written "cat dog look book". Checker-upper went slightly pale, and said, "I think we can safely say that she can draw circles and straight lines."
- Another favourite was younger son's check up (at a slightly earlier age). Checker upper handed him a wooden block, and asked him to throw it. He gave her a blank look. She encouraged, several times, and then ill-advisedly said, "Come on, throw it at me!" Evil grin appeared on son's face, and I semi-shrieked "No! TO her, not AT her!", his chucking-things style at that age being both accurate and powerful! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting story about your daughter. People go on and on about physical features like tits, bums, legs ... but I've always been attracted to intelligent women. My first real girlfriend was a real fox; good fun, but no way would I have considered spending the rest of my life with her. I've been very encouraged by the number of female presenters of history programmes on BBC4 for instance. My only complaint would be that it's rather difficult to concentrate on what they're saying when you have an erection to attend to ... have I gone too far? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- BBC4 is great ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per Gessler's youthful band released a song about the weather women on TV2. (Swedish lyrics) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- ROFL! It's not only men that get these problems, y'know! There are a few situations where I've had trouble concentrating on what someone is saying because my jaw has dropped and I'm almost drooling with
lustadmiration for a particularly nice set of shoulders, or a really good bum/legs! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- LMFAO .. oh my. All I know is that I'm certainly going to "attend to" any of mine that I can muster in the few remaining years. — Ched : ? 13:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- BBC4 is great ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting story about your daughter. People go on and on about physical features like tits, bums, legs ... but I've always been attracted to intelligent women. My first real girlfriend was a real fox; good fun, but no way would I have considered spending the rest of my life with her. I've been very encouraged by the number of female presenters of history programmes on BBC4 for instance. My only complaint would be that it's rather difficult to concentrate on what they're saying when you have an erection to attend to ... have I gone too far? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"Sexual innuendo" as uncivil
Pesky, you have read the section of the civility policy about sexual innuendo, haven't you. If you and Malleus were more elliptic about your innuendo, rather than direct, would you be in violation of civility? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps editors can help each other with their editing inhibitions. I want the entire project to put its high quality encyclopaedic content into our encyclopaedia, with courtesy, with erudition, with prosody and with gusto. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good luck!
Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck that hiding in bomb-shelters shit ... time to tell it like it is. I'm so fucking tired of this sneaky game playing bullshit here. — Ched : ? 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- lol .. you old son of bitch ... I'll get ya one of these days. — Ched : ? 06:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You will eventually, Ched, but only by paying very close attention: Malleus ranks among the most careful editors onwiki, most of the time at least... :) Geometry guy 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're so sharp that you'll cut yourself one of these days. I've been quite astonished by the claims that I'm incapable of being civil, or that some extraordinary percentage of my contributions have been uncivil, but I put that down to either vindictiveness or ignorance, probably both. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It could be either or both of these things, but the most relevant issue, IMO, is selection bias (alas our article on it isn't particularly great, but KW surely knows this stuff well): in other words, editors base their views on what they know, which is material that is not necessarily representative. Geometry guy 01:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vindictiveness remains my favoured explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's another problem: fitting new information to preconceptions. That can be vindictive, but I've seen you do the same - without of course being vindictive about it :) Geometry guy 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't forget, but I'm not a vindictive person, even though Elonka recently accused me of vindictiveness by opposing her FAC nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I consider you to be an admirable editor in this respect. We have disagreed on several occasions, but that has not prevented us from agreeing on many others (on the contrary, we have a remarkable history of agreement and have noted it in the past). In my view, that is one of the hallmarks of good editing: one disagreement does not (and should not) create a grudge. I sometimes wonder whether what Wikipedia really needs is not so much "Drama-out" as "Grudge-out". Geometry guy 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Senior editors such as Elonka ought to be setting a good example, not a bad one. Wikipedia needs many more editors like me, but where to find them, when the intention seems to be to chase them away? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does "senior editor" mean? What matters is the edit, not the editor. When I first commented at Ched's talk page, I was (ironically, given mixed metaphors) disarmed that he regarded me as a "big gun". We don't need a caste system here, any more than we need admin tools to be regarded or abused as status symbols: what we need is respect, admiration and encouragement for good editing. Geometry guy 03:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Editors with more baubles than I have, who feel that allows them to throw their weight around? Malleus Fatuorum
- Until tomorrow, Malleus. To quote a splendid Shakespeare parody, "I most royally shall now to bed, To sleep off all the nonsense I've just said." :) Geometry guy 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Editors with more baubles than I have, who feel that allows them to throw their weight around? Malleus Fatuorum
- What does "senior editor" mean? What matters is the edit, not the editor. When I first commented at Ched's talk page, I was (ironically, given mixed metaphors) disarmed that he regarded me as a "big gun". We don't need a caste system here, any more than we need admin tools to be regarded or abused as status symbols: what we need is respect, admiration and encouragement for good editing. Geometry guy 03:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Senior editors such as Elonka ought to be setting a good example, not a bad one. Wikipedia needs many more editors like me, but where to find them, when the intention seems to be to chase them away? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I consider you to be an admirable editor in this respect. We have disagreed on several occasions, but that has not prevented us from agreeing on many others (on the contrary, we have a remarkable history of agreement and have noted it in the past). In my view, that is one of the hallmarks of good editing: one disagreement does not (and should not) create a grudge. I sometimes wonder whether what Wikipedia really needs is not so much "Drama-out" as "Grudge-out". Geometry guy 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't forget, but I'm not a vindictive person, even though Elonka recently accused me of vindictiveness by opposing her FAC nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's another problem: fitting new information to preconceptions. That can be vindictive, but I've seen you do the same - without of course being vindictive about it :) Geometry guy 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vindictiveness remains my favoured explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It could be either or both of these things, but the most relevant issue, IMO, is selection bias (alas our article on it isn't particularly great, but KW surely knows this stuff well): in other words, editors base their views on what they know, which is material that is not necessarily representative. Geometry guy 01:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're so sharp that you'll cut yourself one of these days. I've been quite astonished by the claims that I'm incapable of being civil, or that some extraordinary percentage of my contributions have been uncivil, but I put that down to either vindictiveness or ignorance, probably both. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You will eventually, Ched, but only by paying very close attention: Malleus ranks among the most careful editors onwiki, most of the time at least... :) Geometry guy 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- lol .. you old son of bitch ... I'll get ya one of these days. — Ched : ? 06:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomorrow will indeed be interesting, assuming there isn't yet another delay. You're maybe not a football fan, so perhaps you missed today's shenanigans at the Manchester United vs. Liverpool match when Suarez refused to shake Evra's hand before the match. Despicable and entirely typical of the attitude that has become endemic here at Wikipedia. "You pissed me off once, and this is my opportunity to pay you back." Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
And allow me to share something with you Geometry guy. I don't entirely trust anyone until I've disagreed with them; you can tell so much from how people react to differences of opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
hey .. wait .. I haz shiney stuff too ... see my home page ., there's a link to all my barnstars and great articles ... awww crap .. it's a red link... sigh ... I failed. — Ched : ? 05:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have no shiney stuff, not even the lowly rollbacker. And I wouldn't accept it even if offered. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit, I was really tempted to just go click all the "he has this pretty stuff" ... but in the end, it wouldn't mean squat. So much bullshit here .. do you think I care? Oh wait .. I've seen what you do. So in the final view ... hey .. thank you for all content, and thank you for being an example of what an adult, and real person should be. — Ched : ? 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, of course not, don't be silly. Wikipedia needs more good guys with the extra buttons, not fewer. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Malleus here, Ched. Geometry guy 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, of course not, don't be silly. Wikipedia needs more good guys with the extra buttons, not fewer. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Scooting back up to your comment addressed at me, MF, you are not in fact sharing something I didn't already know about you to some extent. Funnily enough, I was only recently commenting to a Wiki-friend a similar view of mine: the true test of an editor is having a serious disagreement, yet remaining collegial, not necessarily in the heat of the moment (although that's a good thing too), but in the longer term, not bearing grudges. The wiki version of your shameful footballer would be an editor who, having disagreed once with another, avoids agreeing with that editor ever again, and looks for further opportunities to disagree. Geometry guy 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- ty guys .. nice to get an outside objective opinion sometimes. cheers. — Ched : ? 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's about time I did something useful, so I've been working on this article for a while, and am thinking of going for GA, and maybe in time, exposing myself again to FAC. What do you think of it? It is worth trying to take it further? If you think it is, I should welcome your copy editing skills again. As you probably know, Sharpe was the creator of the Lancaster firm of architects (later Paley and Austin, etc.) who were responsible for designing a large proportion of the churches in the northwest of England (and elsewhere) for over a century. The man himself was something of a polymath; as well as an architect he was a railway engineer, a sanitary reformer, and a nationally-regarded architectural historian.
