Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here. There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site,
Thanks for the copyedit. I spent huge amounts of time on that article, given that I had to write all the subarticles it draws from first and it's rarely visited. Can I bother you to have a look at Kelly pool? I want to take that to FA relatively soon and a copyedit (and any feedback, including whether it has any chance) would be welcome. Note that I am well aware that all paragraphs with citations bunched up at the end will have to be redone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you know what you're asking for? I'm notoriously picky. :-) BTW, Is it really true that carom billiards has been proposed for inclusion in the 2010 Winter Olympics? Seems a bit unlikely ... --MalleusFatuorum22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with being picky and there's little point to asking for criticism if you can't take it. Just so you know, the origins section of kelly pool was constructed after looking at hundreds of digitized newspaper articles and what I've put together there is apparently unknown in modern scholarship on the game. I corresponded with the writer of the billiard encyclopedia we use for sourcing many billiards-related articles and he stated that it was "an important discovery", confirming in my mind that I had (re)discovered material that was lost and probably never collated in one place. I didn't add that detail on the olympics (and I'm not very keen on articles describing what may happen—especially when unsourced) but yeah, the possibility of it being included in the Winter Olympics sounds just a bit dubious. I just looked for sources on its inclusion in upcoming olympics, winter or summer, and found bupkis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Malleus. I just thought I'd let you know that I have added much material, rewritten and fully expanded the lead to summarize the whole article, sourced every sentence, and I think it's now in the approximate form that I plan to take to FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel quite strongly about this
I recently asked to have the useless rollbacker right removed from my account, and earlier today the even more useless autoreviewer "right". I deeply resent being offered these useless baubles, that can be just as easily taken away as given, when administrators are busily behind the scenes granting themselves rights that didn't exist when they were elected and that they have little understanding of how to use. I'm thinking of the abuse filter as one example.
I think your anger is misplaced when it comes to the autoreviewer status (although I see the point re the arbitrary dishing out of rollback, abuse filter, and my personal bete noire, mass account creator status). Part of the problem is labelling it as a "right", when in fact it's nothing of the kind. It gives no additional powers – all it means is that, if you create a page then the "mark this page as patrolled" box is automatically checked, meaning that it doesn't show up in yellow highlight as a potential problem on NewPages. It's to reduce the workload on those who go through the new pages looking for spam and copyright violations.
I know you don't like admins, but new pages patrol (and its close cousin checking the first contributions of new accounts) are necessary but generally unnoticed, thankless and mind-numbing tasks that typically lead to floods of irate "how dare you delete my article on my band/school/cat" ranting, which then have to be followed up with patient explanations over and over again; it's something that makes you no friends, but hordes of enemies. It's a lot harder than it sounds, as it requires an in-depth knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies, a gut instinct for what material is likely to be a copyright violation, and the ability to judge what material just needs rewriting and what is unsalvageable, and the ability to explain, to people who are keen to get involved but don't understand writing, just what is wrong/right about their writing without coming across as either patronising or offensive. (Try it yourself – it's nowhere near as easy as people think.)
Most of those with the necessary experience in both article writing and policy-wonkery to do NPP properly, quite naturally don't want to get involved in something so mind-numbing and thankless, and we're generally unable to handle the load as it is; anything that reduces the strain is a benefit. It's no more a "special right" than inclusion on the list Gurch maintains of trusted editors whose edits aren't treated as potential vandalism by Huggle; the difference is, Gurch's list is just a text list, whereas this is embedded in the software, so it shows as part of your status. – iridescent23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, I have absolutely no interest at all in patrolling new pages. But I am fundamentally opposed to the arbitrary granting and equally arbitrary revoking of "rights" by individual administrators, too often in an apparent attempt to punish or reward, so even if I was the most prolific creator of new pages on wikipedia I would still object and ask to be removed from the autoreviewer category. If the handing out of whatever "rights" flagged revisions involves is equally subject to the unregulated whims of individual administrators, then that will be the end of the road for me. --MalleusFatuorum23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, after a few days of being at Misplaced Pages your account changed status as everyone's does. So, that means that you went through another arbitrary granting of rights. See autoconfirmed. You might want to ask that one to be disabled too now that you are on a roll. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You may choose to misunderstand, misrepresent, or simply ignore my position as you choose; I will simply point out that autoconfirmed "is granted automatically by the software", and is not arbitrarily granted or withdrawn on the whim of an administrator. --MalleusFatuorum01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So, if the original item was granted by the software (as it merely is based on how many edits you have made in a similar way as autoconfirmed) you would have no problem with it? The fact that someone manually had to add your name is the problem? And admin can take away your autoconfirmed status. It has happened a few times to you. By the way, if you continue talking about leaving over something as ridiculous as the above, you have to expect me to browbeat you. You know that I am willing to attack, criticize, and go after anyone who is trying to separate you from Misplaced Pages, and that includes you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've stated my position as clearly as I'm able. It may be ridiculous to you, and I don't doubt that many others will likely also see it as ridiculous, but it's my position nevertheless. --MalleusFatuorum02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When was this autoreviewer flag activated/created? It must have flew under my radar because this is the first time I've read about it. What a useless waste of bandwidth. I don't mean to be come off as overly critical, but it sounds like just another "I'm an established editor" banner to wave about. Is it really that time consuming to mark your own page as patrolled or have somebody else glance at it? Wisdom89(T / )02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see - Another facet of Misplaced Pages that I wasn't familiar with - I wasn't aware that it was so unwieldy. Still, I'm dubious about many users who seek the flag out. Wisdom89(T / )02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the flag has been basically granted willy-nilly, and we're still developing a more organized system. –Juliancolton | 02:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you weren't and were doing some NPPing, there would be a little link at the lower right hand part of the page that says "Mark this page as patrolled". Wisdom89(T / )02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) The thing is, if we have to spend time patrolling valid editors' edits, we could barely keep up with the massive flow. DragonflySixtyseven was literally spending hours and hours every single day trying to do it all by himself for a while; only recently have a massive push by a variety of editors been able to push the buffer up some more. Also, this whole thing with autoreviewer has essentially been on Misplaced Pages for several years, with User:JVbot, which used a whitelist to patrol certain whitelisted editors. This new usergroup simply replaces a private computer that is subject to breaks, downtime, and and coding update necessities with code running on the Mediawiki servers. NW(Talk)02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are assigned Autoreviewer status, it is not for your benefit. It is for my benefit. Me. The one who reads the damn articles and clicks "patrolled" over and over and over, or very occasionally "delete" instead. It means "we can trust Malleus Fatuorum to produce articles that are not shit and do not need to be checked to see if they are shit or not". DS (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh don't worry MF, that would only happen if you had a lull in activity - like when my accountcreator status was revoked for not creating enough usernames. Wisdom89(T / )03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't threaten you, as it doesn't change anything for you, Malleus. It changes if you show up on a list of articles to check that are new pages which you already show up as a default. Having it or not having it does nothing to -you-. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had an administrator threatening to ban me from GA reviewing, so I don't think you understand how childish and petulant too many of them can be. If I have nothing, then I can't be threatened with it being taken away. --MalleusFatuorum03:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So? They don't have the authority. Now, I will threaten you that if you leave the Wiki, I will hunt you down and there will be hell to pay. My threat actually has teeth behind it. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) But because it's given to users who have been judged by others to be trusted (as opposed to something like being autoconfirmed where the bar is set very low and qualification is automatic) it could be seen as a badge and revoking it something of an insult. I wouldn't think of it that way, but some could. Nev1 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, you aren't thinking as clearly as usual. If your NPP whilelist entry was removed, you wouldn't notice - but DS and other NPPers would have extra work to do. You might find removal of Autoreviewer a minor irritant, but the real discomfort would fall on those who review artciles managed by flagged revisions.
