Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Popular culture and other manifestations: expand slightly |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Civility: re |
||
Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
::::::* Comments such as this are not acceptable, especially on an FA review.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Juno_(film)/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=438687736] I'm not the only one who finds it objectionable, either.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Juno_(film)/archive1&diff=438686667&oldid=438681087] Is it deserving of a block? Not at the moment, but these things do add up, especially when someone continues to ignore warnings and continues to insult other editors. We're all volunteers here, let's try to treat each other with respect. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::::* Comments such as this are not acceptable, especially on an FA review.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Juno_(film)/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=438687736] I'm not the only one who finds it objectionable, either.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Juno_(film)/archive1&diff=438686667&oldid=438681087] Is it deserving of a block? Not at the moment, but these things do add up, especially when someone continues to ignore warnings and continues to insult other editors. We're all volunteers here, let's try to treat each other with respect. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::*And yet, here you are, ignoring warnings and insulting another editor. Where's the respect you ask for? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot]] [[User talk:Parrot of Doom|of Doom]]</span> 13:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::*And yet, here you are, ignoring warnings and insulting another editor. Where's the respect you ask for? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot]] [[User talk:Parrot of Doom|of Doom]]</span> 13:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
Once again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=438735668#Revert] Elonka, the appearance is that you came here to provoke Malleus over ... well, nothing ... and then to escalate the discussion to a point where you could threaten him with a block after apparently stalking his edits. Have you nothing better to do this week? Is perchance your undue attention to FAC editors this week related to the resignation of an arb friendly to you who referred despicably to that "pack of editors" (or some such thing) at FAC? Perhaps if you have an axe to grind, you can move along. Your first diffs show nothing: your final diffs (at FAC) are something that those of us who have some credibility can handle, sans meddling from someone who is not fond of FAC because of past interaction with copyeditors Tony1 and Jbmurray. <p> Malleus, you could tone down a few of those FAC comments. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Infantilization=== |
===Infantilization=== |
Revision as of 16:36, 10 July 2011
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. |
April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Table vs. graphic, and Super Science Stories
Thanks for the IE fix. I thought I'd take a look at the way it renders in different browsers and noticed a couple of minor issues, so I've added a gallery to the sandbox talk page. Easy to forget that HTML is a markup language, with all the limitations that that implies. I'm going to leave the sandbox running and perhaps eventually all the issues will be fixed; I would rather not switch to a table (though I wouldn't revert someone who did switch it) until it's all resolved.
On a related topic, I'm nearly done with Super Science Stories, the article I mentioned at WT:FAC which contains a large chunk of text from Astonishing Stories. I think if I were a reader coming to both articles I would prefer to find them with prose that appeared at least somewhat different, for variety if for no other reason. I've had a bit of a go at rewriting some of the material to present it differently but I'm finding it tough going, probably because I have the existing text in my mind as the result of previous editing (and your copyediting) and it's painful to deliberately veer away from something you know works well.