A problem that may case trouble with the reviewers is that the major source is a self-published CD. I have tried to establish the credentials of the author and his work in the Bibliography section. If printed, the work would exceed 600 pages of text plus pictures, and pages of references, bibliography, etc. There is no doubt to me that it is a work of the highest scholarship. I have been working directly with the author, who has been correcting and copy editing what I have written; it seems that the book is too scholarly to be commercial as it stands, and publishers would prefer it to be about one-third the length! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like you've had some top-class help there Peter. I've not looked at the article yet, but if it's what I expect it to be I'd suggest a peer review and then on to FAC. GAN isn't really the best place for getting feedback on high-quality articles. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Butting in, after a quick look, it would help if you added supplementary refs where there are other sources (those already cited, ODNB etc), which must be a lot of the time. A little note on talk as to his credentials (like inside a book's back flap) would help too. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for your advice and copyediting. As MF knows, I am not an expert (on anything) and certainly have never been a professional writer; so all help is gratefully received. I thought about supplementary refs, and in fact went through the article with the ODNB article before me. The trouble is that, compared with Hughes, it is very scrappy, and I felt that more refs would not be helpful; but as a tactical idea, I will implement it. I like the idea of a blurb on the credentials of Hughes on the talk page, and will get in touch with him and ask what he would like it to say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Submitted for peer review. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for your advice and copyediting. As MF knows, I am not an expert (on anything) and certainly have never been a professional writer; so all help is gratefully received. I thought about supplementary refs, and in fact went through the article with the ODNB article before me. The trouble is that, compared with Hughes, it is very scrappy, and I felt that more refs would not be helpful; but as a tactical idea, I will implement it. I like the idea of a blurb on the credentials of Hughes on the talk page, and will get in touch with him and ask what he would like it to say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Butting in, after a quick look, it would help if you added supplementary refs where there are other sources (those already cited, ODNB etc), which must be a lot of the time. A little note on talk as to his credentials (like inside a book's back flap) would help too. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Me and my big mouth, but I have now filed an ANI on Justlettersandnumbers, due to his ongoing harassment of Dana boomer. Please take note of the discussion here: Wikipedia:ANI#Justlettersandnumbers. He's a bully, your special touch is called for here. Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing good ever comes from that place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have to agree with you there. It's become a cesspool of people who jump onto any bandwagon they can find and swap between said wagons frequently with a strongly evident Mob Mentality. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- But Hell, like Dungeons and Dragons and Wikipedia, has levels, some more challenging than others. At its best, ANI can be like the circle of Hell for the virtuous pagans.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where you at, Kiefer? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- After having been tormented by the Minions of Lucifer for months, I may be nearing Purgatory. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but now JLAN wants to ban me from all the horse articles for a year. And though the mob seems mostly with me, it could turn. I've already been accused of canvassing for posting here. Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry. The canvassing thing has always puzzled me though; it's as if Wikipedia wants everything to be done in secret; you have to stumble across something to be able to contribute to it. And Pesky seems to be batting for you, so it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm doing the best I can over there, though it's not easy. Fing is, though, fing is, that there's an awful lot of potential usefulness in JLAN, but he's incredibly hard for people to work with. If he could just volunteer to steer clear of Equine, and WP:EQUINE's primary editors and their articles wherever possible, and keep an eye out for escalations and back down faster, then he / we'd have cracked it. I wish I could do more; I'd be happy to try and act as go-between / helper / assistant as and when real life issues (too many!) allow me to. I have an awful lot of sympathy both for JLAN and for the people who've come into conflict with him; partly because I can see there something very similar to a mirror-image of me, but with a few little differences that end up making big differences. I could have gone that-a-way ... but I didn't. But it's very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" thing. I've tried to steer clear of areas where JLAN's been very active, to duck away from conflicts (too much shite going on IRL to want more); I'm not sure whether he and I trying to work on some issues together would result in harmony or Global Thermonuclear War, but I'm willing to give it a go, for everyone's sakes, if he can meet me half way. Pesky (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- With regarding to canvassing, I do think in some ways that there's a faction (or mindset) that wants to control such discussions. The person making canvassing accusations is also one of those who's been defending JLAN. It's one of those cards that can be played to diminish or restrict outside support or comment, while still appearing to be on the "high ground" when it comes to rules or standards. "See...they must be wrong because they're CANVASSING! Oh the humanity!" Or something like that. I tend to see it as one of the many passive/aggressive behaviors that appear to be the norm when it comes to some Wiki social behaviors. JLAN seems to have a reasonable grasp of how that works: ignore any comments about your behavior; come up with a plan or proposal that might appear reasonable on the surface but is in fact not negotiable in any sense; hunker down and ignore all other comment while repeating your own plan until everyone else walks away and lets you win.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm doing the best I can over there, though it's not easy. Fing is, though, fing is, that there's an awful lot of potential usefulness in JLAN, but he's incredibly hard for people to work with. If he could just volunteer to steer clear of Equine, and WP:EQUINE's primary editors and their articles wherever possible, and keep an eye out for escalations and back down faster, then he / we'd have cracked it. I wish I could do more; I'd be happy to try and act as go-between / helper / assistant as and when real life issues (too many!) allow me to. I have an awful lot of sympathy both for JLAN and for the people who've come into conflict with him; partly because I can see there something very similar to a mirror-image of me, but with a few little differences that end up making big differences. I could have gone that-a-way ... but I didn't. But it's very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" thing. I've tried to steer clear of areas where JLAN's been very active, to duck away from conflicts (too much shite going on IRL to want more); I'm not sure whether he and I trying to work on some issues together would result in harmony or Global Thermonuclear War, but I'm willing to give it a go, for everyone's sakes, if he can meet me half way. Pesky (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry. The canvassing thing has always puzzled me though; it's as if Wikipedia wants everything to be done in secret; you have to stumble across something to be able to contribute to it. And Pesky seems to be batting for you, so it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where you at, Kiefer? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But Hell, like Dungeons and Dragons and Wikipedia, has levels, some more challenging than others. At its best, ANI can be like the circle of Hell for the virtuous pagans.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have to agree with you there. It's become a cesspool of people who jump onto any bandwagon they can find and swap between said wagons frequently with a strongly evident Mob Mentality. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. You guys nailed it. And my own personality is such that I just dig in and refuse to let the bullies win, I won't walk away, though what often happens is that I try to be actually reasonable instead of superficially reasonable, with the result that I wind up dogpiled and scapegoated. The only way I can win these is with backup, and most good-intentioned folks only have so much energy to devote to a spat they didn't start and were unwittingly dragged into -- that's why I posted here -- Malleus is, like me, kind of a stubborn bastard (previous two words said with approval affection for those who miss the nuance of that sort of thing) who doesn't like to back down, and why I came here to alert folks, get advice, and seek support. That and he's Dana's friend, and how can ANYONE (but JLAN) be mean to Dana? Montanabw(talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- MTBW, you and Dana and Kim were all so incredibly nice to me, despite Vane and Vince and all those other possible white-ass-flag waving candidates (remember those?!;P) when I was obsessing about That Roan Question (and I'm still waiting for some freshly published research or commentary pertaining to possible sampling errors .... hehehe.... mwahahahahahaha ...) I don't see how anybody who knows anything at all about how WP:EQUINE works could possibly describe it as a closed shop. But then, they don't know. They don't know you, they don't know Dana (I want Kim back!) and they've probably never got on the wrong side of JLAN. But ... is it worth me offering any kind of help, over at AN/I? Or will I just get fried alive? Pesky (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- So far it's only been one public JLAN defender and a couple of "why can't we all just get along" folks who seem more interested in accommodating disruption (which is most likely being done with the best intentions). In terms of "closed shop," I'd say that's more because you didn't accept the JLAN solution as the one true way immediately. Obviously that means you're a close shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The worst problem with JLAN is that he can be quite incredibly confrontational (he started getting "in yer face" confrontational when he's only been editing for about a fortnight, and has got progressively worse; akin to this is that he just doesn't seem to know when to drop the stick, even after consensus has been overwhelmingly against him – such as on the issue of using "hands" for horse measurement – he goes for another try, somewhere else, with people who don't yet know him and have no idea that he's basically forum-shopping until someone agrees with him. It's a real shame; I wish I knew how to change him. But, as they say, "change must come from within." I think he needs to consider moving his focus to a different WikiProject area, and see if he might get on better with a different group of editors. Provided he doesn't start trying to bully people elsewhere, that might work for him. Pesky (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- He could be very valuable as a contributor if he'd only acknowledge that he's part of the problem and take some real steps to change that behavior. Instead his approach seems to be "give me everything you have and maybe I'll turn down the volume on my stereo." His proposed solution was almost humorous, except that he's serious about it. "Rework an entire WikiProject the way I say it should be done, ban productive editors, I might step away for a time, and that's my final offer." What is really starting to disgust me is how this thing is rapidly turning into an attack on MBW. It doesn't really surprise me, but it does disgust me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The worst problem with JLAN is that he can be quite incredibly confrontational (he started getting "in yer face" confrontational when he's only been editing for about a fortnight, and has got progressively worse; akin to this is that he just doesn't seem to know when to drop the stick, even after consensus has been overwhelmingly against him – such as on the issue of using "hands" for horse measurement – he goes for another try, somewhere else, with people who don't yet know him and have no idea that he's basically forum-shopping until someone agrees with him. It's a real shame; I wish I knew how to change him. But, as they say, "change must come from within." I think he needs to consider moving his focus to a different WikiProject area, and see if he might get on better with a different group of editors. Provided he doesn't start trying to bully people elsewhere, that might work for him. Pesky (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- So far it's only been one public JLAN defender and a couple of "why can't we all just get along" folks who seem more interested in accommodating disruption (which is most likely being done with the best intentions). In terms of "closed shop," I'd say that's more because you didn't accept the JLAN solution as the one true way immediately. Obviously that means you're a close shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am indeed a stubborn bastard MBW, and you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm just about the editor least likely to take exception to such straight talking. I haven't chipped in at the ANI because I don't really have anything to contribute. I was a bit saddened to see that you and SandyG seem to be on opposite sides, but Pesky seems to have a good head on her shoulders. A rubbish neck, but a good head. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- <g> ... the neck's due to be fixed, soon! Still no firm date yet, but "soon". They promised! Pesky (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that goes well for you. My brother has had four operations on one of his knees, including an artificial joint that had to be replaced because it wasn't fitted properly. His other knee is now giving him trouble, but he's refusing any further operations as the knee that was treated is worse now than it was before ... I know you probably didn't want to hear that, but I thought I'd share. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it will go well; thanks for your thoughts, anyway :o). My neurosurgeon is ace, and an incredibly nice guy too; we get on like a house on fire and always have a laugh together. I've almost lost count of the number of operations I've had; it's got to the stage where my local orthopaedic surgery team have started calling me their "ongoing carpentry project." I know I've had 13 or so ops within the past three years, including both knees, both achilles tendons, one thumb, one elbow, one shoulder, the neck, and various bits of internal needlework and embroidery (and more to come on that front, too). The hospital staff always know when it's time to kick me out again; it's when I start obsessive-compulsively tidying the ward. As for atmosphere, I;ve always felt very much at home in hospitals; once the staff "know who you are", as it were, you can joke with them about all sorts of stuff. Black humour, frequently, but fun nonetheless. And they almost all love AmTrans. And every time I have a new anaesthetist, I get to do the anaesthetist joke all over again ... timing is they key on that one! And enough experience to know how fast the knockout juice is going to kick in. "How do you keep an anaesthetist in suspense?" Pesky (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that goes well for you. My brother has had four operations on one of his knees, including an artificial joint that had to be replaced because it wasn't fitted properly. His other knee is now giving him trouble, but he's refusing any further operations as the knee that was treated is worse now than it was before ... I know you probably didn't want to hear that, but I thought I'd share. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- <g> ... the neck's due to be fixed, soon! Still no firm date yet, but "soon". They promised! Pesky (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes is in V for Vendetta
He is played by Clive Ashborn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhT4B4-OITs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you think it's curious that he looks nothing like the mask? And that Fawkes didn't die like that? To say nothing of the cowboy noose knot, which was never used in England. You need to explain how V has altered the public perception of Fawkes, or reveals new insights about him. Can you do that? Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are right in saying that he did not die like that. Fortunately the section I am proposing a change to is the Legacy section. This section is for his portrayal within cultural works. The section already cites two fictional works. His fictionalization in 'Bentley's Miscellany' as "essentially an action hero" also shows him in situations which are not accurate. I am not sure why the masks keep getting brought up. I have not proposed a change which mention masks or anonymous. I will agree with consensus that neither should be mentioned in the article past the link to masks. So you would like me to "explain how V has altered the public perception of Fawkes." Well since I am only allowed to cite reliable sources and not conduct original research, I will refer back to the article I cited. "When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton. While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as." "Catholic revolutionary visage and his incongruously Puritan apparel are perhaps a reminder that unjust institutions may always be haunted by volatile 17th century spectres, even if today's uprisings are fuelled more by social networks than by gunpowder. Some ghosts never go away." He is represented as a martyr and hero who stood up against the unjust and died fighting for his cause. V for Vendetta furthers the perception that he is a hero not a villain. Furthermore, the movie has exposed more people to the character than any other work. If nothing more it made him a household name outside the UK. The fact is, a historical character inspired a story about a masked vigilante, and it is worth mentioning briefly.