I understand your dissatisfaction with the behaviour of some admins, but this will not improve the situation. --Philcha (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You may well be right, and others may be persuaded by your argument, but not me. Until wikipedia's "police force" becomes an accountable "police service" then I want nothing to do with it or its pretty baubles. --MalleusFatuorum02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If I can just...(tap)...make my ....(step)...way through this appr..(walk around)..eciative audience, ;) could I ask what the proper word to use would be? Where the asterisks are. Pre-empting, 'leading up to', 'influencing', 'his success leading to what powell predicted in his speech' - I know there's a specific word, I just can't get it out of my mouth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest "foreshadowed", as in something like "when asked by The Times about concerns that his success was foreshadowed in Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech ...". Or perhaps "foreseen" as in "his success was foreseen by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech ...". --MalleusFatuorum22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus I wondered if you might have a look at this. I don't have the book, presumably Mr Stephen does, but presently the article is at odds with that claim. A simple shortcut might simply be to remove the location (London) until the matter is resolved. What do you think? I've left a similar message hereParrot of Doom (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the claim is bolstered by the Locations section, where Oxford has a Gropecunte in 1230, from the british-history website. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that discussion too. I've just rechecked the OED, and it doesn't say where the 1230 Gropecunt Lane was, but I'm pretty certain that Mr Stephen will be right, he pretty much always is. In any event, as we're attributing the 1230 first occurrence of the name to the OED, which doesn't give its location, then probably neither should we, so I've removed it from that sentence. --MalleusFatuorum15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No deleted revisions showing in the history, by Raul or anyone else. It's conceivable that Raul reverted something with sensitive personal data ("xxxxx likes groping cunt, his phone number is xxx xxxx") which has now been oversighted altogether. – iridescent17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikidragons' club
Some people have set up a meeting place for wikidragons. Hmmm. I've just shown them what a real dragon loks like. Would you like to awe them into total submission? --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So you know, I have 42 books by Ainsworth, 40 more poems by Coleridge, 18 by Keats, 14 by Byron, 11 by Eliot, a handful by Wordsworth, about 20 pages for Leigh Hunt, about 25 for William Hazlitt, about 20 for Charles Lamb, and some others on my to do list to be completed in this year. Your list is puny. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I figure I'll be helping out there. We should probably watch out for Nancy's 10 commandments article on the 26th, although I'm going to be out of town most of that day. Nancy's out of town, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I do look forward to seeing what the most inventive eleventh commandment the vandals can come up with is. Maybe we should offer prizes. – iridescent16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I put the Ten Commandments article on watch temporarily. Two days later, another vandalism magnet will appear, Stonewall riots. If we're lucky, the defenders of the Ten Commandments article will be vandalizing the Stonewall one, and Stonewall's defenders will be vandalizing the Ten Commandments one. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right about Stonewall being another vandalism magnet; I'll put that one on my watchlist temporarily as well, so you can take a break during your day in the limelight. :-) --MalleusFatuorum16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the companion article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn which is a FL and I should like to submit this one as a FLC. The formatting of both articles is identical (thanks to some help!) and that should not be a problem. But a little help with commas and suchlike would be appreciated, if you have the time and inclination. I'm not sure how keen they are on the quality of the English in the Description column (most FLs do not have such a column, or it's just notes), and it's difficult to avoid the repetitious "this is", but I should like some copyediting at least of the lead. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The list people do seem to be concerned about prose. I worked through at least a couple of manga episode articles where the main objection was about prose quality. Can't remember their names now, but one was to do with a goddess who was wished to Earth by a college geek and the other had something to do with daffodils. All Greek to me, so I'm sure Runcorn will be a piece of you know what in comparison. --MalleusFatuorum02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that was one of them. I just checked, and I was wrong about the daffs, it was dandelions. I still haven't got the vaguest idea what that one was really about though. :-) --MalleusFatuorum14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That looks fine to me Peter, I can't see you having too many problems at FLC with it. I moved a few commas around, but as you say, it's difficult to avoid repetition when you're writing a series of short descriptions on a bunch of buildings. --MalleusFatuorum21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You really should do something about this comment. Calling another editor a "drunk" is unacceptable and a personal attack, even if it may be true (I have no knowledge whether or not the user is or isn't a drunk but that's neither here nor there). Anyway, I just thought I'd ask you to refactor or redact your comment before bringing it up elsewhere. -ALLST✰R▼ wuz here04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What's more, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the playground attitudes that you and too many others of your ilk share, so when you've decided where to "bring this up" be sure to let me know, and I'll be sure to let you and anyone else who's interested know exactly what I really think. --MalleusFatuorum04:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Being so defensive and rude at a simple request to remove your personal attack on another editor, only speaks volumes to your attitude. When I do bring it up elsewhere, I'll be sure to inform you. -ALLST✰R▼ wuz here05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep calm, Malleus. I've drawn attention to the facts that Allstarecho's ANI did not disclose, and pointed out that your comment was concise and accurate. This ANI may bite back.