Would you be willing to make a pass through once I've finished working on it? I still have some organization to do on the Contents section, and then I'll do another copyedit and look for MOS stuff, but if you're interested I should have it ready for you to look at today or tomorrow. I ask partly because you've done some excellent copyedits on my work in the past, and because you reviewed Astonishing Stories, but if you don't fancy it that's fine -- I will just flog myself through it and see what I can manage. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The best way of thinking about HTML as far as presentation is concerned is to remember that you're really just making suggestions to an undoubtedly buggy browser, and that all browsers have different bugs. Let me know when you're done with Astonishing Stories. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- ... and thinking about it a bit more, I think the balance has now swung in favour of the table rather than the graphic, based on accessibility issues. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would that still be true if I added alt text saying e.g. "Editor Frederik Pohl from March 1940. March 1940 volume 1 number 1. May 1940 volume 1 number 2." etc.? Depending on what you say I'll either add alt text to the Super Science Stories graphics or replace them with tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That would represent a complete abuse of the purpose of alt text IMO. There was a great deal of misunderstanding on display last year when there was such a push to include elaborately descriptive alt texts, which I still see many mistakenly doing even today. The purpose of alt text isn't to describe the image but to act as concise and succinct alternative to it for those who either can't or choose not to see the image; a long alt text is therefore completely unhelpful to the reader, just so much distracting clutter. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll build the tables for Super Science Stories and add them in when they're done; once they're done I'll do it for Astonishing too. I wish we could get rid of the cell padding -- I made the graphics as small as possible in order to avoid collisions with section headings, and to allow space for magazine cover illustrations, and I hope we don't lose too much screen real estate with this change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Increasing the cell padding is easy, but reducing it beyond what the browser considers to be the minimum required is next to impossible. Another option of course might to use SVG graphics instead of PNG, which would look crisper when scaled down. So long as the table isn't necessary for an understanding of the article (which I doubt) you could then argue that there's no accessibility issue and the graphic looks at least as good as the table; on the basis of the old saw: "When you're offered two choices, always take the third." Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't really see an accessibility issue anyway, since the information is elsewhere in the article. The graphic is intended as a visual aid, not the only source of the information. I'm not sure I follow your "I doubt": do you doubt it's necessary or doubt it's not necessary? Yes, SVG would look better -- more of a pain to create but certainly doable. I might try that. But the pngs with the pixels specified to match the actual size are surely just as crisp? I've just started on the sandbox setup so I should have something to compare shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I meant that I doubt the graphic is necessary for an understanding of the article, as you say, it's just a visual aid. But I'm not the one complaining at the FAC, that would be Tony1. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to be fairly agreeable to changes at FAC; I assume that others, with fresh eyes, are more likely to be neutral. On this point, though, I'm unconvinced, and I am tempted to leave the images in. The tables (and I really do appreciate the work you did on improving them, by the way) are much better than they were, but to my eyes they don't look as good and are much more of a pain to create. I've changed the first two images to tables in Super Science Stories now, and I just don't like them as much as the images. The caption requires a forced wrap with a <br> tag, which leads to additional line spacing, which I don't like either. Maybe I just don't want to change what I've been doing. Nobody's actually opposed on this point, and since it's just a visual aid, perhaps it wouldn't be a valid oppose. I suspect that some of the FAC comments I've seen about the images are made on the basis of things like WP:ACCESS, without realizing that the data is also presented elsewhere. But then all FAC nominators tend to think they know the issues better than the reviewers, so I doubt my own judgement again. Sigh. Any advice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it were me I'd stick with the images, but probably do them again as SVGs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's good advice; it's certainly worth seeing what the SVGs look like. I'll fire up Inkscape and try to remember how it works. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I created a draft but ran into an Inkscape problem; I've posted a note at the graphics workshop to ask how to get around it. I'll let you know when I get it fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind if I stick my little oar in, but this should be an HTML table as this is exactly what tables were designed for. If the wikicode doesn't give you what you want then perhaps you should use pure HTML with proper CSS stylings to get the exact result you want. As for your SVG problem. The black boxes are being caused by the wiki software when it renders it down to a png thumbnail. The full size version doesn't have the black boxes. Just another reason why you should go the HTML route rather than the graphics route. Just a thought. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The table already has "proper" CSS stylings, but there is no way to reduce the cell padding to the extent that Mike wants. Unless you know differently, of course. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- None of the tables (that I checked) have their padding set to 0, a couple have the margin set at 2em, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Just set the padding to 0 in the styles section. I didn't check each and every table and I'm not sure which particular table is the problem. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The table is here. Setting the padding to 0 makes no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no padding set on that table. When it was tried did you set it for the table, row, column or cell? Has it been tried in proper HTML rather than wikitable? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not set now because it made no difference. Try it for yourself and see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would if I knew what was trying to be achieved, the existing tables looked fine to me. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mike wants less white space in each cell; compare the table with the graphic. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- In that case he shouldn't be setting the column width to an absolute value (30px) and then not setting the row height. Likewise setting the table margin to 2em will also introduce white space. In other words artificial padding is being introduced which is countering the padding setting. Similarly setting the font size to pixels instead of a percentage along with a row height will give fine control over the vertical white space. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mike wants less white space in each cell; compare the table with the graphic. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would if I knew what was trying to be achieved, the existing tables looked fine to me. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not set now because it made no difference. Try it for yourself and see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no padding set on that table. When it was tried did you set it for the table, row, column or cell? Has it been tried in proper HTML rather than wikitable? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The table is here. Setting the padding to 0 makes no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- None of the tables (that I checked) have their padding set to 0, a couple have the margin set at 2em, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Just set the padding to 0 in the styles section. I didn't check each and every table and I'm not sure which particular table is the problem. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- The table already has "proper" CSS stylings, but there is no way to reduce the cell padding to the extent that Mike wants. Unless you know differently, of course. Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, would you give me your opinion on this? It shows a test svg at the top, as rendered on my local PC, and then below that is the same svg uploaded and rendered by Wikipedia. There are enough differences that I don't think this is an improvement: the font has been changed, for one thing, and the text is not as well centred inside the cells as I had it. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Something's gone horribly wrong with that second image, looks nothing like an SVG. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- And I just noticed something else weird: File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg is the test image; if you click on it to get the preview page it looks mis-rendered but if you click through so it's rendered just by the browser it looks fine. I suspect the Wikipedia renderer is to blame. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- What are you seeing differently, just that blocky background? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- No -- it's the same as the difference shown in File:Local vs uploaded svg.gif. The Wikipedia rendering at File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg looks like the uploaded (lower half) version in the gif -- wrong font, poor centring; if you click on that file to see the raw svg as rendered by the browser with nothing else on the page, it looks like the local version (upper half of the gif). So it has to be a rendering engine issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The SVG rendering engine in the Wikimedia software clearly isn't up to much, so I guess you're left with two options now. Either sit tight with the PNG images (nobody's actually opposed because of them yet) or bite the bullet and use the tables. Given those two options I'd be inclined to go for the tables, but obviously it's your call. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm going to stay with the PNGs; the table is close but I think with the thumb displayed at exactly the real pixels you don't get a resizing problem with the png. I wouldn't bet against opposes in the future; no doubt there will be further discussions in future FACs. Thank you for your help with this -- at least if consensus pushes me to use tables, I will know they look as good as they can be made to look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The SVG rendering engine in the Wikimedia software clearly isn't up to much, so I guess you're left with two options now. Either sit tight with the PNG images (nobody's actually opposed because of them yet) or bite the bullet and use the tables. Given those two options I'd be inclined to go for the tables, but obviously it's your call. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- No -- it's the same as the difference shown in File:Local vs uploaded svg.gif. The Wikipedia rendering at File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg looks like the uploaded (lower half) version in the gif -- wrong font, poor centring; if you click on that file to see the raw svg as rendered by the browser with nothing else on the page, it looks like the local version (upper half of the gif). So it has to be a rendering engine issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- What are you seeing differently, just that blocky background? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- And I just noticed something else weird: File:Test version of Canadian Super Science Stories issues grid.svg is the test image; if you click on it to get the preview page it looks mis-rendered but if you click through so it's rendered just by the browser it looks fine. I suspect the Wikipedia renderer is to blame. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Something's gone horribly wrong with that second image, looks nothing like an SVG. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind if I stick my little oar in, but this should be an HTML table as this is exactly what tables were designed for. If the wikicode doesn't give you what you want then perhaps you should use pure HTML with proper CSS stylings to get the exact result you want. As for your SVG problem. The black boxes are being caused by the wiki software when it renders it down to a png thumbnail. The full size version doesn't have the black boxes. Just another reason why you should go the HTML route rather than the graphics route. Just a thought. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I created a draft but ran into an Inkscape problem; I've posted a note at the graphics workshop to ask how to get around it. I'll let you know when I get it fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's good advice; it's certainly worth seeing what the SVGs look like. I'll fire up Inkscape and try to remember how it works. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it were me I'd stick with the images, but probably do them again as SVGs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to be fairly agreeable to changes at FAC; I assume that others, with fresh eyes, are more likely to be neutral. On this point, though, I'm unconvinced, and I am tempted to leave the images in. The tables (and I really do appreciate the work you did on improving them, by the way) are much better than they were, but to my eyes they don't look as good and are much more of a pain to create. I've changed the first two images to tables in Super Science Stories now, and I just don't like them as much as the images. The caption requires a forced wrap with a <br> tag, which leads to additional line spacing, which I don't like either. Maybe I just don't want to change what I've been doing. Nobody's actually opposed on this point, and since it's just a visual aid, perhaps it wouldn't be a valid oppose. I suspect that some of the FAC comments I've seen about the images are made on the basis of things like WP:ACCESS, without realizing that the data is also presented elsewhere. But then all FAC nominators tend to think they know the issues better than the reviewers, so I doubt my own judgement again. Sigh. Any advice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I meant that I doubt the graphic is necessary for an understanding of the article, as you say, it's just a visual aid. But I'm not the one complaining at the FAC, that would be Tony1. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't really see an accessibility issue anyway, since the information is elsewhere in the article. The graphic is intended as a visual aid, not the only source of the information. I'm not sure I follow your "I doubt": do you doubt it's necessary or doubt it's not necessary? Yes, SVG would look better -- more of a pain to create but certainly doable. I might try that. But the pngs with the pixels specified to match the actual size are surely just as crisp? I've just started on the sandbox setup so I should have something to compare shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Increasing the cell padding is easy, but reducing it beyond what the browser considers to be the minimum required is next to impossible. Another option of course might to use SVG graphics instead of PNG, which would look crisper when scaled down. So long as the table isn't necessary for an understanding of the article (which I doubt) you could then argue that there's no accessibility issue and the graphic looks at least as good as the table; on the basis of the old saw: "When you're offered two choices, always take the third." Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I'll build the tables for Super Science Stories and add them in when they're done; once they're done I'll do it for Astonishing too. I wish we could get rid of the cell padding -- I made the graphics as small as possible in order to avoid collisions with section headings, and to allow space for magazine cover illustrations, and I hope we don't lose too much screen real estate with this change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Super Science Stories is ready for you to take a look at. I'll make the alt text or table changes in a sandbox after you let me know what you think, and move them in when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That would represent a complete abuse of the purpose of alt text IMO. There was a great deal of misunderstanding on display last year when there was such a push to include elaborately descriptive alt texts, which I still see many mistakenly doing even today. The purpose of alt text isn't to describe the image but to act as concise and succinct alternative to it for those who either can't or choose not to see the image; a long alt text is therefore completely unhelpful to the reader, just so much distracting clutter. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would that still be true if I added alt text saying e.g. "Editor Frederik Pohl from March 1940. March 1940 volume 1 number 1. May 1940 volume 1 number 2." etc.? Depending on what you say I'll either add alt text to the Super Science Stories graphics or replace them with tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Very kind of you. I never would have asked anyone to do it and was prepared to make it a matter of principle, but as I have no idea how I would fill the hours if not for Wikipedia, it's for the best. I don't want to leave and I don't want to run for Arbcom which I see as my only option if I stayed but didn't write. Now I better go take down those messages, apparently they freaked my sister out. Next few times someone asks you to do something you don't want to do, send them my way, I'll either block them or do whatever it is you don't care for doing, depending.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Content is king as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I'm here. You've done all the hard work and I think I can manage to move any remaining misplaced commas around. It's too close to give up on it now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to, and I eventually would have gone through them all in detail, but 48 hours is just too fresh. And I agree on content, the rest isbackstage: vitally important, and great honour in doing it, but it's not the main attraction.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just remember this the next time someone tells you what an unpleasant arsehole I am, and demands that I'm ridden out of town. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want you gone, Malleus, and if that isn't clear by now, I don't know how to make it clearer (well, possibly I just did). Us content geeks have to stick together, the project and our participation in it means more to us than it should, and it would hurt for us to go. I don't want me gone either. It gives me a sense of purpose. I'm currently driving coast to coast, but justifying it with stops at three archives and two museums. I always mention its for Wikipedia. I had one person at the Nixon library who had read all my Nixon articles and liked them. A fan!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just remember this the next time someone tells you what an unpleasant arsehole I am, and demands that I'm ridden out of town. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to, and I eventually would have gone through them all in detail, but 48 hours is just too fresh. And I agree on content, the rest isbackstage: vitally important, and great honour in doing it, but it's not the main attraction.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No avoiding him, I don't think. Can you work your magic of removing my extraneous commas and all that other crap I put into the articles I write? He's a rather boring guy, although he had his moments .. including a few times where he defied the king. We'll get to the archbishop accused of witchcraft next nom... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll start work on Theobald later ... got some repairs to do around the house now. Can't wait for the archbishop witch! Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
How's Teddy looking? I have two more days before another art festival.... whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Voltage doubler
Now at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Voltage doubler/1 SpinningSpark 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen it, thanks, and commented there. It'll be interesting to see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleworth Morris Men
Your comments at this AFD discussion are in danger of becoming unconstructive. You have reiterated your view that the sources I have referred to do not, in your opinion, support notability, and I have stated, somewhat less often, that I disagree. There is no need to keep on repeating your views unless you have a new angle to present. Furthermore, I do need to take issue with this comment. Firstly, it is not in any way an argument for (or against) deletion. Adding irrelevant comments is not helpful to others trying to assess the arguments. Secondly, I dislike the way you say "You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them" as if I were making a habit of it, when you can support the assertion with only one example which you disagree with. If you want to discuss such citations on the article talk page, by all means take them there. But please make them accurate and relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are behaving dishonestly and I'm calling you on it. You are attempting to derail an AfD by adding random citations that make it look as if the topic has been covered by reliable independent sources when it quite clearly hasn't. You are being disruptive and you've been caught out. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will not accept that. Your comment above and this are unfounded personal attacks. I call on you to withdraw them or face the possibility of having your editing privileges restricted. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
{Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- tl;dr: "Shut up or I'll go crying to mummy". Parrot of Doom 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't believe that bloody AfD; the world's gone mad! Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no faith in it, since the people there apparently believe that fictional characters were real people. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to wonder if any articles are ever deleted at AfD. BTW, I struck another blow in the battle against pop culture today. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are, but the drama levels can be high. As I have found out recently in various discussions involving fourth provincial tier Irish cricket clubs. THe daft thing with those, more of which are to come, is that the cricket project broadly agrees with the lack of notability in these instances but generally seem to refuse to actually comment at the AfD discussions. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to wonder if any articles are ever deleted at AfD. BTW, I struck another blow in the battle against pop culture today. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no faith in it, since the people there apparently believe that fictional characters were real people. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't believe that bloody AfD; the world's gone mad! Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is obviously going to be kept, so I've hacked away at it to leave only the stuff that can be sourced, even where those sources are of somewhat dubious reliability. Which is hardly any of the stuff that Sergeant Cribb claimed to have sourced. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
How about being another FA director?
Please don't dismiss immediately.
A. Think you would do a great job:
- workload safety-wise, we need another person
- holistic view of articles
- deep Wiki and writing experience
- some diversity of thought and not a pushover
- in being able to 'see what someone does even if have disagreements' [per that evil other website]
B. For you, well...
- it's something different
- is leadership (but not another RFA)
- allows you to have more "leverage" (spread out impact) than by helping individual authors and articles.
I would vote for you...and I'm sure you would get plenty of votes to do the job (if that's how we do it here, not sure, FL and FS did, even if it's an appointed position, you WOULD get the votes is the important thing). Only hard part would be getting you to do it...but it's got to be better than being a moderator. I mean at FAC, even the "bad" articles are "good" and the contributors trying to create real work product. Gotta be better than prowling ANI and banning shitheads. And if you think about your impact...much larger than some random bullyboy admin.