- If you would prefer the legacy section be split into a separate article, that would be ok. But the fact remains that even in the popular culture article it only talks about his mask. The character itself was portrayed in the movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_George_Armstrong_Custer mentions Custer's Revenge which I personally find to be EXTREMELY historically inaccurate.
- Or legacy could be split and a new section added titled 'modern view'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard#Legacy "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" is mentioned in the Blackbeard article. 24.118.168.217 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did. I wrote, "His legacy and the masks used to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night were partial inspiration for a graphic novel by Alan Moore titled V for Vendetta. It was later turned into a movie by Warner Brothers.[1]" It was removed for being "nonsense." I can add a sentence that says, V for Vendetta furthered the cultural transformation which saw Guy Fawkes rise from villain to vigilante hero. The latter sentence does not make sense without first stating that his legend is inspiration for the hero in the novel. The sentiment (but not exact wording) of what I wrote is clear in the source I cite.
- If the overall story is Fawkes's transformation from villain to vigilante hero then I could probably be persuaded. I don't agree with your assertion that the first sentence is necessary to make sense of the second though, and overall I think that three sentences puts too much emphasis on a recent film that frankly doesn't depict Fawkes at all, except briefly and inaccurately in its opening. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- How would you form the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- "V for Vendetta furthered the cultural transformation which saw Guy Fawkes rise from villain to vigilante hero" is an extremely dubious claim. Variations on "Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter Parliament with decent intentions" have been in regular use for decades if not centuries. 78.149.152.251 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- And? "Guy Fawkes' status as a potential revolutionary hero." "While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as." "When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton." This is the author of V for Vendetta speaking not me. I am not addressing the last man to enter Parliament line. "Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason, portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light, and transformed him in the public perception into an 'acceptable fictional character'. Fawkes subsequently appeared as 'essentially an action hero' in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London." How did the beginning of V for Vendetta illustrate anything other that his turn to a heroic character?24.118.168.217 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, you're pretty much admitting that you want to give undue weight to V for Vendetta, since it just happens to (currently) be the most recent of a long tradition of sympathetic depictions of Fawkes and if it's going to be covered, would be better placed as just one entry in a list. Alan Moore's recollections may well be interesting, but are of no relevance other than as a source for his personal motivations and opinions. Wikipedia holds rigidly to the principle that anything we mention must be citable to reliable sources, and Moore isn't a cultural or literary historian of any kind. In my opinion there are grounds for a slightly expanded "changing public perceptions" section in the parent article, but one needs to be very careful not to overemphasise V4V just because it happens to be the work with which the Randys in Boise are most familiar. 92.24.48.66 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Never seen it- who's this Fowkes guy anyway? Randy from Boise (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, you're pretty much admitting that you want to give undue weight to V for Vendetta, since it just happens to (currently) be the most recent of a long tradition of sympathetic depictions of Fawkes and if it's going to be covered, would be better placed as just one entry in a list. Alan Moore's recollections may well be interesting, but are of no relevance other than as a source for his personal motivations and opinions. Wikipedia holds rigidly to the principle that anything we mention must be citable to reliable sources, and Moore isn't a cultural or literary historian of any kind. In my opinion there are grounds for a slightly expanded "changing public perceptions" section in the parent article, but one needs to be very careful not to overemphasise V4V just because it happens to be the work with which the Randys in Boise are most familiar. 92.24.48.66 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- And? "Guy Fawkes' status as a potential revolutionary hero." "While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as." "When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton." This is the author of V for Vendetta speaking not me. I am not addressing the last man to enter Parliament line. "Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason, portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light, and transformed him in the public perception into an 'acceptable fictional character'. Fawkes subsequently appeared as 'essentially an action hero' in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London." How did the beginning of V for Vendetta illustrate anything other that his turn to a heroic character?24.118.168.217 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- "V for Vendetta furthered the cultural transformation which saw Guy Fawkes rise from villain to vigilante hero" is an extremely dubious claim. Variations on "Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter Parliament with decent intentions" have been in regular use for decades if not centuries. 78.149.152.251 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- How would you form the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the overall story is Fawkes's transformation from villain to vigilante hero then I could probably be persuaded. I don't agree with your assertion that the first sentence is necessary to make sense of the second though, and overall I think that three sentences puts too much emphasis on a recent film that frankly doesn't depict Fawkes at all, except briefly and inaccurately in its opening. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am by no means asking for "undue weight to V for Vendetta." All I have ever proposed is one mention. "Moore isn't a cultural or literary historian of any kind." That is not true. "Moore published an eight-page article tracing out the history of pornography in which he argued that a society's vibrancy and success are related to its permissiveness in sexual matters, which was described by a reviewer as 'a tremendously witty history lecture – a sort of Horrible Histories for grownups.'" I think it is a very slippery slope if we start discluding certain people from the category of historian. I just have not seen a case made as to why a well published authors version of history is to be discredited, just because a majority of his works are illustrated and fictional. He is still a well researched and intelligent person. Here is an article where the author looks to define "what history is" in Alan Moore's opinion. http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v2_2/carney/ In my opinion, he is absolutely a historian. 24.118.168.217 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Civility Squad
A "Civility Squad" for "improving the culture at wikipedia". We've already got a de facto civility squad, but I can't criticise the guy for coming up with a new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.151.251 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last thing Wikipedia needs is more civility nutcases, it just doesn't realise that yet. Malleus Fatuorum
- I don't know if you read the Guardian, Malleus, but there was an interesting article about civility in the Staurday mag, "Is it always bad to be rude?" The writer, Oliver Burkeman, defines rudeness as the deliberate violation of an accepted social convention. But, he says, conventions change, and perceived rudeness may be simply the rejection of an outdated propriety. As an example he refers to the lost convention whereby children called their fathers "sir"; the abandonment of this practice was once widely perceived as "rudeness". As was using a mobile phone in a public place. Now I am sure that your children still call you sir, as of course mine do – but they also call me other things in which words such as "stupid", "old" and "git" sometimes feature. In fact we spend a fair amount of time in cheerful verbal abuse. I thoroughly endorse this change in social etiquette. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's entirely healthy as well. I don't have children, but loads of neices and nephews, and they've always called me by my first name, none of the "uncle" crap. But as for using a mobile phone in a public place, one of the things that really gets on my tits is the planks in the supermarket on the phone to their other half: "They haven't got the marrowfat processed peas, but they do have plain processed peas. Should I get them instead?" I stopped reading daily newspapers many, many years ago, when I discovered that I could get a free copy of The Observer from a newsagent in Hale after they'd closed on Sunday evening. I guess in those days maybe publishers weren't so willing to take back their unsold stock? In general I see no purpose in daily newspapers anyway, as their existence seems to depend on the creation of news rather than the reporting of it. Why do so few readers wonder why there's always the same number of pages in their favourite daily? Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- "No one says, 'yes sir', anymore and it is all down hill from there." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's entirely healthy as well. I don't have children, but loads of neices and nephews, and they've always called me by my first name, none of the "uncle" crap. But as for using a mobile phone in a public place, one of the things that really gets on my tits is the planks in the supermarket on the phone to their other half: "They haven't got the marrowfat processed peas, but they do have plain processed peas. Should I get them instead?" I stopped reading daily newspapers many, many years ago, when I discovered that I could get a free copy of The Observer from a newsagent in Hale after they'd closed on Sunday evening. I guess in those days maybe publishers weren't so willing to take back their unsold stock? In general I see no purpose in daily newspapers anyway, as their existence seems to depend on the creation of news rather than the reporting of it. Why do so few readers wonder why there's always the same number of pages in their favourite daily? Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if you read the Guardian, Malleus, but there was an interesting article about civility in the Staurday mag, "Is it always bad to be rude?" The writer, Oliver Burkeman, defines rudeness as the deliberate violation of an accepted social convention. But, he says, conventions change, and perceived rudeness may be simply the rejection of an outdated propriety. As an example he refers to the lost convention whereby children called their fathers "sir"; the abandonment of this practice was once widely perceived as "rudeness". As was using a mobile phone in a public place. Now I am sure that your children still call you sir, as of course mine do – but they also call me other things in which words such as "stupid", "old" and "git" sometimes feature. In fact we spend a fair amount of time in cheerful verbal abuse. I thoroughly endorse this change in social etiquette. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Advice...
Malleus, sorry to bother you, but... as a person wise in the ways of the English language, if I was writing about Louis owning an object, should I write "Louis's crown" (for example), or "Louis' crown"? I ask in the context of Henry II of England, where Louis gets lots of possessions to use an apostrophe on.... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, Louis's. Best advice is to read it aloud, and use what sounds best. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Louis is neither Jesus nor Moses, and so gets an apostrophe-s. (Strunk & White) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The way I read Strunk and White, it depends on whether Louis is Joe Sixpack or Joe Bourbon. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- When a singular noun ends in an "s", both "s'" and "s's" are options for the possessive, but the latter is generally preferred, perhaps because "s'" is always used for the possessive of plural nouns ending in "s". However, different guides may provide different advice (which means whatever you do, some guide is likely to agree with you!). In this case, though, the "s" in "Louis" is silent, and my reference prefers "s's" for that reason – unless (perhaps) you need to refer to the silver, stamina, statesmanship or sewing of this Louis bloke, for Louis's sake (or Louis' sake?). :) Geometry guy 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Setting @Drmies' "aging [sic] zombie of a book ..." aside, as only ~57% of the world population speaks American English (1997 figures). Consider the scholar and visionary vagrant ALFRED HYMAN LOUIS's ODNB entry which suggests that "Louis's personality, rather than his attainments, made him memorable" ("Louis, Alfred Hyman". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/38878. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)). Apostrophe "s" is also supported by "French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced as z, e.g. Dumas's (=Dumah's) ..." from Chalker, S; Weiner, E (1993). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (2nd ed.). OUP. pp. 170–1.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) Also "Extract of a letter from Paris, Aug. 25. (St. Louis's Day.)". The Times. No. 227. 16 September 1785. p. 2. Retrieved 14 February 2012.{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
and|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|col=
ignored (help) --Senra (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Setting @Drmies' "aging [sic] zombie of a book ..." aside, as only ~57% of the world population speaks American English (1997 figures). Consider the scholar and visionary vagrant ALFRED HYMAN LOUIS's ODNB entry which suggests that "Louis's personality, rather than his attainments, made him memorable" ("Louis, Alfred Hyman". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/38878. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)). Apostrophe "s" is also supported by "French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced as z, e.g. Dumas's (=Dumah's) ..." from Chalker, S; Weiner, E (1993). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (2nd ed.). OUP. pp. 170–1.