I'll be offline Fri to Tues as I'm moving house. I suggest you advise a few level-headed friends about this ANI asap in case you do get blocked as a result of this, so they can take up the cudgels on your behalf. I'll check up on this when I get back online. --Philcha (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for setting the record straight at that daft ANI. This "personal attack" nonsense is really getting out of hand. Someone says they're not sober, but anyone who then describes them as being drunk—not a drunk as Allstarecho keeps maliciously suggesting—is making a personal attack? Jeez, some people must have shit for brains. The only one I see making "personal attacks" around here is Allstarecho. --MalleusFatuorum13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, your comment specifially says "a drunk": Bad luck for tripping over a drunk. Sure looks like "a drunk" to me. The diff for your edit shows the same thing. So yes, you called him a drunk. Personal attack, no matter what you call it. -ALLST✰R▼ wuz here15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll try saying this very slowly, so that you can maybe keep up; if someone says that they are not sober then it is no great deductive leap to conclude that they are drunk. Follow that? Good, now clear off. --MalleusFatuorum15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't anyone point out that WMC let himself open for comments that he is a drunk? He did make a joke (?) that he was drinking while editing. Therefore, there is no attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, just so there's no misunderstanding, I haven't seen anyone call WMC "a drunk", and I certainly didn't, no matter how many times Allstarecho claims that I did. I called him "drunk", as by his own admission he was not sober. --MalleusFatuorum15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As a drunk, I think I have the right to call other people that drink drunks. So, WMC has joined the drunk Wikipedians club. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The history doesn't lie. You specifically said adrunk. Also, "sober" doesn't just apply to alcohol. It also applies to drugs or lack of sleep. He could have been on medication. He could have been suffering from lack of sleep. But you keep on believing in your fantasy of the event, I won't say anymore. *unwatched your page* -ALLST✰R▼ wuz here15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Given your continued insistence, I'm wondering if there's a subtle British/American English thing at work here. If I call someone "a drunk", my precise meaning changes depending on whether or not the person I'm talking about is drunk at that moment in time or is sober but a person I believe to habitually get drunk, or regularly drink too much. In other words, anyone who's drunk is a drunk, and some of those who're sober are drunks, even though they're not drunk ... perhaps a Venn diagram might help, as I'm beginning to feel like I'm explaining the rules of cricket: "You have two sides. One side is out in the field and one is in. Each man that's in the side that goes in goes out and when he's out he come in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. When both sides have been in and out including not outs, that's the end of the game." --MalleusFatuorum15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Holy shit, imagine what would have been said if you'd called him a pisshead instead! Personally I think there's far too many dramah queens round here acting like ****heads just for a bit of attention. --WebHamster18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
They all want to grow up to be administrators one day. Well, apart from the ones who're already administrators that is. :-) --MalleusFatuorum18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Dark doesn't apply to just black, but someone can use the word black in response. Regardless, you are trolling right now Allstarecho. Attacks need to be reported by the person attacked. They are not grounds to harass a user on their talk page. So, even if you were correct your actions are still wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Genuine question here (although it probably won't get answered) - how is "Anyway, I just thought I'd ask you to refactor or redact your comment before bringing it up elsewhere" that, civil? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "civil" isn't used here on wikipedia in any sense that a native speaker of English would understand. It's just a synonym for anything the monkeys that run this place take exception to. I saw LaraLove make what seems to me an excellent suggestion elsewhere earlier; dump the ridiculous and childish WP:CIVIL, clarify WP:NPA, send all of the admins on a refresher course so they understand what "personal attack" actually means (I added that last bit she didn't really say that), and let's settle down to a proper adult environment without all the whining kids. --MalleusFatuorum17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's also ironic that the ones who drone on endlessly about "civility" are often amongst the most uncivil themselves. --MalleusFatuorum17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Did someone shout? I thought I heard my name mentioned.....;-) Whilst I'm here the CoM block by WMC was utterly out of line. But alas, with my prior history of utter disrespect for Connoley's misguided and abusive actions, and my previous calls for him to resign the tools, not a lot I can do without drama central. Sigh. Maybe I'll get braver in my old age. Pedro : Chat 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I wonder how many wikipedians have never had a drink (or two or more) before or while editing WP?---Balloonman20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Still don't know why everyone thinks WMC was sauced up. Is it 'cause he's British? Don't they have anything green over there? –xeno20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The important thing we have all missed is what kind of drinking was going on. Now lager has it's place, a well chilled cider during summer even more so - but these do not forgive admin abuse. A good red however might make me more lenient to his actions . Oh, maybe not.
Thinking of our American friends, it's a good job he didn't say he was pissed. I gather our cousins across the water seem to think it means "angry" when those of us who are more enlightened realise it just means..... bolloxed.... Pedro : Chat 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the colonists use the phrase "pissed off", and if they do, does it mean the same to them as it does to us? --MalleusFatuorum21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What's bolloxed?
Perhaps I am an alcoholic, but I tend to be much more productive and far less grumpy when I'm trashed. So, my editing ability and my ability to deal with people is substantially increased. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say I recently chucked more than 600 pages from my watchlist. They were mostly policy, project, and other talk pages. The first two I dumped were AN and ANI. It was quite liberating. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
One I dumped some time ago now was WT:RFA—what a complete waste of space that is! I still glance at the names at RfA from time to time to see if there any I recognise, but I've come to accept that nothing's ever going to change there until the revolution. I'm done with wasting my time pointing out the obvious to those without the wit to see it. --MalleusFatuorum14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sooner the better. I've got my eye on a good long piece of wall and I've already stockpiled enough blindfolds, but they can be recycled anyway. I may have to be patient for a little longer though. :-) --MalleusFatuorum14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
According to John Locke, people will accept authority until they no longer do. When those who refuse to accept it are in the minority, they're cranks and half-crazy. When they're in the majority, or one is soon to follow, they are revolutionaries, visionaries, and heroes. Coin tosses and dart boards will label you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If history teaches one thing, it's that majority/minority has little to do with it. When those in authority have their fingers on the triggers and those who oppose it don't, that's when the opposition are cranks. The "cranks" become "visionaries" when they have enough people and weapons to form an organized-enough lynch mob to start bullying people themselves. Remember all that "well regulated militia" business? – iridescent18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I only have the pages I worked on and Malleus's talk page on my watchlist. Obviously, the one that is updated most is Malleus's talk page. I find that if I ever feel the need to fight the system, to go after admin with problems, etc, Malleus's talk page offers everything I need. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