-TCO
- "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think if Laser Brain is truly gone, the replacement process will resemble "The Lottery"--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
The Olympics Barnstar | |
For your help in getting the 1952 Winter Olympics to featured status I present you with the coveted Olympics Barnstar. Collaborative efforts are the most rewarding and I appreciate your work on this article. It would not have passed without your involvement. Thank you!!! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
- You must be (deservedly) very pleased with that, well done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
AFD vote
I am not at all suspicious. Please WP:AGF and remember that wikipedia is not a place to do WP:BATTLE. Any incidents of WP:STALKing will be reported. Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderfully ambiguous first sentence, there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Report whatever you like to whoever you like, and please try to remember that WP:AGF doesn't mean switch off your brain. You are clearly a sockpuppet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I know you hate these things, but, you deserve them ... if only for putting up with and polishing my Yank prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks. I don't hate them, I accept that they have their place. I've just about finished my first pass through Theobald now, but I'll look through the whole thing again tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure whether he should be listed under Language and literature as well as Media and journalism. He's currently listed under both but I gather only one listing is permitted in the GA lists? The thing is he was very much a critic and writer, which is under Language and literature. I'd imagine this is not the first time an overlap has occurred. Maybe this category ought to be merged to include writers , journalists and critics in one?♦ Dr. Blofeld
- I don't think it really matters which category you put him, so long as he's only in one. But I think the best fit is probably Language and literature. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe though Media and journalism should be combined with language and literature? Its just journalists and writers and critics overlap a great number of times. i'll address it on the GA talk page. I was also wondering if you could take a look at Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767) and indicate whether you think it is good enough for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd be in favour of such a merger, but by all means suggest it on the talk page and see what others think. Is Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767) one of yours? Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, but as one of the most active members of WP:Burma I'd like to see more Burmese GAs. BTW to you and Giano I've created Category:Country houses in England which is intended to categorize all country houses and halls and sorts in england. Some time I intend to create a full list of country houses in England which might interest you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a massive list; just look at the number of Cheshire country house articles that Peter I. Vardy has created over the last few weeks. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well 174, and he's reached S so unlikely to be many more than 200 for Cheshire. Should be possible, but if the list doesn't being to go near 200kb then a way of splitting might be sensible. But for now I'll concentrate on adding categories and see how many we are dealing with. Ideally we want what Peter has done with Cheshire done for every county.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Uncovered well over a hundred missing surely for the Isle of Wight too which I am am starting. See Azor (landowner). It's puzzled me on numerous occasions why there is no Category:English landowners. A landowner is a major figure in British history it should be jammed full with articles. Unless i missing the cat under a different name like Category:Feudal lords or something? Either way I think we should create this category, probably both and aim to fill it. In fact this is a category area which should be so full we should even have e.g Category:14th-century feudal lords etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Categories is something I've never really managed to get very excited about, to put it mildly. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, they are imporant for finding related articles. If I wanted to read articles about landowners from the middle ages where would I find them is my point. No doubts we already have hundreds of them but can't find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- But there's no way of finding categories, so really they're not much use. Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
ummm...