- When a singular noun ends in an "s", both "s'" and "s's" are options for the possessive, but the latter is generally preferred, perhaps because "s'" is always used for the possessive of plural nouns ending in "s". However, different guides may provide different advice (which means whatever you do, some guide is likely to agree with you!). In this case, though, the "s" in "Louis" is silent, and my reference prefers "s's" for that reason – unless (perhaps) you need to refer to the silver, stamina, statesmanship or sewing of this Louis bloke, for Louis's sake (or Louis' sake?). :) Geometry guy 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The way I read Strunk and White, it depends on whether Louis is Joe Sixpack or Joe Bourbon. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Louis is neither Jesus nor Moses, and so gets an apostrophe-s. (Strunk & White) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Old money
Hey Malleus, I was wondering whether you (or a TPS) may be able to help me. I believe there's a template/agreed format for when we aim to covert old money into newer dominations- do you know where I can find it? I couldn't see anything in the MoS. The article in question is North Pier, Blackpool, which currently sports "for the price of 2d (approximately £5 – £10 today)". J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They do indeed, but I rarely use this template now. I prefer to get the figures from Measuring Worth, which gives a value of £4.70 using average earnings, which I think is probably the most appropriate comparison in this case. And then I'd add a note to explain the basis of the calculation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts- I'll point the article author to this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- After having had to tackle this conversion issue a few times at FAC, this article is a good example of what I usually do now; see notes 5 and 6. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I've had a quick look at the article, and it seems to me that it seriously needs the tender attentions of a good copyeditor. Stuff like "The decor inside lead it to be known as the 'Indian Pavilion'" (which I've fixed) isn't good enough for GA in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts- I'll point the article author to this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They do indeed, but I rarely use this template now. I prefer to get the figures from Measuring Worth, which gives a value of £4.70 using average earnings, which I think is probably the most appropriate comparison in this case. And then I'd add a note to explain the basis of the calculation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
As the key maintainer of Template:Inflation (ha!), and chief occasional money-over-time reviewer at FAC, I recommend using a real time-money comparator written by real economists like Measuring Worth too. The inflation templates are shitty CPI templates with poor data-sets and at best duplicate Measuring Worth's superior data. At worst, using a CPI inflation is wildly inappropriate. While there are partial alphas for non-CPI inflations (ha) they too suffer from dodgy wikipedia template syndrome. Remember to cite measuring worth! I recommend thinking deeply about "what kind of money was this in the past: consumption, profit, national accounts?" and "what comparison will accurately represent the function of the past money, in a manner appreciable to a modern audience?" Malleus' choice of purchasing power parity is a reasonable one for the time for £3–5000. Personally I strongly recommend treating capital as %GDP. Finally, ask yourself, "Does money function in the same way as it did then?" 300 sesterces are not money as we know it, the function of money in Roman society was so radically different to the function of money today that I would strongly frown on any attempt to convert money. Rather noting the time of labour or cost of slaves in the society would be better then to allow readers to make their own understanding. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input Fifelfoo. I must admit I'm terribly nervous about providing conversions for the pre-Industrial Revolution period, but in this case it's 1866, and we're talking about the entrance fee to the pier, so I think average earnings is a reasonable stab. If we were talking about the capital cost of building the pier then I'd agree wholeheartedly with your GDP conversion. Your opposition at one FAC or other had the useful effect of making me think a little more deeply about this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (I think about the time value of money far far too much. I'm a tragic for the "periods of crisis" analysis of the declining rate of profit. You should hear me when I get going on such stuff as wage, profit, capital, growth). 1866 is solidly industry and the data series that Measuring Worth have are perfectly good data for the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Money today has two storeys"- Solzhenitsyn quoting a popular saying of the Kruschev era. Fifelfoo can probably explain it much better than me (I'm struggling!) Ning-ning (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Within capitalism, a relatively stable system, the idea of what consumption is tolerable, how much of the wage that covers, how many hours a wage takes to earn, how many non-employee members of a household and for how long, the average and maximum productivity rates for machinery and labour, the expansion of labour categories (I can provide you religion on a wage now...) these all change. Long run series of monetary values have to emphasise money acting in one way (a wage, consumption bundle, productivity unit, or portion of the national account) instead of acting in others. But at each moment wages become national accounts become consumption bundles become productivity units. The Accountants debate this at the level of theory, and the conclusion an accounting standards system draws matters for the issue of market capitalisation and depreciation of capital stock—ie a lot. It is all fun and games until someone backwards calculates the price of a Play Station 3 in 1812. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some British tribe circa 100 BC buried a large number of silver coins, all of the same type. Re-discovered in 2009, they were given a contemporary (i.e. 100BC) value by archaeologists of £1,000,000. Value today, according to completed auctions on eBay for the same kind of coin, £800,000. Don't know what the melt value would be, but I suspect probably about a thousand or two, just enough to stop the tribe receiving income support. Ning-ning (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Within capitalism, a relatively stable system, the idea of what consumption is tolerable, how much of the wage that covers, how many hours a wage takes to earn, how many non-employee members of a household and for how long, the average and maximum productivity rates for machinery and labour, the expansion of labour categories (I can provide you religion on a wage now...) these all change. Long run series of monetary values have to emphasise money acting in one way (a wage, consumption bundle, productivity unit, or portion of the national account) instead of acting in others. But at each moment wages become national accounts become consumption bundles become productivity units. The Accountants debate this at the level of theory, and the conclusion an accounting standards system draws matters for the issue of market capitalisation and depreciation of capital stock—ie a lot. It is all fun and games until someone backwards calculates the price of a Play Station 3 in 1812. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Money today has two storeys"- Solzhenitsyn quoting a popular saying of the Kruschev era. Fifelfoo can probably explain it much better than me (I'm struggling!) Ning-ning (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- (I think about the time value of money far far too much. I'm a tragic for the "periods of crisis" analysis of the declining rate of profit. You should hear me when I get going on such stuff as wage, profit, capital, growth). 1866 is solidly industry and the data series that Measuring Worth have are perfectly good data for the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
<--For a different observation on inflation, see Beowulf, ll. 3163-68:
Hī on beorg dydon bēg ond siglu,
eall swylce hyrsta, swylce on horde ǣr
nīðhēdige men genumen hæfdon;
forlēton eorla gestrēon eorðan healdan,
gold on grēote, þær hit nū gēn lifað
eldum swā unnyt, swā hit ǣror wæs.
Francis B. Gummere translates as (my italics):
They placed in the barrow that precious booty,
the rounds and the rings they had reft erewhile,
hardy heroes, from hoard in cave, --
trusting the ground with treasure of earls,
gold in the earth, where ever it lies
useless to men as of yore it was.[1]
Drmies (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Basically, it's easier to compare pre-industrial revolution money prices (or wages) from say, 1750 AD, to pre-industrial revolution money prices (or wages) from say, 100 BC, than it is to compare pre-industrial revolution money prices (or wages) from say, 1750 AD, to post-industrial revolution money prices from only a hundred fitty years later, say 1900. That's because of the word "revolution" in "industrial revolution". In fact, one could convincingly argue that it is easier to compare 1750 AD prices to 100 BC prices than it is to compare 1900 AD prices to 2000 AD prices.
Ideally, if one wants to compare the cost of something from before the industrial revolution (say, 1750 AD) to the cost after the industrial revolutoin (say, 1900 AD), it's best to express it in some kind of relative terms (which introduces some unavoidable subjectivity) - for example say that "in 1750 a typical person spent 60% of their monthly budget on food, but in 1900 a person spent only 20%" or better yet, for another example, "in 1750, traveling from London to Manchester would cost a typical worker an equivalent of two days wages, but in 1900, the same trip could be made for the equivalent of two hours of work". This isn't perfect (there really is no perfect way of making such comparisons) - for some comparisons one would get misleading results (hiring a horse drawn carriage would cost more work-hours today than in 1750, it would take an infinite number of work hours in 1750 to obtain an iPod etc.) - and it works best for goods which existed both then and now, and whose quality either has not changed much or changed more or less "linearly" (i.e. a light bulb today is equivalent to about six light bulbs from 1900, etc.). It's a tricky subject with lots of stuff written about it (there's actually a paper out there which tries to convert, however imperfectly, prices obtained from ancient Sumerian clay tablets into some kind of price index).VolunteerMarek 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Blackpool North Pier
Thanks for the copyedit. I'm not exactly the best writer in the world and appreciate the hand! WormTT · (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Bentworth for GA again
Long time no see, Malleus. I retired from Wikipedia a couple of months ago and I'm not going to stay on here for that long either - but if you're not busy at the moment, please could you take a look at something you reviewed last year? User:Ukiws has just nominated Bentworth for GA. If you look at the article now, you might see that it would be a little bit hard for it too pass! It's a copy editing nightmare - but I will get it done. Which revision of Bentworth do you prefer? My version or Ukiw's version? Not asking you to copy edit it, I'll do it later. :-D Jaguar (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see Ukiwi's version, has it been deleted? Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The link should work now, there was one too many digits in it. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It works now, thanks for that. Jaguar (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- A copy editing nightmare you say. I believe I've worked a small miracle..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you have doctor - the article looks better than ever now! It really is; I can't believe it. If you want I can go through any information in the article and add more. Also I noticed that you asked Ericoides for some pictures - I would be able to take pictures of Bentworth and its houses instantly, but I dropped my camera in the sea last month. Shame. Jaguar (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- A copy editing nightmare you say. I believe I've worked a small miracle..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It works now, thanks for that. Jaguar (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The link should work now, there was one too many digits in it. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Question for you
Malleus, I have a question. It's nothing to do with the to-do, which may be a nice change of pace. There's an article been nominated for speedy deletion due to notability issues, and it's for a Chinese TV show. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuanyuan Jian: Tian Zhi Hen. The only "sources" are entirely in Chinese. What is the policy for inclusion on the English Wikipedia for sources that are not in English? Google Chrome translates the pages into nonsense for me (thank you), and I don't see how they can be entirely relied upon if we can't read them at all. As you can see (if you go to the article) I was told that sources needn't be in English on the English WP, but no one has provided me with any link to policy and I can't quite see how one can do without any English sources on the English WP. Please inform. Thank you.--TEHodson 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: it's covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. If there are questions, a translation can be requested. One problem I see is that Baike Baidu really doesn't look like a reliable source (user-generated content). Sina.com is the other reference, described in our article as "the largest Chinese-language infotainment web portal"; not sure how that fits, RS-wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you; that did help. It seems to say that the person generating the article must make English-language notes so that the rest of us can understand the source to some degree. The Sina.com article cited looks to me like an advertisement for the show, but I can't really tell. The person pushing the article isn't helping much (which is business-as-usual for him). If you want to weigh in, please do.--TEHodson 02:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:)
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what I've done to deserve that, but it's very welcome. Despite the koala bear reference (falling out the tree because they're perpetually pissed) tea is my favourite drink, and especially so with a digestive biscuit (or two). Malleus Fatuorum 07:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Meermin (VOC ship) anyone…?
Hello Malleus, yes I'm after a favour again! If I may: do you think that you (or any of your stalkers!) might feel like running a comb through Meermin (VOC ship)? I forked it out of Meermin slave mutiny, after another editor's suggestion, and already it's been rated B-Class– the rating editor thinks it's ready for GA (if anyone's inclined to review it, let me know!), but makes the entirely reasonable suggestion that someone else might look at the writing first. No problem if not. Enjoy your tea! :o) Nortonius (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow--such a great looking article, such a beautiful name, and it's a slave ship. Now, who would ever have easy access to this kind of information without Wikipedia? Sorry for the propaganda, Malleus, but it never ceases to amaze me how much there still is to learn about the world and our history. Which reminds me: I plugged Sebald's The Emigrants earlier; I'm reading his Austerlitz right now and it's amazing. I think you might like it too. Plus, it has pictures! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- lol– did you see who's been contributing to the mutiny article in recent weeks? Not that I'm being paranoid or anything! ;op Nortonius (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Give me the nod when you're ready, Malleus, and I'll put up a GAN for Meermin (VOC ship), I expect under Wikipedia:GAN#Transport…? :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Totally different subject...