here's a helpful script if you still want to watch WP:RFA (to see the RFAs transcluded as they go live) but not WT:RFA (to not see the endless mbs of drivel that accumulate there)... –xeno15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
WatchlistConfig = { ignorePages: [
'Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship',
], };
importScript('User:Gary King/hide pages in watchlist.js');
I rolled back that edit after making it, nobody should have cited it. What I would have said, had I thought it worth going on about, is that while to German speakers it indeed means holy hail or hail victory as ritually said by national socialists back in the day, to most English speakers brought up in Anglo-Saxon culture since then, when used as a comeback in casual conversation, it more or less means fuck you. However, I rolled back my comment because I didn't think it was helpful as I meant it to be and didn't see how lengthening it would help anything either. Anyway, I think CoM should have been warned first. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Warning only one side in the dispute would hardly have been likely to calm the situation, so I guess that CoM would still have ended up blocked. It's at times like these that I'm glsd I'll never be an administrator, because I would find it impossible to just sit back and watch the blatant injustice without doing something about it. I'd have reversed that block immediately and blocked the blocking admin for 24 hours, until he'd sobered up. --MalleusFatuorum16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As you know (and hinted), that would be a flaming wheel war straight off and help nobody in the end. Meanwhile I'd say we agree there's lots of background to both sides in this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Even if by some tear in the fabric of spacetime I ever managed to get my hands on the admin tools I likely wouldn't have them for long anyway. :-) --MalleusFatuorum16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My take on that is, it would only happen that way because you care more about deeper systemic stuff here which you don't like. There are things here which I don't like either. Some of us do what we can with what we have, others... likewise ;) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Even I think it would be a nightmare world if everyone was like me, or thought the same as me. The world's big enough for all shades of opinon, but there have to be checks and balances in place to prevent me, you, or anyone else, forcing our beliefs or standards of behaviour on the rest. That's the fundamental problem I have with wikipedia, the lack of accountabilty for those in positions of authority, and I couldn't in all honesty condone that corruption by becoming a part of it, even if it were possible for me to do so. --MalleusFatuorum16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Understood. We may agree on some of this stuff more than you think. Meanwhile you do much helpful work on articles. Thanks for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, I tried defusing the CoM situation early on by asking CoM to stop editing articles others were actively editing and asking Mathsci to take a chill pill. They both ignored me and the scenario unfolded almost with a will of its own. It's almost like the involved characters wanted it to devolve into a dramafest and they wouldn't have it any other way. If CoM had responded to my initial request I would have had an easy excuse to unblock him because I had already engaged him. --Laser brain(talk)17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Laser your effort may have been well intentioned, but it was premised on falsehoods. Next time you want to weigh in I suggest you investigate the situation more thoroughly. I wasn't "actively" editing while someone was working on an article. I came across the article on new page patrol (one of dozens I worked on at that time) and I made a single copy-edit. The personal attacks and harassment I received after that were wholly uncalled for. Please please when you want to "help" do a little due diligence first. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Gropecunt.
Hi mate. Enjoyed rereading the above. Great stuff, as ever. A question - under Locations, we have The name was also used in other large medieval towns across England, including Bristol, York, Shrewsbury, Newcastle, Worcester, Hereford, and Oxford.. Now, I appreciate overlinking is an issue but few of those places seem to be linked earlier in the article. Would it be valueless to link them in? I'm tempted but what holds me back is that the link would seem to only add good value if there was a specific article or sub-section detailing the existence of such a named street within those cities and towns. What do you think? Pedro : Chat 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any harm in linking them, as any decent city/town article would have a History section that might expand on the little local history that's given here. --MalleusFatuorum20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Done - I expanded Newcastle to Newcastle upon Tyne as that seems to be the correct Newcastle? Now never let me darken your doors by copyediting stuff in that "article space" thing ever again.. :)Pedro : Chat 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for your warning, but I live in the perhaps vain hope that at least the majority of those armed with the block button are reasonably familiar with idiomatic English. --MalleusFatuorum01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
On the face of it, Neutralhomer, it sounds like you were unlucky enough to run into a trigger happy admin. Anyone who seriously thinks that Malleus' comment would warrant a block needs their head examining. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
NH had simply expressed a wish that a fellow editor be well "endowed". MF advices taking pictures. Words can be ambiguous, and some admins are just so touchy, ya know? Baseball Bugscarrots01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you do cleaning up DYKs - I've noted it in almost all the articles I've submitted recently, and can only apologise that the prose/grammar is so poor as to require it. Not that you need any kind of kudos from me, but keep up the good work. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't poor at all in your case, in fact I thought that was a very interesting read, but anything can be improved. :-) --MalleusFatuorum11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm doing a lot of work on that sort of area at the moment - if I see anything that might interest you I'll be sure to give you a heads up. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I can still see quite a bit of plural/singular confusion and inconsistencies here ... would you mind if I make a few changes to what I'm absolutely certain is correct, as I've already done in the lead?
A couple of examples: "Luton Town Football Club was formed on Sunday, 11 April 1885 – the product of a merger of the two leading local teams, Luton Town Wanderers and Excelsior. Initially based at Excelsior's Dallow Lane ground, they moved ...". "The club has made several attempts to relocate, and first stated their intent to do so in 1955." --MalleusFatuorum15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad you're helping. I have RL stuff going on that's making it hard to devote enough of the copyediting part of my brain to, erm, copyediting. I'm off for the weekend, comme toujours, imminently. Per my userpage tag I'm not sure how much I'll be around for the next while, so feel free to keep this moving at FAC. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
– Cliftonian has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hmmm, interesting - I would have not expected you (as somewhat iconoclastic and contrary) to be a supporter of such an 'establishment' team :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Cas, I think you might be showing your age (or lack thereof) there – although they're now firmly ensconced in the Big Four, for most of the 70s and 80s MUFC were more analogous to Newcastle United, as "the team that used to be good and nobody's quite sure what went wrong". The 1974-75 league table makes interesting reading for those who think the Chelsea/ManU/Arsenal/Liverpool/Villa hegemony has always been the case. – iridescent21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've often seen it said that nobody in Manchester or surrounding areas supports MU (Manchester (the city) is quite small), but MU play in Trafford, which is where I've lived for most of my life, so they're my local team. Admittedly I only get to see a game when my mother lends me her season ticket though. She's got a good seat, pretty much behind the goal at the old Stretford End. Getting back to the Alex though, I remember as a kid being taken to see the return leg at Gresty Road after Crewe had managed a draw (in the FA Cup?) at Whitehart Lane. I think it was a 9-0 thrashing; I was gutted anyway. --MalleusFatuorum21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Many folks in Oz support an English soccer club as well as their league or aerial ping-pong team. Yes, I do recall the Man U low period, I guess life under Sir Alex has well and truly erased those memories of yore. I just never liked the red teams, my mother is a Leeds United fan as she thought Eddie Gray was cute in the 70s, while the first game I remember seeing on the telly was Spurs vs Leeds in the 1976-77 season and I couldn't figure out why a team was named after a lemonade brand (Leed(s) lemonade was an antecedent of Sprite here)..anyway I chose Spurs (as people who like Spurs like life XD) as they came from behind to win the game 2-1. But sadly the olny game I have ever seen IRL ever was being dragged by some partisan Glasgow Rangers suporters to see them play Sparta Prague in some European cup match or other in 1991 in Prague..Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
