User talk:Eric Corbett

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.

Courtesy note

I mentioned your pithy critique of the shambles that is our 9/11 article here. Keep telling it like it is Malleus.--John (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, dear MONGO. It's obviously a crying shame the 9/11 article is so poor, but like you I don't think it even meets the GA criteria as it stands, never mind FA. Perhaps it's a subject too close to American editors' hearts and too recent for them to do it proper justice? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that may be some of the problem. --John (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK description

Hi Malleus,

I suggested an alternative description, in response to your concerns.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjanag has made it abundantly clear that he thinks that anyone raising legitimate concerns about DYK is a troll, particularly if it's me. So he and it can rot in Hell as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I do like your revised wording: much more accurate, concise, and elegant. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

(The following is not motivated by the other discussants at DYK, but is motivated by your critics in the past and elsewhere.) You may be like Schopenhauer's description of one of his own books, which was like a mirror to the soul: If an ass looks in, you cannot expect an angel to look out.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Understatement: This DYK discussion is a disappointment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No more so than the disappointment that is DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Two have now admitted it's for new content only but the page is locked down. Typical. Stupidly, I really did think it was for expansion and improvement. My naivete floors me sometimes. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it as kindly as I can, there's a great deal of double-dealing and muddy thinking going on there. One thing's for certain though: DYK has absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I agree with most of what you wrote.

However, DYK often results in improved articles, although improvement is not an essential feature. (DYK may have resulted in neighbors meeting for a drink, also, although that is not an essential feature either.) Conscientious reviewers have helped me both to improve my craft and to better understand policies.

I agree that the talk page's failure to focus & address key issues is maddening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My real beef with DYK (well I have several actually, but my beef in this context) is that it's my firm belief that very many articles are improved not by increasing their length but by ruthlessly hacking away at them, making them shorter and more focused. Here's just one example that springs to mind because I was involved in it; in the effort to save Roy of the Rovers's little bronze gubbin at FAR it was reduced from 34kB (5918 words) to 19kB (3335 words). The problem with encouraging expansion is that it encourages the kind of prolix prose so beloved of Americans. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to to see how any clear-thinking person could believe that DYK is anything other than a reward system for the creation of new articles. Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep worrying about prolixity, and you'll end up in a Catch-22.

"Omit needless words! Omit needless words!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I took to heart the Zen idea that less is more. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Mmmm, I'm not happy with the comment that DYK is nothing but "a reward system for the creation of new articles". OK it's that, but in addition it does bring attention to an article that may not be achieved otherwise. In my experience a DYK on the main page usually results in 1–3k "hits" (or more), rather than the usual 2–3 per day. And, on occasion, it leads to a conversation with other editors with similar interests, resulting in the improvement of the article in question, and maybe more! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue I have with DYK is that I can completely rework an article, removing what was tripe and replacing it with half-decent mutterings, but that isn't "good enough" to be eligible for DYK. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my issue too. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your articles are a breath of fresh air at DYK Peter, but for a more typical example take a look at one of today's, 2011 PBA Governors Cup Finals, and try to persuade me that DYK cares about quality or article improvement rather than bling. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather liked "when he grabbed Grundy's behind twice before the officials called for a foul." Shows character, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article does have a certain naive charm, I agree. A bit like a painting by a chimpanzee. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Using only chimpanzee-generated materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, there are bad apples everywhere. But that does not deny that reasonably OK articles nominated for DYK bring attention to new articles in the projects for which we care — Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancs & Cumbria, etc. {That sentence needs some copyediting, but you see what I mean, I hope.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You probably haven't been watching the discussion on DYK's talk page Peter, and no reason why you should, but it's rapidly blowing out of control. Administrators abusing mere editors because they see a truth they can't, and therefore ought to be blocked as trolls, others threatening to retire because all of sudden DYK is revealed as what it really is ...". Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right; don't follow that stuff. Just sit in my room, let the children play, and get on with improving (I hope) the encyclopaedia; with the odd excursion to the main page, if and when it's accepted. I think Voltaire said at the end of Candide's adventures, just tend one's garden (metaphorically of course — I hate gardening).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

He also said in that book, or at least Pangloss did, that we live in the best of all possible worlds, an idea you see repeated again and again in all of the discussions for RfA reform. But I really do hope that's not true in Wikipedia's case, as it seems to me to be just about bordering on the worst of all possible worlds. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the DYK description yesterday, and they still stand! Thanks for initiating the topic at DYK and for your support. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