But you up to looking at Pain fitzJohn? Peer review was helpful but I'm ready to take it to FAC soon, I think. Although I'm in the wikicup, this one will not be a wikicup nomination as I did most of the work long before this year, so it won't be a problem with your desire to stick away from Wikicup work. I'm finally sorta kinda feeling human. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll get onto it later; it'll take my mind off the proposed ArbCom decisions. To be honest I'm not bothered whether it's a cup nomination or not, my views on that have mellowed a little ... must be getting old. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think John de Gray will be my first FAC that'll count for the cup... he's up after Pain. I'm also about halfway through the initial run of Billy Boy, but I'm too sick to concentrate on that level of research at the moment. I think the ArbCom is going better than I had hopes of. RfA isn't really a loss to you (although your input there is usually good, to my mind. There are times however when you get just a mite bit stubborn.... but who doesn't sometimes?) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do, you're quite right. A topic ban from RfA does indeed seem likely now, but as you say, no great loss. Although I think it's unhealthy to stifle criticism, I can understand that in a way the proposed decision is perhaps intended to protect me from further indiscretions as much as to prevent any so-called disruption at that venue. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would certainly view it in that way. Revisiting all this a month later also led me to reflect upon John's unblock and the problems associated with undoing a bad block while discussion is ongoing. I sincerely hope he will simply be "reminded" and not "warned" or "admonished" for this: I find the expression of regret in his evidence very genuine, and similar to the way I would think about it (in my experience, we do have a similar approach). In his position, I would not only regret that the unblock did not reduce drama, but also that whereas the unblock may have seemed in your best interests at the time (by righting an injustice), it was not in your "enlightened" best interests to do so prematurely, as it allowed you to contribute to an ongoing discussion where escalation and intemperate comments would be inevitable.
- Hindsight is 20-20, but sometimes there are general insights to be gained from specific incidents. Geometry guy 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't much care what happens to me, but I'm encouraged that John seems not to be in line for any serious sanctions. He and I have had our moments, but I think he's one of the good guys. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Me too. Incidentally, I do think the RfArb is heading for a better outcome than it would have done had you declined to contribute. Geometry guy 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- All thanks to SandyG. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quite: I hope she does not doubt the wisdom of her advice, as I think it was very good advice. Geometry guy 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I remember offering the same advice (that Malleus should take part in the case), but it was a bit earlier and the timing was not as good. Given the speed of voting (rather astonishing, really) the case may close soon. If Malleus will take advice from me, one of the things to do after a case closes is to try not to get involved in anything in the days and weeks immediately afterwards (regardless of provocation), or at least be very clear in your mind how to deal with anything that happens. You'd be surprised how often things can blow up again immediately after a case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quite: I hope she does not doubt the wisdom of her advice, as I think it was very good advice. Geometry guy 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- All thanks to SandyG. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Me too. Incidentally, I do think the RfArb is heading for a better outcome than it would have done had you declined to contribute. Geometry guy 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't much care what happens to me, but I'm encouraged that John seems not to be in line for any serious sanctions. He and I have had our moments, but I think he's one of the good guys. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do, you're quite right. A topic ban from RfA does indeed seem likely now, but as you say, no great loss. Although I think it's unhealthy to stifle criticism, I can understand that in a way the proposed decision is perhaps intended to protect me from further indiscretions as much as to prevent any so-called disruption at that venue. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of purification rituals
Hi Malleus!
The New York Times had an interesting essay on exorcisms today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. The difficulty that people who believe in God have is that they're forced by logic to also believe in an anti-God, and so few of them are equipped to deal with that dichotomy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Every Satan worshiper was a Christian to begin with. But an anti-God is not the same as a non-God, nessecelery. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- You do realise you're debating with an anti-theist? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Our article on this is antitheism, which gives three possibly meanings for the term. A related perspective (besides the obvious "atheist" and "agnostic" ones), which I consider to be an interesting viewpoint, is ignosticism. Geometry guy 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- My own belief is that the belief in the existence of any kind of god is a throwback back to our Stone Age ancestors ... I guess that means I'll never be a president of the US though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Very astute. Will the Americans elect a black man to president? Yes; they have. A woman? Quite likely. A homosexual? Possible. An atheist? Not in my life time, and likely a good deal of time after that. I read the other week that Santorum had stated that Europe's problems were because of the European belief in rationalism. Dear me. Pedro : Chat 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Believers in a God do not have to believe in an anti-God. How does logic make one think that, Malleus? Metsfreak2121 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- How much time do you have? How can there be good without bad? Or black without white? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There very well can be good without bad. That is why the world that we live in is so incredible. When you take a step and look past crime and our negative parts, you can see the beauty of the planet in which we live. If for each good force there was an equally bad force, we'd be living in some sort of hell and mediocre place. I think that my life is more than mediocre. I would hope the same for everyone else. Metsfreak2121 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect Malleus (and no, I don't belong here so if you tell me to buzz off I will) you're trying to apply human logic to an omnipotent god....which by definition is rather counter-productive. Assuming there is a god means assuming that he is not bound by our rules. That there is no opposite to god, IMO, is part of the reason why no one can fully understand the concept without blind faith. Heck, we can't wrap our head around big numbers, why should the infinite be any different? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- How much time do you have? How can there be good without bad? Or black without white? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- My own belief is that the belief in the existence of any kind of god is a throwback back to our Stone Age ancestors ... I guess that means I'll never be a president of the US though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Our article on this is antitheism, which gives three possibly meanings for the term. A related perspective (besides the obvious "atheist" and "agnostic" ones), which I consider to be an interesting viewpoint, is ignosticism. Geometry guy 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- You do realise you're debating with an anti-theist? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Every Satan worshiper was a Christian to begin with. But an anti-God is not the same as a non-God, nessecelery. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really belong here either, but yeah I noticed that too. I was surprised because Mallius is clearly a very wise man - that's why I've been reading his talk page for the last few weeks. I don't really believe in God, but I do believe in what I call "some sort of god-like thing". Sometimes I tell my teenage grandchildren that I can remember when I was a teen and thought I knew everything, but with maturity I began to realize that I thought I knew everything because I was still too dumb to know how much there actually was to know that I'd never even heard of. I've never lost that feeling of humbleness and have tried to Look for Truth - No Matter Where It Takes You. Yes, we can't even understand "spooky" physics, so it's best we not get too puffed up thinking how smart we are. It has been said that "The opposite of a great truth is another great truth". That's beyond my understanding, just like spooky physics is, but I'm guessing that we are hardly more than teenagers in our understanding of the universe and how it works. Here is a good discussion by David Peat [2]. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of religion and exorcism, Malleus, I saw you made some edits to George Went Hensley a couple days ago. (Thanks for doing that, feel free to weigh in at the FAC.) He would have an interesting take on this, to say the least, believing that one should wrap the anti-God around oneself in a show of dominance. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
arbcom, wqa, and you
I've made a statement regarding you and WQA which I believe is accurate [3] however please feel free to edit that portion of my comment if I have misspoke. Nobody Ent 16:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Magic cure for you to consider
Laugh much, much more often. And try to resist the temptation of the fast-response thing. If it helps you to laugh about the Arbs, consider the ArbCom Secret Ballet with extra accessories of fishnet tights, whips, and handcuffs. Pesky (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Only someone who'd never seen an Arbcom member in the flesh could say such a thing, even in jest. I don't think any of the current batch is on it, but this page should give you some idea what to expect. 188.29.218.248 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the wrong page ... I expect I can find the right one, though! And I'm an absolute Wiz (or witch) with Photoshop, I could make them look ... kinda appealing ... in the dance gear! Pesky (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't notice that someone's unilaterally redirected it - this is the correct link. Making this lot look appealing won't take Photoshop, it'll take voodoo. 188.29.218.248 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- My first photoshop job was taking the tubes out of a dead baby's nose. Ning-ning (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- ...pondering the reasons for creating a fictitious user name, then posting a photo of oneself. (And I wouldn't mind seeing AnonEmouse in fishnet tights.)--TEHodson 06:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't notice that someone's unilaterally redirected it - this is the correct link. Making this lot look appealing won't take Photoshop, it'll take voodoo. 188.29.218.248 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the wrong page ... I expect I can find the right one, though! And I'm an absolute Wiz (or witch) with Photoshop, I could make them look ... kinda appealing ... in the dance gear! Pesky (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(beats head on desk) ...
As if having the TFA wasn't stressful enough... Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA1. By someone who hasn't edited since Sept 2010 and has under 100 edits. Never done a GA review before. Why me??? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just luck I guess. I haven't looked at the article, but the review is patently ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is an odd situation, but I don't see a way forward other than renomination. Geometry guy 00:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is silly but this is even worse. le sigh. I would withdraw from the review then try again for another reviewer. If push comes to shove, I will do it. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's a good job that Ealdgyth is an experienced editor who won't be put off by this. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- "This review welcomes a second opinion" it says. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- And? Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The second opinion is that the first opinion was crap" perhaps? Geometry guy 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- For info, I've left a courtesy note on the reviewer's talk page. Geometry guy 02:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The second opinion is that the first opinion was crap" perhaps? Geometry guy 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- And? Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- "This review welcomes a second opinion" it says. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is an odd situation, but I don't see a way forward other than renomination. Geometry guy 00:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've renom'd. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- If Guerillero doesn't pick this up in the next few days I'll do the review once I'm done with the ship article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I put Pain up also... next up is a return to ecclesiasticalness - John de Gray] - but he's a "bad boy" bishop (well, sorta). He's at least a councillor of King John - which always gets bonus points in the bad boy department. You feel up to putting John on your list for soon? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- If Guerillero doesn't pick this up in the next few days I'll do the review once I'm done with the ship article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I just don't think...
Sorry | |
I'm much better at knowing what to do than actually doing it. I will try to remember. Pesky (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
Sometimes I over-think ...
Also sorry | |
I'm much better at doing the right things I've been shown than determining what is actually right. I will try to remember as well. My76Strat (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
- What are you and Pesky referring to? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've been wondering the same thing. My best guess is that it is a response to your weariness at receiving frequent advice, but I could be completely wrong! Geometry guy 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really know what motivated Pesky, but I seized the moment as it occurred to me and I saw a chance to reciprocate. Metaphorically acknowledging that we, (Pesky and I) arrived at the same place, (supportive of your efforts) by different paths of reason. That's the skinny on mine. My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Geometry guy's correct; I apologise for unwanted advice which you're heartily sick of! Unfortunately, having been teacher, parent, grand-parent and parent-substitute for a long time, the dishing-out of advice just becomes a habit. Pesky (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eight solid weeks of being told what an arse you are, and how much better Wikipedia would be if you just fucked off can have a rather wearing effect. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe being told that your "contributions at RfA" are a "sad side show" will help you reach closure..., or at least better to understand the fidelity of the committee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I find that rather an extraordinary statement for an arbitrator to have made. But then they're all administrators with a vested interest in the sanctity of RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Particularly after the criticisms of the Arbs (Hawkeye and Thumperward) for making remarks liable to interpretation of put-downs of you soon after using their administrative powers.