One of my best and oldest friends is a Spurs supporter. The money I've made from his silly bets about who'd finish highest in the league, who'd score thie first goal when the teams played ... is almost obscene. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
(sigh) For all their skill and resources, the club are remarkably useless at playing the three successful red teams...must be some psychological colour thingCasliber (talk·contribs) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
They did OK against the Alex in (I just checked) 1955, who also play in red, when they won 13-2. No wonder I couldn't see over the barrier and my Dad had to hold me up. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears that I'm five years younger than I thought I was. I stupidly relied on the accuracy of a wikipedia article.. Ah well, that'll teach me. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I could find a lot more dark blue dud teams - Man C vs Man U, Bristol Rovers vs city (well, that one is relative), Birmingham City vs Villa, also WBA (2nd fave team) for that matter, Everton vs Liverpool...Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Feature topic
Since you are listed under two of the FAs, you can be involved in this. Apparently, people don't understand that a work of literature can stand on its own without being subservient to an author. The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't seen that. I'll need to think carefully about this, because on the face of it I tend to agree with the opposers. Let me ponder. --MalleusFatuorum19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the two pages above and you will see that a work can be understood without the author. Also, Johnson is limited to the "Background" section. That definitely shows that it is not about Johnson, but about the work. Furthermore, the claims about Johnson's works is absurd, as the rules would stipulate that a list of Johnson's works would be the main category, so Johnson wouldn't have any topic. The Feature Topic list does not specify what can be a topic or not. It only says that you pick a topic, include other pages that are needed to understand that topic, and that so many of them have to be FAs and GAs. The rest is just nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that a work can be understood without the author, and perhaps even the author doesn't always fully understand it, but I need to think about what case there is to make for the featured topic. You've obviously had time to sort out your ideas on this already. --MalleusFatuorum19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the topic should optimally be "plays of Samuel Johnson", but he wrote only one play. Another FT with Sam will be Samuel Johnson's health, which will have the biography and early life as subsets along with TS. Obviously, the emphasis would be on the health and not his biography, but I am sure that people will make the same argument. Feature Topics should be interesting, not just "here is a guy and here is every stupid page beneath them". They should have a theme and a focus that would involve people. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Another great topic would be Samuel Johnson's edition of Shakespeare's plays, with him, Shakespeare, and his critical views as subpages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that if you were to have a topic, "Samuel Johnson's poems" then I could support having the articles about Johnson under an topic umbrella about the poems... In that case, the articles on Johnson would be complimentary to the various articles on the poems. Samuel Johnson would still be the parent, but you would have broken it off into a discerable sub-category of his overall work. When you only have one play, you can't do that. Irene does not stand on its own as a FT, and trying to push his life into the topic to get it to the minimum of 3 articles is just an attempt to get an FT where one doesn't exist. Not all subjects can be FT's. Everybody else is looking at this topic going, "How does Johnson fit UNDER the topic of Irene? When you have to start going into a metaphilosophical debate about New Criticism then you are clearly not adhering to 1b which reads, clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope. It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to anybody else (including MF.) This looks like cherry picking to the rest of us.---Balloonman19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated multiple times, the page Irene IS "Samuel Johnson's plays". He only wrote one. Therefore, you can do that. Anyway, none of this is part of the rules as there is nothing specifying -what- can be a topic. It only says that those articles under it must cover all parts of the topic. Johnson and his early life are confined to "Background". That makes them subsets of Irene. The well defined topic scope is obvious - a play called Irene. There is no way around it and your statements are utterly absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And as I said above, IRENE does not stand as a topic on its own. You are trying to push a topic through that simply doesn't have enough meat for others to bite. Not all things can be a topic. The topic MIGHT have fared better if you had labled it "Samuel Johnson's plays" and used SJ's main article as the parent, and IRENE under it. But with Irene as the parent, the general expectation is that the children (sub topics) are going to be subtopics under Irene. When we see the only articles under IRENE being the articles everyone expects to see as the parent, it raises questions. Here's another idea... Why not create the topic on SJ's Early works?---Balloonman19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There is only one play, so your claim about "plays" is completely irrelevant and illogical. The fact that you would even say "it would be better" only verifies that you have no actual stance. The expectation is that the sub articles are simply connected to the article. The fact that you mentioned the possibility of actors only verifies that your whole argument is one big contradiction. But as all of your arguments, logic is not becoming you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see how it is forced to have an article and all major connections to the article listed as per the explanation of what a Featured Topic is. You can agree with Balloonman, but as pointed above, his argument has 7 major contradictions and is nothing but a sham. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the topic is Irene. As per Feature Topics, you take a topic (any topic). Then you place that as the topic. You then take all pages connected and important to that topic and you include them under neath. These are not content forks, splits, or anything like that. If they meet the requirement of having more than one third FA and everything GA and FA, then it is featured. That is how it is supposed to be. However, those like Balloonman are operating in a mass hope that they can win favor by agreeing for their own featured topic. They want to turn it into a backscratching project like Featured Lists or Featured Pictures, in which quality and meeting standards no longer matters but it is if you are part of a click. The fact that Balloonman constantly contradicted himself, claims that an author's name comes first and therefore makes him primary, and other absolutely absurd statements without any use of logic or reason only verifies that he has definitely gone the wrong path in content editing. This is probably why dedicated admin and dedicated content editors don't mix. You tend to get a somewhat decent admin completely lose their mind when they start playing such favoritism games. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's right I have such a history of playing politics on the board and doing what it takes to get in with the cliques... give me a break. These allegations are so unfounded as not even to be funny.---Balloonman00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)And yet you are the ONLY person to have the wisdom to realize this, everybody else, including the person whose input you sought, disagrees with you. When EVERYBODY else disagrees with you, do you even consider the possibility that you might be in err?---Balloonman00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As Sandy once said at FAC - a lot of people don't agree with me, but I tend to point out what others don't see and these tend to be important things. If you didn't have such a glaring conflict of interest by trying to get your own pet project through and the sheepish mindset that follows, then, well, you would have a better stance. Regardless, a better stance couldn't overcome the mind numbing attempt at logic that you put forth before and some of the worse gems of "wisdom" that I've ever seen. Then, to top it off, your claims about being attacked without there being one personal attack or anything but saying that your comments are not based on logic and are absurd. Crying such things only verify that you have no real argument. You are biased, unwilling to use logic, and acting like a standard corrupt individual does when they are pointed out to be wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