boy I've gotten a big mouth lately huh? — Ched : ? 04:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the review of the Medieval Merchant's House - much appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a nice article, hope you didn't find the process too stressful. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
- -)
TCO (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
GAN virgin
Hi
You do know, of course, that you are a good role model for any new GA reviewer? If you had been on that list of mentors I would most definitely have been knocking on your door! Chaosdruid (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you are still up and have 5 mins to spare while you are drinking your cocoa, any chance you could please look at this User:Chaosdruid/GA1#Ditton.2C_Kent and tell me if you think it is going into too much detail? The "checklist" is things to fix, both those that I can and those that I would defer, the "GA1 list" is the one to go on the article GA1. Thanks, in anticipation :¬)
- P.S. I haven't done a full prose study yet as I have concentrated on the structure refs and images. The copyvio also made me reluctant to continue without the others being addressed first. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's your choice of course, but I'd suggest that you post your review and see what the response is. There are so many problems with that article it makes my eyes water, through the hot chocolate haze of course. You could have done yourself a favour and picked something by Ironholds or Ealdgyth to cut your teeth on, but c'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Believe me, I was kicking myself by the time I found the third copyvio. I initially thought it was fairly well written, then I found out why. Thanks for the  ... lesson btw :¬)
- Thanks for taking a look. I am just finishing my hot chocolate and then off to bed, though I am having a rather OCD Wikiweekend that started yesterday morning. There are four articles I want to work on, a GOCE copy-edit drive underway, the GAR and some research to do for two others. Ah well, sleep is for the weak .... Chaosdruid (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's your choice of course, but I'd suggest that you post your review and see what the response is. There are so many problems with that article it makes my eyes water, through the hot chocolate haze of course. You could have done yourself a favour and picked something by Ironholds or Ealdgyth to cut your teeth on, but c'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
What, no article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: Over There (Fringe)
Don't need to worry; I still have have all the spirits in the world. And absolutely, the FA process is indeed rigorous, but the results make it worth the wait/pain (haven't yet come across an FA that I didn't find interesting/well-written). Here's hoping this time around marks my first FA! :) Ruby2010 comment! 02:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sense that you might make it this time, so stick with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Popular culture and other manifestations
I couldn't help noticing this recently, and it prompted some thoughts on whether a spectrum exists between trivia (WP:TRIVA), popular culture (Category:Topics in popular culture), cultural depictions (cultural depictions), and the more highbrow 'heritage' and 'legacy' aspects of articles (including memorials and museums). I'd often thought that 'in popular culture' culture sections were just organised trivia, and that 'cultural depiction' sections or articles were just a nicer way of describing popular culture, but after thinking some more on heritage and legacy, and how some topics endure in the social and cultural record even after they have ended, and how some topics get written about a lot, I'm wondering if there is more to it than that? The latter gives rise to histories about a topic, and the former gives rise to cultural legacies. Sometimes you have both, sometimes not. My main point was that any topic that has histories written about it will inevitably have some cultural impact. Whether anyone writes about that enough for it to be sourced is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't take credit for what seems to me to be a blindingly obvious approach to the "trivia" problem with many articles, as it was suggested to me by Iridescent. If the material can't be sourced then it shouldn't be there. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, agreed about sourcing third-party commentary (though all that looks verifiable, which might be a different matter). But look at what is left in the article. The "eleven boarding houses" comment is trivia (there are probably hundreds of school houses named after Raleigh, there was one at my school). Raleigh was Right is an example of 'highbrow' popular culture. Even artwork done in later centuries is arguably somewhere on the spectrum of response to fact that Raleigh went down in history, rather than being part of his actual history. e.g. The Boyhood of Raleigh and a 19th-century depiction of an episode from his life. And what difference is there between books about Raleigh (such as those used to write the article), and artworks, plays, films (or other media) with Raleigh in them? Both are, in different mediums, retelling or interpreting his story (or history) in part or full, with greater or lesser poetic licenses. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. I'm talking in general terms here and you are focusing on the specific content, so I'll stop there, but thank you for putting up with my ramblings. Just one final comment, which is to draw a distinction between a creative response to a history (e.g. fictional work, play, film, artwork) and documenting that history (writing a book or even an encyclopedia article on the history of a topic). There seems to sometimes be a tension between the two. And I'll leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. I once came within a hair's breadth of being blocked for saying that to Jimbo.[1] A young non-native speaker and admin exclaimed on #en-admins that he didn't know what I meant by it, but it sure sounded like a PA, and he planned to block me (until several people laughed him out of it and pointed him to wikipedia's fucking article on the expression). Pity, I would have enjoyed that. The delights of living in a wiki-monarchy full of little wiki-courtiers! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC).