- But the
characteruniform behavior was revealed by the election, during which my endorsement was accepted, and after which it was spurned, conveniently. (I could not imagine e.g. WTT, whatever our past differences, accepting a bad endorsement.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I find that rather an extraordinary statement for an arbitrator to have made. But then they're all administrators with a vested interest in the sanctity of RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe being told that your "contributions at RfA" are a "sad side show" will help you reach closure..., or at least better to understand the fidelity of the committee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eight solid weeks of being told what an arse you are, and how much better Wikipedia would be if you just fucked off can have a rather wearing effect. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really know what motivated Pesky, but I seized the moment as it occurred to me and I saw a chance to reciprocate. Metaphorically acknowledging that we, (Pesky and I) arrived at the same place, (supportive of your efforts) by different paths of reason. That's the skinny on mine. My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've been wondering the same thing. My best guess is that it is a response to your weariness at receiving frequent advice, but I could be completely wrong! Geometry guy 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, I would never call you an arse, and I can't see how you "just fucking off" could really benefit the 'pedia. Being me, though, I find it really hard not to suggest tweaks here and there! [Pesky bites thumbs in self-restraint]. It never ceases to amaze me, though, how people (some Arbs, some Admins) can fail to see that they are doing the exact same thing, in different clothing, as the thing they're criticising others for. @Kiefer wolfy-wits, I actually think that if WTT had got in, he'd have made a very thoughtful Arb. I think the added responsibility would probably have brought out the very best in him. Regardless of your previous spats and so on, I'm so sure that he has his head basically screwed on right, and his heart in the right place. I've never known him (yet) to have actual ill-intent towards someone; we're all fallible, and I really hope that you and he eventually develop a strong cameraderie. I think the results could be amazing. It would be so good if you could actually meet in Real Life, share a beer and a pie somewhere relaxing, and talk a few things out (while under the relaxing influence of said beer). I have just the pub for you ... Pesky (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just asking!
Hi Malleus, I wonder, did you miss this on Pesky's talk and this above? Or, perhaps you're "otherwise engaged", changed your mind, or something…? Either way is fine, obviously– just asking! :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't forgotten, but I'd got the idea that Senra was going to do the review? If I got hold of the wrong end of the stick then I'll sign up for it later this evening, but I'm off out now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you did get the wrong end of the stick it was probably my fault (not being completely self-effacing here, "my fault"'s in the diffs!)– ok, maybe ping me here when you get in, then I'll post the GAN…? I'm thinking I'll put {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Transport}} on Talk:Meermin (VOC ship). Speak later then, and I'll ping Senra then too. :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, start the nomination as soon as you like. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great, I'll go and do it right now. Nortonius (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- …and it's listed! :o) Nortonius (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick Malleus, thank you! :o) Possibly one of the most painless GANs? I can't really say as I've only done one before, but it certainly felt painless! And, I've added the number of crew now, from an existing ref in the right place– even that was painless. I look forward to finding out more about the ship and taking the article further, e.g. with Senra's help when he's available. I'm off to bed now so that's a great way to end the day, thanks again for taking on the review. :o) Nortonius (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. It's a joy to work with an editor committed to the same thing I am, making our articles better in whatever way we can. I'd be a bit cautious about rushing to FAC with either of them though until they look like a proper pair, if you see what I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick Malleus, thank you! :o) Possibly one of the most painless GANs? I can't really say as I've only done one before, but it certainly felt painless! And, I've added the number of crew now, from an existing ref in the right place– even that was painless. I look forward to finding out more about the ship and taking the article further, e.g. with Senra's help when he's available. I'm off to bed now so that's a great way to end the day, thanks again for taking on the review. :o) Nortonius (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, start the nomination as soon as you like. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you did get the wrong end of the stick it was probably my fault (not being completely self-effacing here, "my fault"'s in the diffs!)– ok, maybe ping me here when you get in, then I'll post the GAN…? I'm thinking I'll put {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Transport}} on Talk:Meermin (VOC ship). Speak later then, and I'll ping Senra then too. :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kind words indeed Malleus! :o) Frankly, you made the GAN a joy; that's two out of two GANs thoroughly enjoyed, whatever next! Touch wood… Understood about FAC, I'd like to see a nice pair too. lol Anyway more info is needed, for the ship at least, and I'm hopeful that this will appear in the coming weeks or months. While I'm here, I just thought to ask your opinion on something, if I may. I saw this a while back, where Ruhrfisch expresses confusion in differentiating inline citations from explanatory footnotes. It got me thinking (always a dangerous thing!), and I ended up changing the explanatory footnote group name at Reculver from "nb" to "Fn", so that appearances in the body actually include an abbreviation of "Footnote". Is that a bonkers waste of time, an improvement, or…? Ta. Nortonius (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to use "nb", but "Fn" seems fine to me as well. Ealdgyth tends to use letters "a", "b" and so on, which I have a slight preference for as it's visually more compatible with the numbered citations, but so long as you're consistent I don't think it really matters what style you choose to adopt. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, Ealdgyth pointed that method out to me; my own feeling is that e.g. [1][a] looks uncomfortably like [1a], whereas e.g. [1][Fn 1] is distinct and (relatively) easily comprehended. Also Template:Efn is a bit limited, since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet; that'd be a problem for Reculver's (current) 53 efns(!), and I'm sure I've seen "aa bb cc etc." somewhere, ugh. But yes, consistency rules. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hawkeye and... Margaret
I found this remark striking, even though it is typically MF. I read here some sympathy (and annoyance with process) that Hawkeye is likely to suffer the most from this case.
On an unrelated note, your reminders of joint work drew my attention to the fact that Margaret is now the subject of an individual GA reassessment. I have commented already. Geometry guy 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am what I am, and what you see is what you get. I am indeed annoyed at the outcome from Hawkeye7's point of view, and I don't think he deserved that. I hadn't noticed Maggie's GAR, but I guess I'll mosey along there later, or perhaps tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I saw a post earlier about printing out the AC decision and how to use that piece of paper. (don't see it at the moment in the form I first read), but it goes to the heart of things as far as consistency. As much as I might cringe at things (usually just the thought of the impending drama), I know that here is a place where I get the same thing .. all the time ..every time. There's no backsliding, no, "but, but, but" mealy mouthed bullshit from Mal. It's always yes .. that's what I said, and I stand by it. How can you not respect that? I disagree with Malleus on a lot of things - but at the end of the day, when I come ask the really important question: "How can I make this article better?" .. I get a straight up answer that's accurate and valuable.
- As far as the civility thing goes .. I took a shot at something that seems to have gone a bit awry of what I was thinking, but I did make this comment. Perhaps a bit self-serving, but I wondered if any of you folks had a thought on that. — Ched : ? 08:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- by the way Malleus .. I think you should ... (just kidding) — Ched : ? 08:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking for offenses is the role of referees in all American sports, which is why Americans have such difficulty understanding football (association football, or soccer) and usually make terrible referees.
- "To go through life prickly towards all things is the wisdom of the hedgehog" sprach Schopenhauer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
tells us that "Trial by ordeal is a judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience. In some cases, the accused are considered innocent only if they survive the test or if their injuries heal", so congratulations for coming through yours more or less intact, just missing a finger or two, and your toe-nails. Perhaps, the way things are, you should look on the RFA topic ban in the spirit of a law forbidding the hunting of some species nearing extinction. I hope you will stick around. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Malleus, it's over, and they didn't even call you a dick in the final ruling. I don't know if you're happy or not, and I was going to open a beer tonight anyway, but I'll toast you even if you don't care. Oh, I'm almost finished with Austerlitz. The first paragraph ended on page 84, and then I had a dream that the whole was nothing but short paragraphs and I had miscounted. It's a fantastic read. Happy days Malleus, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm neither happy nor unhappy just resigned. The topic ban has set a dangerous precedent, but that's not my problem. As for the admonishment, I'll print it out and wipe my arse with that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
- Thumperward (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.
- John (talk · contribs) is admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
- Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's; however, should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. Further, Malleus Fatuorm is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
- Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.
- All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
- The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
- Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee:
Mlpearc (powwow) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's actually... semi-reasonable. I mean, it's got the usual "if we smack person X some, then we must also smack person Y a bit just to preserve the illusion of even-handedness, regardless of actual circumstances" aspect to it (point #3), which is basically the ArbCom covering their asses (and if there is actually a particular objective that the ArbCom tries to maximize, rather than just flapping in the wind, it's very much "cover our own asses first" (for better or worse)). I've seen worse.