WTF? You have obviously lost it. What could I possibly gain by opposing your Feature Topic? What could possibly be my motivation for opposing? To garner an enemy? To invoke the wrath of Ottava Rima? I'm sorry, but your logic has completely gone off the deep end. I have zero stake in your FT. I have zero reason to support or oppose, except for based upon the merits of the case. YOU are the only person who seems to think that Johnson should be a subcategory of Irene. You go out and make biased appeal for support thinking that the person you contact will support you and even that person says that he disagrees with you? Come on get a life? You make insults criticizing people's ability to use logic, but you have yet to convince even one person that your wisdom has any merit. You have yet to explain a rationale that makes sense to ANYBODY other than yourself, and since you can't convince anybody that you are right, you've decided to be ridicule those who disagree with you.---Balloonman00:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of this page. I will give you thirty minutes to apologize before I draw up a behavior RfC on you. These claims are baseless and completely inappropriate. Your actions from the very beginning lack any sort of propriety and you are just behaving in a completely disrespectful manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The diff is below which clearly states that you are saying I canvassed Malleus. You really should know better than to make such accusations which are blatantly false. Everyone knows that Malleus was part of these pages. It is even at the very top of this page. The mere fact that you would claim that discussing with someone who is intrinsically linked to a page as canvassing is so awful that I really wonder how you made admin. However, seeing your RfB failing in such a light now makes more sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm astonished to see myself writing this, but will everyone please calm down? I see Ottava's point in a general sense, in that a featured topic "is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality", which his nomination clearly is. The difficulty in my mind comes with criterion 1b: "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope". Clearly in this case they don't, as one is about a play and the rest are about a person. I don't know how much plainer it can be said. --MalleusFatuorum01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I explained about 6 times so far - Irene is about the play. The play has a background section. This is in Johnson's early life. The play has a reception section which deals with Johnson as a writer in general. This is in his main biography. Two of the sections directly deal with two other articles on Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe I understand the case you're making, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I also believe that it's inconsistent with my limited understanding of the FT criteria. --MalleusFatuorum01:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The FT requirement is limited and on purpose - you take a topic (any topic). Then you have any pages that are connected to that topic and fill in gaps that deal with that topic. It was supposed to be simple and without politics. Not baseless accusations like Balloonman makes. Oh, you should check out the number such people did on Gilbert and Sullivan when they declared that the topic wasn't complete with Gilbert and Sullivan (as a duo) and a page on Gilbert and a page on Sullivan. The absurdity going on there is just outrageous. But I was warned by people not to even bother as FT is screwed. No wonder people like Scorpion are able to pass through junk in these processes. (and not to be overly harsh on Scorpion. His article's violation of WP:LEAD that almost went through into a good topic was completely ignored by many people who frequent and vote there without a care about MoS or standards). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You've made some pretty whacky claims yourself tonight, let it go. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, and I want to see that this molehill has been properly flattened by the time I get out of my coffin tomorrow. --MalleusFatuorum01:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Goodnight Malleus, Sorry for congesting your talk page. I was hoping that OR would be able to discuss this like an adult, especially when you expressed you disagreed with him. Sleep well my friend.---Balloonman01:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus actually bothered to do some research and look into it, unlike you. Every time you posted an idea, it was proven wrong. Then you resorted to making claims about violations. I would suggest you read what Malleus stated at 01:18, 27 June 2009 also. Like everyone else, you seem unwilling to look at the situation for what it is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries. But you realise, though various users can accuse you of being occasionally incivil, and when you use rollback by accident the wrong way they can remove it, they can't and likely never will be able to accuse you of creating low-quality blp-vio fest articles. Thus any admin that removed this would just look like a petty grudge-filled tit of a person, and would gain more discredit through doing so than yourself. Just thought I'd point this out; I don't think you needed to have the same concern with this as with, say, rollback. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I realise that, but at the back of my mind is the flagged revisions thingy. I've been threatened with all sorts by various administrators, but if ever my revisions didn't appear immediately then you wouldn't see me for dust, and probably everyone knows that. Hence I'd be vulnerable. --MalleusFatuorum22:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the discussion was: No one on this page cares, so take it to a more appropriate venue, kthx. لennavecia04:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Disgusting
You can see how far Balloonman has fallen here, when he claims a discussion with a co-nom is some how canvassing. Yeah, seeing an opinion by someone else directly involved in the articles is canvassing! I guess it was canvassing too when I brought you in at the FACs!!! Disgusting. Not only has he made some of the most absurd statements, made major violates of civil by throwing out accusations of attacks, he pulls this stuff. People get blocked for less. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't a co-nom Ottava, but I doubt that anyone who's visited this talk page would believe that I'd be swayed even if I had been. --MalleusFatuorum01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Major participants in a project or page are supposed to be informed when you put things through the featured process. I didn't bother because I assumed you and Sandy had other things to worry about. However, that doesn't mean that I lose my right to vent about problems in dealing with the pages to other important writers of the pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry you were only notifying the major participants... I missed the post where you notified SandyGeorgia, the other nominator! Should I?---Balloonman01:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sandy had, in her email sent quite a while ago, a laid out plan of all of these steps and processes. She is busy to directly involve herself with any of them. But yes, she would share in any credit regardless of her direct participation. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Let's see, if your intention was to invite MF to the discussion, that would have been perfectly fine. I would have supported that move as he was the conom of the FAC. However, let's look at the criteria for WP:CANVASS:
Scale: Limited posting: Yes, notifying Malleus is limited.
Message: Neutral: NO.
Audience: Non-partisan: I'll give this to you as he was FAC the co-nom.
Transparency: Open: No, but again, I'll give you this as he was the FAC co-nom.