- Ick. I remember that. Looking downwards to another thread, I think it is better characterised as 'negative reinforcement'. And on reviewing the above thread that ended with that pithy comment, I think I must have mistaken Malleus for Casliber... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Civility
This, both comment and edit summary, was a bit much, perhaps?[2] --Elonka 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually you that's a bit much. Please take your sanctimonious bollocks elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you continue with language like that, and this,[3] your account access is going to be blocked (again). Please try to moderate your behavior so that that is not necessary. --Elonka 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you continue with your threats then you may well find yourself in a place you would probably prefer not to be. Your choice. If I'm blocked again that's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. If you're blocked, who would even notice? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Elonka, your tone especially in your second note, seems calculated to provoke MF rather than pacify him, and the first statement was a smarmy comment on a stale edit, so your intervention has been a waste of everybody's time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's what Elonka does best. She thinks she knows better than anyone else, but in truth she doesn't know shit. Malleus Fatuorum 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- This thread would have been much better if it only had one post, which was subsequently left unanswered. In my opinion, anyhow. Call me a minimalist. Or call me full of bollocks. It's your call. – Ling.Nut 09:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comments such as this are not acceptable, especially on an FA review.[4] I'm not the only one who finds it objectionable, either.[5] Is it deserving of a block? Not at the moment, but these things do add up, especially when someone continues to ignore warnings and continues to insult other editors. We're all volunteers here, let's try to treat each other with respect. --Elonka 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's what Elonka does best. She thinks she knows better than anyone else, but in truth she doesn't know shit. Malleus Fatuorum 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Elonka, your tone especially in your second note, seems calculated to provoke MF rather than pacify him, and the first statement was a smarmy comment on a stale edit, so your intervention has been a waste of everybody's time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you continue with your threats then you may well find yourself in a place you would probably prefer not to be. Your choice. If I'm blocked again that's Wikipedia's loss, not mine. If you're blocked, who would even notice? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you continue with language like that, and this,[3] your account access is going to be blocked (again). Please try to moderate your behavior so that that is not necessary. --Elonka 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, [6] Elonka, the appearance is that you came here to provoke Malleus over ... well, nothing ... and then to escalate the discussion to a point where you could threaten him with a block after apparently stalking his edits. Have you nothing better to do this week? Is perchance your undue attention to FAC editors this week related to the resignation of an arb friendly to you who referred despicably to that "pack of editors" (or some such thing) at FAC? Perhaps if you have an axe to grind, you can move along. Your first diffs show nothing: your final diffs (at FAC) are something that those of us who have some credibility can handle, sans meddling from someone who is not fond of FAC because of past interaction with copyeditors Tony1 and Jbmurray.
Malleus, you could tone down a few of those FAC comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Infantilization
We agree that positive reinforcement is wonderful. However, negative reinforcement is also beneficial. Read Paul Meehl's Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, "Why I do not attend case conferences":
Reward everything—gold and garbage—alike. The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psychology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. Nobody ever gives anybody negative reinforcement in a psychiatric case conference. (Try it once—you will be heard with horror and disbelief.) The most inane remark is received with joy and open arms as part of the groupthink process. Consequently the educational function, for either staff or students, is prevented from getting off the ground. Any psychologist should know that part of the process of training or educating is to administer differential reinforcement for good versus bad, effective versus ineffective, correct versus incorrect behaviors. If all behavior is rewarded by friendly attention and nobody is ever non-reinforced (let alone punished!) for talking foolishly, it is unlikely that significant educational growth will take place. (pp. 228-229)
...
The obvious educational question is, how does it happen that this bright, conscientious, well-motivated, social-service-oriented premed psychology major with a 3.80 average doesn’t know the most elementary things about psychotic depression, such as its diagnostic indicators, its statistical suicide risk, or the time phase in the natural history of the illness which presents the greatest risk of suicide? The answer, brethren, is very simple: Some of those who are “teaching” and “supervising” him either don’t know these things themselves or don’t think it is important for him to know them. This hapless student is at the educational mercy of a crew that is so unscholarly, antiscientific, “groupy-groupy,” and “touchy-feely” that they have almost no concern for facts, statistics, diagnostic assessment, or the work of the intellect generally. (p. 280)
Spare the rod and spoil the child, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)