My suggestion is for you to take this as a vindication of both your presence and approach to Wikipedia editing and run with it. I mean that seriously. However much they are afraid to say it out loud, it does seem like at least the ArbCom folks do appreciate you being here - insert required pandering to the mob kind of exceptions here - as do a lot of us. In other words, go back to doing what you were doing before this whole mess came up. Call people cunts if need be and help out with the stuff that really matters.VolunteerMarek 07:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is an unprincipled and outrageous misuse of process. Now, every dimwitted, lazy, and ignorant administrator can more easily stop discussion or dissent by labeling it "disruptive"---since ArbCom has set the dimwitted, lazy, and ignorant precedent. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now, every dimwitted, lazy, and ignorant administrator can more easily stop discussion or dissent by labeling it "disruptive" - yeah, but they already do do that.VolunteerMarek 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure on that one; it's possible that this may have the opposite effect of making admins that bit more careful of piling-on sanctions without better community backing for them. We shall see. Pesky (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am at least glad to see the scope widened to "all users" as opposed to just editors.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the wording of the RfA permissions ban, but overall I agree with VM... I think ArbCOM acted in a manner that essentially said, "Let's not be the committee that runs MF off the project." I expected something a little harsher for you (not that I wanted it), but I did expect something stronger.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- So do I. And anyone who thinks I'll be taking part in an RFC/U after this is living in la-la land. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have wanted to be an Arb on this case. But then I wouldn;t want to be an Arb, full stop. Though I might actually make a halfway good one, IMHO. I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just paste here what I've said on KW's talk: Things could have gone so much better, yes – but they could even more easily have gone so much worse. I think, with the strength (and sheer number) of views / feelings in this, the Arbs were not so much between a rock and a hard place as between a poison-eel-and-shark-infested reef, a vast amount of noisy and thunderous surf, and a shoreline on which they could already see cannibals wielding spears and cooking utensils. And a ship behind them which was infested with lice and infected with typhus. Pesky (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've just commented on this at John's talk page. Basically the outcome was obvious to everyone with any nouse pretty much from day one; the rest was just ritual, which is why I referred to it as a show trial. ArbCom needs a bloody good shake up ... in fact it needs someone like me, and someone like you to rein me in when I go for the throat. :-) Malleus Fatuorum
- Malleus, there's more chance of us both simultaneously winning the lottery two weeks running than there is of either of us ever getting an Arb hat! Particularly as neither of us is likely ever to apply for one ... Pesky (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Giano put himself forward the election before last, and did creditably well, so don't be too sure. The major impediment in his case was his refusal to identify himself to the WMF, IIRC. So never say never. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, if you became an admin first, you're right, you might have a good shot at being an arb. --Elonka 20:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now that will never happen, despite what I just said above. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- He has a much better chance of passing ArbCOM elections than he would an RFA... the voting community is different and expects different things. It would make for an interesting campaign.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, if you became an admin first, you're right, you might have a good shot at being an arb. --Elonka 20:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Giano put himself forward the election before last, and did creditably well, so don't be too sure. The major impediment in his case was his refusal to identify himself to the WMF, IIRC. So never say never. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, there's more chance of us both simultaneously winning the lottery two weeks running than there is of either of us ever getting an Arb hat! Particularly as neither of us is likely ever to apply for one ... Pesky (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've just commented on this at John's talk page. Basically the outcome was obvious to everyone with any nouse pretty much from day one; the rest was just ritual, which is why I referred to it as a show trial. ArbCom needs a bloody good shake up ... in fact it needs someone like me, and someone like you to rein me in when I go for the throat. :-) Malleus Fatuorum
- I wouldn't have wanted to be an Arb on this case. But then I wouldn;t want to be an Arb, full stop. Though I might actually make a halfway good one, IMHO. I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just paste here what I've said on KW's talk: Things could have gone so much better, yes – but they could even more easily have gone so much worse. I think, with the strength (and sheer number) of views / feelings in this, the Arbs were not so much between a rock and a hard place as between a poison-eel-and-shark-infested reef, a vast amount of noisy and thunderous surf, and a shoreline on which they could already see cannibals wielding spears and cooking utensils. And a ship behind them which was infested with lice and infected with typhus. Pesky (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I expected less than this. I figured there would be more general principles and less specific punishment. I'm not disappointed with the rulings overall, but I don't like the topic ban. I thought the evidence was that the majority of your participation there was fine. It seems an admonishment for certain behavior there with the threat of a topic ban should such behavior continue would have been more beneficial to the project. That said, I think it's probably better for your blood pressure that you not hang around that page. I doubt it's changed much if any over the past few years, and I recall it being one of the deepest cesspools on the project. Time better spent elsewhere and all that. Glad you're not the one that got hanged in this mess. Lara 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- WT:RFA is the reason I watchlisted User:X!/Tally rather than WP:RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, all the best fights happen outside the ring don't they? Welcome back MF. It's as if you'd never been away. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that by now everyone must know what my chosen outcome would have been; while the civility policy is in such a poor state, with so much room for multiple interpretations and no boundaries, amnesty for everyone involved in this case. The whole thing rests on people interpreting the civility policy differently, and applying sanctions unequally – the damned thing's just crying out to be abused. That, combined with an instruction that it has to be comprehensively re-thunk and re-worded, by people who know the spirit behind it, and can write clearly. So much of our policy is atrociously written. I really do feel, sometimes, that people go out of their way to word stuff in "formalese", and it comes out being pompous and barely comprehensible. And people admire their own professor-level wording so much that they totally fail to observe the glaring error hidden in it! There is nothing wrong with putting things into language that kids can comprehend; it's not as if it stops more mature people from understanding it, too!
- P.S. There's some embryonic tinkering going on in Ched's workshop, for anyone who feels they could help produce a new baby. Pesky (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, all the best fights happen outside the ring don't they? Welcome back MF. It's as if you'd never been away. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- WT:RFA is the reason I watchlisted User:X!/Tally rather than WP:RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I expected less than this. I figured there would be more general principles and less specific punishment. I'm not disappointed with the rulings overall, but I don't like the topic ban. I thought the evidence was that the majority of your participation there was fine. It seems an admonishment for certain behavior there with the threat of a topic ban should such behavior continue would have been more beneficial to the project. That said, I think it's probably better for your blood pressure that you not hang around that page. I doubt it's changed much if any over the past few years, and I recall it being one of the deepest cesspools on the project. Time better spent elsewhere and all that. Glad you're not the one that got hanged in this mess. Lara 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ooo topic banned, how severe. And this took eight weeks of lugubrious "discussion"? I was thinking Malleus. If you have a toxic personality do you keep mutated sea bass with frickin laser beams in a lurid toxic pea green tank like myself?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- As you noted, the discussion on Talk:Arbitration is remarkable for the performances of the Arbs Hersfold and AGK, who exceeded even Sandstein on the usual salient measures. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- They make Sandstein seem rational, which is something I never thought I'd see myself write. Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- FYI. I saw mention somewhere that Bishonen is steamed about the arbs lack of civility,
but I missed the location of this Hersfold and AGK issue referenced above.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)- Never mind-- I've found it now, right above the post I saw from Bish (I didn't read the whole thread, only saw Bish's diff). Oh my. This place really is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- As you noted, the discussion on Talk:Arbitration is remarkable for the performances of the Arbs Hersfold and AGK, who exceeded even Sandstein on the usual salient measures. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ooo topic banned, how severe. And this took eight weeks of lugubrious "discussion"? I was thinking Malleus. If you have a toxic personality do you keep mutated sea bass with frickin laser beams in a lurid toxic pea green tank like myself?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so pleased you have survived this torture. While I can't be bothered to write I have tortured myself by reading bits of the soap opera it descended into. What I have learned is just how "slippery" some editors are, especially ones whose names I've seen on your page and imagined were friendly. Actually, in my way, I am far less civil than you, I'm surprised I'm still here. Some people just don't get it until they're told straight, and don't get it even then, and that's the problem here. J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly the second-most important thing to remember, sometimes, is that compared to geniuses, most people really are stupid. And the most important thing is that they can't help it, and telling them they're stupid, or yelling, or cussing them out for it, will no more change that than it will change the colour of their eyes. Sometimes people just can't see things. Pesky (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I actually find that truly stupid people are hard to find/keep their stupidity hidden quite well. For example, I can speak to and be friends with or work with someone for months and think they're of normal intelligence if a little odd, then suddenly during some dispute their true thoughts and opinions will come to light and it hits you like a brick in the face. "This person I'm dealing with is amazingly stupid." It's upsetting. Do you have any tips on dealing with stupid people, O Wise Pesky? :P OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as an intermittently-stupid person myself (I have the genius/stupidity thing down pat), patience, patience and more patience. Imagine they're a dog which you're attempting to teach its times tables. Or something. Plain stupidity, though frustrating, is literally something people can't grow out of. On an actual serious note, having taught people who are quite literally in the "stupid" category (IQ below 75), they have been some of the sweetest, gentlest people I know, and most animals tend to love them. Pesky (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Might we be confusing stupid with stubborn or inflexible? I've known some technically intelligent people (bordering on genius) who were simply unable to acknowledge that any position other than theirs might be correct. Or their intelligence might be so narrowly focused as to be useless in normal conversation. Personally, I find the terminally stubborn much harder to deal with than someone who's 'stupid.'Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as an intermittently-stupid person myself (I have the genius/stupidity thing down pat), patience, patience and more patience. Imagine they're a dog which you're attempting to teach its times tables. Or something. Plain stupidity, though frustrating, is literally something people can't grow out of. On an actual serious note, having taught people who are quite literally in the "stupid" category (IQ below 75), they have been some of the sweetest, gentlest people I know, and most animals tend to love them. Pesky (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I remember when the answers seemed so clear ...
... but now it's only shades of grey. I didn't know what this song even meant when I first fell in love with it. Yup, back in 1967. Heh! I'm getting old! Pesky (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what would have happened ...
... if you had said the things that were said here. My own thoughts are at the end of that very long thread. Pesky (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I expect that there would have been a lot of badgering at ANI and ArbCom along the lines of "Look! Look! Look at what he's done now!" But curiously that's the kind of thing I'd be very unlikely ever to say. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought this encyclopaedia was finished?
I had occasion to walk around a bit of Manchester today, and some work going on around the Cathedral piqued my interest. It's apparently to link Salford and Manchester, so I walked over Victoria Bridge to check it out. All very nice I'm sure, but I was struck by the bridge's dilapidated condition, so checked out its history on Wiki. Except there's no article on one of Manchester's more venerable bridges. That'll be rectified by tomorrow, but what I thought I'd mention is that one dubious website claims that a cheeky Times typesetter used an "i" instead of "a" when he fixed the line "Her Majesty passed over the bridge and declared it open." I can't wait to find out if that's true or not.