If Malleus wasn't involved with any of the pages or part of the instrinc aspect of Feature Topics (i.e. he helped promote two of the articles to featured status) then, and only then, would you have a point. This is blatantly obvious. I can complain to fellow editors in a page about the reception of a page in a status giving process that deals with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Make that argument at your RfC and we'll see exactly how many people agree with you, but inviting him to the discussion while complaining is clearly a textbook case of CANVASS.---Balloonman01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If I may speak on my own behalf here, I don't believe that WP:CANVASS applies to curmudgeons like me. Who can possibly predict how I'll be likely to react to requests like Ottava's? :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if you were part of real processes instead of just pretending to be part of them to make up for your major failure at RfB, then you would realize that all people are supposed to be notified about processes when it deals with pages that they work on. Furthermore, I can say whatever I want to a fellow editor of a page who is already involved in the page about the judgment of the pages. Canvassing is strictly about people not involved in a discussion whereas by definition Malleus and Sandy are already part of it (just as Lexo is part of it for his connection to Irene). They have just as equal say as I do in the nomination. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The wonderful part about this all is that canvassing deals with voting. As Malleus is part of the nomination, there is no "vote" on his behalf just as in FAC and the rest. Sure, he can disagree with the nomination just as someone working on an article can disagree with a page being nominated at FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No I refused to waste my time earlier with you, as I refuse to do so now. Please start your RfC and see if ANYBODY supports you.---Balloonman01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(suppresses giggle) I've started doing this article up a bit, I have a couple more contemporary sources but I wondered what you thought. Its a bit messy, and there is a fair bit of hidden text concerned mainly with a very unreliable and biased contemporary account, that I'm unsure what to do with. Its all your fault by the way, you and your sweary article suggestions. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Which one? Both are, they're well-known. I was surprised to see references to both in Hogarth's engravings, he even created an engraving just for Mrs Rabbit - Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Often on Google Books, when looking around for stuff. You'll find 'the proceedingf of the moft extraordinary compendium of the enlightened reverend...' and all kindf of interefting ftuff on there, and juft reading through you come acroff thingf like thif. Actually I found Mary Toft because she's in the Hogarth engraving in the Cock Lane article, (Hogarth is ripe for improvement, his prints are fabulous, you can study them for ages) giving birth to fluffy bunnies. That seemed a bit bizarre, so when I read about it in another book I was surprised to find an article here. There is loads of material about the story, so that is going to be my next little project. Cunts, Cocks, and Rabbits up vaginas, that's what we like in Flixton! Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Living in Stretford, I've always thought of you Flixton types as a bit posh. "Oh no, I don't live in Urmston, I live in Flixton!" :lol: --MalleusFatuorum19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose you know of any kind of quotation template that would fit the style of a letter, do you? Dear x, yours sincerely, etc? I could use one in hereParrot of Doom (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of such a template, no. I use the {{quote}} template like you've done, with a final line something like "Letter from X to Y published in Z on whenever". If such a template exists I'm sure that Iridescent will know of it; she knows everything. :-) --MalleusFatuorum20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You are on the list of honored mentors for my plan. See Mentors list. All of the other mentors seem comfortable with the role and I hope you are also. I do not envision any problems and none have arisen since the arbitration opened, even though I have returned to "normal" editing. As you have said, I am not a child. I believe I understand the rules now regarding what is considered unacceptable behavior. I welcome your opinion/feedback in any situation you feel that my behavior is borderline or wrong. Ling.Nut suggested that I come up with a list of Stressful situations and, although I resisted, it turns out that this list has been helpful to me. I trust your judgment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do confirm that you are willing! Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. I humbly ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page. Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
... and there's nothing fun going on around here. I did archive an dead conversation, though. I think they both know me well enough to get the humor in it. Funny for me either way, though. XD Haha. Alright, I'll take my naughty tail off your talk page now. >_> لennavecia04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You won't know me from Adam, but one of the things I like about skulking about WP's talk pages and discussions is finding engaging personalities and intellects with principled, cut-the-crap, good humoured (well, mostly) contributions. For making this place fun without detracting from its serious and lofty goals, I'm popping one of these thingys on your page (and Ottava's too). Thanks for being around. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Malleus, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've presented my opposition to your suggestions, particularly the second of them, at WT:RFA in the full and certain knowledge that all discussion there is little more than "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I don't even bother to read that talk page any more. --MalleusFatuorum21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I used to be a sweet calm person who never made any provocative comments. But I think I am about to turn into a MF (God forbid!). See this. Sorry but I think it is ***. How about you? Perhaps I should not take WP seriously after all - a pity. Power to you. (Perhaps I should not have had that glass of wine.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You'd need more than just the one glass to turn into an MF Peter. ;-) Like you, I take WP seriously, but I've stopped taking the stuff around the edges seriously, like FT/DYK and do on. The rules there are at best arbitrarily applied. My last DYK nomination was rejected because it failed to meet one of the "hidden rules" that I didn't even know existed, and I suspect that few others know of the existence of either.
Back to your list though; obviously I completely agree with your position. I'm an infrequent visitor to both Runcorn and Widnes, but they're clearly quite different places with quite different feels, and so far as Hale is concerned, I've always thought of that almost as a part of Liverpool. I'll pop along to the review and give my opinion—I had it watchlisted anyway after I copyedited it, so there can be no suggestion of canvassing on your part. --MalleusFatuorum19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for all of your help. If you hadn't did wonders with the prose, it'd likely still be sitting at FAC or maybe have to face a second attempt. I like how the article has continued to improve since I first started working on it. It's amazing what others see that I was oblivious to. Anyway, thanks again for the assistance. I may have you look at all my future FACs (if you're not too busy!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's really very hard for any of us to see our own work objectively as others see it. We see through the veil of knowing what it was that we meant to say, whereas all others can see is what we actually say, and often the two are at odds. I'm really pleased this one got through though; it's an important topic that deserved a proper treatment, which you've provided. --MalleusFatuorum20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sidelines
I think I am going to go to the sidelines because it seems like Peter will be going to ArbCom. He probably wanted this anyway. Sigh. Chillum and the others are gullible enough to take such obvious bate. One tiny sentence completely blown out of proportion. What was the saying? "Kill them all and let God sort them out?" Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Ched, this is how it goes. People claim Peter wants to destroy Wiki, yes? So they mass up together and decide to block him for that. They claim that he is going to destroy Wiki with his one line oppose which doesn't hold much sway and can be discounted by Crats. There is no policy or guideline about that. There is no real grounds for it. Instead, they try to stir up a large group of people to support a community ban. This causes commotion and drama. This distracts people from editing. This takes away from actually reviewing RfAs. Thus, regardless if Peter was actively trying to destroy Wiki or not, it is being destroyed by disruption over something that was really insignificant. Instead of being the monster that attacks Wiki, he turned a lot of people into the monster and they are doing his work for him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
OUCH .. I have to admit, I hadn't thought about it that way. And, I'll admit to be as guilty as many of the others in that respect. Point taken, and thank you. ;) — Ched : ? 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty good summary of my view as well Ottava. It's the administrators like Law who are destroying wikipedia, not Peter Damien. --MalleusFatuorum20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that second part may be a little harsh - I think he had the best of intentions. It's not like he was the first admin. to every block the person. — Ched : ? 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I'm here to request some help in understanding the Peter Damian situation. It appears that he has a great deal of support from a large number of people that I admire greatly, and I can see that there are pieces to this situation that I am not aware of. I'm trying to do my own research through links and history (apparently some of it has been oversighted). I get the impression now that the situation goes much deeper than a "plan to destroy", and "he can write good articles". Anything you could tell me, point me in the direction of, provide a link for would be greatly appreciated. I'm coming here to ask you because I know you'll be blunt and honest. I've just recently come to the conclusion that I'm missing a huge piece of the big picture here, and I'd honestly like to know more about it. Would you be willing to help me? Thanks — Ched : ? 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd help if I could, but I probably know even less about this situation than you do Ched. A better person to ask would probably be Iridescent. Of course I've seen Peter's comments on WR about "destroying wikipedia", but I frankly don't take them seriously, and I find the idea of destroying wikipedia by voting oppose at every RfA to be completely lunatic. As I said, to really destroy wikipedia one should vote support at every RfA; that way the body of incompetent admins will reach the critical mass needed to chase off every article writer by issuing daft blocks for "incivility".
And that's at the root of my objection to Peter's block. I don't agree with his stated position, and I've no reason to believe that many others do either, but there have been quite enough witchhunts of those who dare to oppose anyone at RfA, for whatever reason. The logical destination on the road Law set off down today with his heavy-handed blocking is that any oppose at RfA will result in a similar block if he or some other power-crazed administrator decides to take exception to it. My position is not one in support of Peter Damien, it's one in support of fairness, integrity, and playing by the rules. --MalleusFatuorum20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus, I'll try to come up with some acceptable way of approaching Iri - my first effort didn't fare well (my own ignorance), but hopefully she'll understand that I only want to help and improve things here. Thank you for your time and sage words of wisdom. — Ched : ? 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Iridescent's bark is far worse than her bite, or so I believe anyway. And like all sensible adults with far better things to do she doesn't harbour grudges. If you're lucky she may even offer her opinion here unsolicited. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have to go replace a network card for a client, but I'll check back - and keep my fingers crossed. ;-) — Ched : ? 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Malleus pretty much sums up the problem here; Peter Damian (along with Greg Kohs) is probably our most prominent example of a "thought criminal". It's a difficult case to reconstruct if you're not familiar with it, because his accounts have been blocked and password-scrambled, and then renamed to allow him to start new accounts under the User:Peter Damian name. Very basic summary (see this for more background):
Former Arbcom member User:FT2 wrote a long userspace essay (User:FT2/ap, preserved off-wiki here – before anyone starts yelping about links to deleted content, remember that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL" checkbox). Although FT2 argued (almost certainly truthfully) that this was a first draft what would eventually become a neutral article on an important if distasteful subject, it was certainly possible to consider it as a personal essay in favor of bestiality.
Peter then started going through FT2's edits, to a degree which some considered harassment.
Relations between the two deteriorated, culminating in this thread. Edits by FT2 which would have potentially demonstrated that Peter's arguments about him were correct, were oversighted without apparent legitimate cause, making it appear that Peter was fabricating allegations (see here for the alleged content of the oversighted edits). Following that Peter retired, followed a few days later by Jimmy Wales's "User says he is leaving. Good timing." hardblock and emailblock.
As it became clear what had actually happened Peter was then unblocked subject to very strict conditions, which were later eased. (See here for Peter's version of events, which is obviously only showing one side of the case.)
Last month, Peter proposed an "Association of Established Editors", to "represent such content contributors in the Misplaced Pages community, to champion their interests, and to defend them where there is just cause". Despite attracting a number of well-established editors willing to participate, it was promptly jumped on by an IRC clique as "trolling", and Peter was bombarded with abuse from the usual suspects. (Established Editors went ahead in a very modified form, without the membership criteria, as WP:AWN.)
In a foul mood following the Established Editors debacle, Peter posted this thread at Misplaced Pages Review. One of his thoughts was "Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up."
Peter voted "oppose" in 11 RFAs. (As per my comments at ANI, just to put that in perspective, Majorly, who is probably the most prominent advocate of "support by default" as an RFA position, has made 64 opposes, Malleus has made 57 and I've made 96)
I can easily see why Peter gets frustrated. He works mostly in an area (the history of philosophy) where there are very few people qualified to comment, but in which an awful lot of people feel the urge to add things they "just know are true". A well-known and long-established problem with the Misplaced Pages model is that, while it's great for arcane and obscure topics, there's no method for discerning contributions from genuine experts, from contributions by any drive-by crank with an opinion. (A common strand on the talkpage of virtually any "content expansion" editor – from Giano to Mattisse to Durova to Ottava to SlimVirgin to Malleus to myself… – is that despite the wild differences in style between them, every talkpage will generally contain at least one crank arguing passionately against their Censorship Of The Truth on some article or other.) I fundamentally disagree with WP:EQUALITY; this is a hobby, not a job, and those people who put large amounts of generally thankless unpaid work into keeping this site at least halfway stable and accurate, should be granted more leeway than the rabble of cranks and schoolchildren who treat the mainspace as a sounding board for their pet essays, and the userspace as Facebook for ugly people. I disagree with Peter more often than I agree with him, but Malleus hits the nail on the head; once we head down the road of indefinite blocks for expressing opinions an admin disagrees with (at RFA, for christ's sake!) we've taken a very big jump towards the blurry line that separates "open editing" from "self-appointed Citizendium-style clique". – iridescent14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The last point you make there sums up pretty well why I will always support editors at RfA whom I know to have added good content, almost regardless of any other consideration, but certainly regardless of the "not enough experience in adminly areas" bollox. Heck, I even supported Ottava, and not just to offer support. I genuinely believe that you have to have fought in the trenches to understand the point of view of the common foot soldier. All that spending excessive amounts of time at AN/ANI/XfD, on the other hand, ought to teach a rational person is that they want to stay as far away from them as possible. --MalleusFatuorum15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
on the comment by iridescent
Can I say that was pretty damn good. Yes: I have a higher degree in philosophy and this area is easily the worst in Misplaced Pages - everyone understands their own philosophy, don't they? Whereas the usual ratio of experts to 'Randy from Boise' is 3 to 1 in favour of the experts, it is the other way round. Generally I am the only one there able to support 'Academic point of view'. This is very demoralising. Also I specialise in cult or POV-infested areas like Neurolinguistic programming and Ayn Rand, and don't forget Pederasty and other train-wrecks. It is very emotionally tiring and exhausting and very frustrating when admins have no sympathy and feel that Randy from Boise must have his or her say. So, yes. Thanks for those comments Iridescent. Peter Damian (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