Not that it matters, of course. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I worked on one bridge, the Hanging Bridge, but I see that was three years ago now. And yeah, I too find the claims that the encyclopedia is finished to be quite incredible. There isn't even an article for everyone in the ODNB, never mind Manchester's bridges. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I walked past that today, amazing that it's still down there. You can only see a little bit of it. Maybe we should do something to improve coverage of Manchester's bridges, after all, all the London bridges have articles. Did you know that Blackfriar's Bridge in Manchester was once lined with decorative pillars, until someone decided that the sight of turds, bleach and dead fish (or similar) was too much - and filled in the gaps between the pillars? If you look at the bridge from the banks, you can clearly see where they did it. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well it'll give me something to do. I've been holding back on editing what with all the palaver above (I'm glad that they at least did something partially right) and truth be told I haven't read much of interest lately. A few bridges though should be fairly easy to sort out. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I started a series on Manchester theatres a little while ago, after seeing a mention of the Hulme Hippodrome somewhere. I didn't get very far with it though, ran out of steam. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- And while you're here, as you're a bit of a canal buff I have a question for you: we have an article on the Ashton Canal, but isn't its official name the Ashton-under-Lyne Canal? Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- No longer, it used to be called the Manchester and Ashton under Lyne Canal (and also may have had Oldham and Stockport in the title), but is now just the Ashton. It's a nice canal to cycle up if you're that way inclined, I've been as far as the old tunnel (which you have to leg boats through) and back. Parrot of Doom 00:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tameside MBC's Ashton Canal history
- I remember them pulling the plug (literally) in the 70s when we had a community effort to clean it and the Dukinfield part of the Peak Forest Canal out. I helped at a small part of the Portland Basin clean-up and used to walk along them from Marple Locks and Stockport to Ashton (bus out, walk back). Chaosdruid (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not sure about Ashton-under-Lyne article itself, as it seems to vary alternately from "Ashton" to "Ashton-under-Lyne" throughout the body of the article - to not mention the Assheton-sub-lima and Ashton-sub-lima not being mentioned in there (Butterworth, 1823, p. 11)
As for the canal, I am just looking through the old OS and other docs and books to see when the name might have changed. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ashton's in my mind because I've been to the Ikea there three times in the last week or so. What a palaver! Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's what I keep telling my wife, but she's got it in her head that the Ikea in Ashton is closer. Even with satnav though, because of all the roadworks it's virtually impossible to find the way in to the car park. Ours tell us to turn right just at the last minute when actually you have to turn left. Gah is about right. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- One 1829 map has it as "Ashton Canal" [4]
- I agree, but it has changed so much since they filled in Ashton Moss for the lovely new shopping centres (you did detect my sarcasm right?) I shudder to think how much it will have changed in the last 5 years since I was back there. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- (P.S.) The 1848 OS map has it as "Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne Canal"
- I have just discovered this little snippet listing the acts Chaosdruid (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- SatNav pro-tip: bookmark the actual place where you've just turned in to the car park, and save that in your "favourites" wossname. Pesky (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is extensive and long-term road works in around the town centre, so the road layout may look different when we go there again. It's quite irritating really, because it's a massive building you can see from some distance away; it's just the last few hundred yards that are the killer. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- SatNav pro-tip: bookmark the actual place where you've just turned in to the car park, and save that in your "favourites" wossname. Pesky (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just discovered this little snippet listing the acts Chaosdruid (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
A Community of Witches
No worries, Malleus! All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
Copyedit request
Hi Malleus, I was wondering if you could give Chrisye a good copyedit. I know we've had our differences, but I'm hoping we can set them aside to improve content. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't remember any difficulties between us, but then I have rather a short memory for such things. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that. Thanks for taking a thorough look at the article. My last FAC failed on prose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Malleus, the article is at FAC now. I'm hoping it can get the star before the five year anniversary of Chrisye's death. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, English is my native language. I've just been living in Indonesia so long that the finer points have begun escaping me. When you speak a foreign tongue 24/7, it affects your thought patterns. That's actually why I became more active here... to make sure I didn't forget my native tongue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Meetup
Hi Malleus, it was a pleasure meeting you yesterday. Hope you had a safe journey home. The next Manchester meetup is being planned for late April, hope you can make it and your thoughts on venue would be welcome. the wub "?!" 11:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was nice to put so many faces to so many names. For me the venue was really convenient, just a very short walk from the tram station. Malleus Fatuorum 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not fond of the Art Cafe idea though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Say so. I much prefer the alleged depressive aspects of beer to the nerve-jangling effects of caffeine. I am unsure why the change has been proposed. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hear hear. Why retire to the pub after the meetup when you can have the meetup in the pub? And I'll second The wub—it was great to have a beer with you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Say so. I much prefer the alleged depressive aspects of beer to the nerve-jangling effects of caffeine. I am unsure why the change has been proposed. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Someone here confirm my suspicion that Malleus and Iridescent look like they stepped out of 300 with pecs so hard they could hammer nails and abs that could cut glass. And finely chiseled facial features that make one think of the Brawny Man, but not so finely chiseled or lantern-jawed they travel into Tom of Finland territory. Because we have a vision of manliness that is very confined. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, that's pretty much how they looked when I left - mind you I couldn't see straight by then. I think I'll avoid the Abbot Ale at 5% ABV next time, delicious though it was. Richerman (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, had some visual problems: I attended optimistically and left misty optically. Not sure whether it was the Abbot, the Wainwright, the Ilkley Black or one of the other five. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I'm always telling my wife - you don't go in a pub to get sober. Still I did manage to get on the the right bus home and wake up before my stop. If only I hadn't lost my balance when I got up to leave the pub I would have got away with my reputation intact. Richerman (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- We caught you before you hit the floor, didn't we? You know you're in good hands with the Manchester Cabal (disclaimer: there is no cabal). --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I'm always telling my wife - you don't go in a pub to get sober. Still I did manage to get on the the right bus home and wake up before my stop. If only I hadn't lost my balance when I got up to leave the pub I would have got away with my reputation intact. Richerman (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, had some visual problems: I attended optimistically and left misty optically. Not sure whether it was the Abbot, the Wainwright, the Ilkley Black or one of the other five. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, that's pretty much how they looked when I left - mind you I couldn't see straight by then. I think I'll avoid the Abbot Ale at 5% ABV next time, delicious though it was. Richerman (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Pecs? Abs? hur, hur, hur .... or was it just the Batman body-suit you had on underneath? Wotever, I'd really like to meet you, some time. Maybe you and the Mrs. should come down this-a-way for a holiday :D But not during the tourist season, you might get shot ... Pesky (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Might get shot?? Sounds pretty much like being an editor on wikipedia. Richerman (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of our locals think the tourist season should be like the pheasant season, the grouse season, and the salmon season! Pesky (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We in Montana also have that feeling at times, frequently immortalized on a bumper sticker. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the smarter ponies have it sussed; they operate a one-way tourist-valve at the entrance to the supermarket. Tourists are allowed in, no problem, but treats have to be provided to get back out again ... and as it's not permitted to feed the ponies (because they rapidly learn that tourists can be terrorised into offering food in self-defence), this can present something of a dilemma to tourists. However, there's often a local somewhere handy, who will walk up to the shop, say something along the lines of "Gaaaaarhhh! Gid arrdavit!" and, as if by magic, the ponies will heave a sigh, pull an evil face, and stalk off, mortally offended ... Pesky (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We've had a similar problem here, only with bears... Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, your locals are tough! "Grrr, get out of here" does not sound like the ideal response to a bear on a mission, so what do you say?
- I know what you're wondering, bear: "is this supermarket trolley heavy enough to roll over me or crush me into the nearest tree?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement of shopping, I kinda lost track myself. But being as I normally buy 24 packs of beer, large quantities of sugar and doughnuts, and juice by the gallon, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, bear?
- Geometry guy 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, your locals are tough! "Grrr, get out of here" does not sound like the ideal response to a bear on a mission, so what do you say?
- We've had a similar problem here, only with bears... Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the smarter ponies have it sussed; they operate a one-way tourist-valve at the entrance to the supermarket. Tourists are allowed in, no problem, but treats have to be provided to get back out again ... and as it's not permitted to feed the ponies (because they rapidly learn that tourists can be terrorised into offering food in self-defence), this can present something of a dilemma to tourists. However, there's often a local somewhere handy, who will walk up to the shop, say something along the lines of "Gaaaaarhhh! Gid arrdavit!" and, as if by magic, the ponies will heave a sigh, pull an evil face, and stalk off, mortally offended ... Pesky (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We in Montana also have that feeling at times, frequently immortalized on a bumper sticker. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some of our locals think the tourist season should be like the pheasant season, the grouse season, and the salmon season! Pesky (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
*'Ranger Smith: "Bears are supposed to avoid people, not run around stealing their food."
- Yogi Bear: "I agree, sir. That's why Boo-Boo and I would never disturb family pic-a-nics." Richerman (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder how different bears really are from ponies ... It doesn't matter to our local ponies whether they've actually met you or not, but they can always tell when trying it on might be a bad idea. I've had instances where an apprehensive tourist has been swinging a carrier bag towards a pony in what one would think might really be a frightening way, and the pony takes no real notice whatsoever (apart from pulling faces); yet if a pony-savvy person (preferably a semi-feral-pony-savvy person, as the SF's are a bit different in outlook to the fully domesticateds) scowls and says "Oi!" in a sufficiently authoritative tone, said pony will back off. Pesky (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days before posting it, but the effect seems to have outlasted the beer so here goes. I'd developed a kind of paranoia here, thinking that almost every hand was against me, not helped of course by the recent ArbCom case. But what the meetup showed is that although some editors, perhaps even a substantial number, believe me to be a shit of the first order, there are many others who don't. The (from my point of view) unexpected result is that I feel much more relaxed with other editors whether they agree with me or not. Strange. It'll be interesting to see if the effect survives a gritty FAC review, or a contentious GAR. I think it might. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to refer you back to a tradition that where we agree, that is (or should be, according to us!) a considerable consensus, and where we disagree, well, there are probably substantial issues to be discussed and understood. Geometry guy 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't forgotten that. There are some here like yourself who consistently speak with reason, and there are others like me who occasionally explode like a supernova with reason, but are otherwise pretty resistant to argument: 'cos we're right, or at least we think we are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I still recall an encouraging comment you made on my talk page a year ago about an edit to Maggie. In the spirit that kind/generous words (such as your comment here) should not pass by without notice, thank you again. Geometry guy 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- So I grab the opportunity to thank you for what you just added to an AN thread: "Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not." - Ready to frame it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I still recall an encouraging comment you made on my talk page a year ago about an edit to Maggie. In the spirit that kind/generous words (such as your comment here) should not pass by without notice, thank you again. Geometry guy 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, you went to the pub and didn't invite me. I'm only 200 miles away as well! Seriously speaking, do you think you could hve a wee look at that GAR you alerted me to a few days ago? I don't think there are serious grounds for concern, and in fact the one editor who seems to have a problem with the article has made some useful and valid points, once you get past the chip on their shoulder. I think it would beneit from your input if you feel like it. --John (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't forgotten that. There are some here like yourself who consistently speak with reason, and there are others like me who occasionally explode like a supernova with reason, but are otherwise pretty resistant to argument: 'cos we're right, or at least we think we are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I opened a discussion of the WMF's "rate this page" initiative to recruit editors from readers. Such recruitment "surveys" are prohibited by the ethical code of public-opinion researchers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The WMF will do as they please, no matter what anyone says. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Today's DYK has an expanded article on the Black Act, which may interest you and Parrot of Doom.
I added the references (for further reading) to E. P. Thompson's books, my copies of which I sold for a song when I moved to Europe. (The loss of my library is a wound that does not heal.)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
GAN policy advice
Hi Malleus, I'll skip most of the introduction as you don't know me anyway. I consider reviewing the God GAN. There is likely nobody entirely without an opinion on this topic; I want to do the review as unbiased as possible, but from a scientific viewpoint. I understand that you have extensive experience with audited content, and that you are not shy to offer an opinion. That's why I ask here instead of at the usual places:
- Should BLP be considered for this article? Existence or not, I would say no because I cannot remember anyone actually ascribing a metabolism to God. That's perhaps an overly simplistic view; the pragmatic position might be that S/He's not likely to sue the WMF.
- Should INUNIVERSE be enforced? I guess if I bring up the word "fiction" I'll not make many friends, but personally I find phrases like "God states that" problematic.
- Can the Bible or the Quran be reliable sources (for instance, for how God is like)? I would say that both did not develop a reputation for accuracy, but such opinion might hurt religious feelings. OTOH, when just talking about an idea, not an actual being, those should be the primary sources, and accuracy should be irrelevant? Are there any precedents on WP on how to handle this?
Thanks for reading this (This is a serious request for advice), Pgallert (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, BLP doesn't apply.
- I'd be cautious about explicitly applying the fictional in-universe metaphor, as that's likely to offend. But clearly God didn't say anything, so any "God states that ..." needs to be replaced by who says that God said that, for example along the lines of "according to the Gospel of St John ...".
- The Bible or the Quran can only be considered reliable sources for what they contain, much like the plot summary in a work of fiction. Anything else such as interpretation of the contents needs reliable secondary opinions. I'm afraid I'm not aware of general guidelines to help you with what I fear may become a difficult review, but perhaps another editor may be able to suggest something. Personally, I'd be inclined to consider God much as I'd consider a soap character, and deal with the article accordingly. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The caption for the map certainly needs reviewing- the assertion made that certain countries polled highest because they're "x" religion glosses over the different levels of belief displayed between countries in the same religious bloc, e.g. Portugal and Spain. Ning-ning (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Lack of nonspecific TFA nominations
Raul654 has started a poll as to the lack of nonspecific TFA nominations. Any thoughts?Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Moore, Alan. "Viewpoint: V for Vendetta and the rise of Anonymous". BBC News. Retrieved 11 February 2012.