GoCE

Hi Malleus, I was hoping you might be interested in the somewhat-reignited discussion at WT:GOCE#Actions—I'm proposing a subpage of the GoCE's requests page for articles on their way to FAC. It's not quite the writers' workshop you suggested, but I'm hoping it could serve as a central place for nominators to ask for feedback on their prose and get a frank assessment of whether or not they can nominate it at FAC. Then the copy-editors there can offer advice or edit the article if it's not up to scratch, hopefully averting a disaster for the nominator at FAC and perhaps taking some of the burden off of FAC reviewers. Now, you're a far better and more experienced copy-editor than I, so I was hoping you might be willing to help with the requests if or when the page gets the go-ahead. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the workshop was my idea was it? I think I just expressed a concern that nominators at FAC told that their work needs a damn good seeing to by a decent copyeditor were being left in limbo with nowhere to go. I've run through quite a few FA candidates in my time, and I've never found it an easy thing to do; it's also rather time-consuming to do properly. It'll be interesting to see if the experiment to separate out the various levels of request proves to be a success, but I suppose that rather depends on whether the various levels of GOCE members naturally gravitate towards their level of competence. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a while one thing I'd add, again from my own experience, is that some articles are so far from reaching FA's criteria that to spend time on them in that cauldron would be a waste of GOCE copyeditors' time. Perhaps another reason why it ought to be a venue for experienced copyeditors. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There most certainly are articles that have problems that run deeper than the prose (and many of the articles the GoCE focuses on are prime examples), but there's no shame in telling a nominator that the prose is the least of their worries and that there's no point copy-editing it until the deeper issues are sorted out—no point putting a 'band-aid' on a gunshot wound, to paraphrase an American expression. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck with that. My experience tells me that such a response almost inevitably leads to vitriol and a promise to watch for your RfA nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think (sensible) nominators would much prefer to hear it early on than have. The 'fly off the rails at any hint their article might not be perfect' type will be the same wherever their articles are nominated. And the idle threats of the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard than anything to be concerned about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO is of course quite right though. I've no doubt he could field a whole army more than willing to try and chase me from the field. But that in itself ought to lead to serious questions being asked about Wikipedia's editor retention policy, or the lack of it.Malleus Fatuorum

The things people will do to win silly disputes on Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me, but I still believe they're the minority. Most nominators are sensible people motivated by nothing more than wanting their pet article—usually a subject they're passionate about—to be the best article it can be. The hope is that we (the reviewers and copy editors) can help those editors improve their articles and leave the others to their own devices. Which is why, when it's up and running, your help would be appreciated at WP:GOCE/FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been made very clear to me, twice now, that I'm not trusted here at Wikipedia, so it's not for me. I'll continue to help individual editors as long as I'm still around, but that's about it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to make the mistake of confusing the vocal minority with the consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Parrot of Doom 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost four years ago now I stupidly agreed to a nomination at RfA despite having recently upset a big-mouthed gobshite who went on to become an administrator himself after licking enough arses. That's the reality of Wikipedia, and it's not something I'm ever likely to forget or forgive. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin (or rather succeeding at RfA, which seems to have less and less to do with being an admin by the day) has next to nothing to do with being a good copy editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the very use of the term "copyeditor" to be demeaning, as in someone else does all the real work whereas all you do is tidy up a bit. I'll be interested to see the results from your experiment, but I won't be taking part in it myself I'm afraid. I agree with you about RfA though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To give you one example, I would be very hard pressed to think of any articles better prepared for FAC than those written by Ealdgyth, but even hers typically take me an hour or two to get through. Maybe I'm just too slow. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am hardly likely to turn down "free" help. The time it works out badly is if the editor becomes attached both to the article and to ill-rendered changes he's made. Then follows trouble. In such cases, I would hardly be likely to come back to the guild.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great improvements to Mutiny at Sucro! Doug Coldwell talk 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice little story, and I'm sure if you got the prose in order you'd at least be within shouting distance of GA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Apparently you've been mentioned at WP:ANI#Malleus Faturorum and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's time for your quarterly flogging/review/dhramafest...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But he got two notices in a row. This must be an extra special thread --Guerillero | My Talk 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, just one posted by an inexperienced editor who couldn't figure out how to leave a notice until after somebody else already left one. Sharktopus ^talk 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Noodle soaking in warm water, ready for ritual flagellation soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm left completely gobsmacked: disagreement disrupts the cult, and must be suppressed. No wonder that only 4000 editors contributed 85% of Wikipedia's content last month. Any sane organisation would recognise the death rattles. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What gets me is even that in the excerpts posted at AN/I, it was clear you were willing to discuss improvements to AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've about had it here now, let the barbarians have it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It could always be worse - there could have been an outpouring of support for Shark's charges. Instead, he's being called out for trying to stifle the opposition. Of course, it is early hours yet ;) Karanacs (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But before I forget, here's the requisite admonishment - I know they've given you sooo much ammunition (some of which I would have had a hard time resisting too), but play nice, okay? Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to explain "play nice" to me I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another counter-example to a doctrine of Charles Sanders Peirce: That Evolution has given all intelligent beings "some notion of what sort of objects their fellow-beings are, and how they will act". Thanks for the compliment (which I'd missed at the talk-talk-talk page for DYK! Malleus, you made my day!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An ANI notice for you

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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Faturorum_and_disrupting_Wikipedia_to_make_a_WP:POINT Sharktopus ^talk 03:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, "In the rational world there is no correlation between length and quality," you said, and I read that on the same evening that this comes about. I like to think I made the article 5/7ths better in a couple of edits. BTW, I don't know how to fix DYK, but asking for a definition of what it is seems valid to me. "Improving by sourcing and expanding short articles/stubs"--maybe that's something. But I'm staying out of that discussion; I'm too busy blocking people and deleting their articles. All the best MF, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That ANI thread is a rare counter-example to a doctrine of Charles Sanders Peirce: That Evolution has given all intelligent beings "some notion of what sort of objects their fellow-beings are, and how they will act".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mavis Wilton

Hi Malleus - saw you reviewed this to superduperarticle status so I thought I'd ask you first (rather than on its moribund Talkpage as this is WP:RS query more than anything). So, in the info box, Mavis' year of birth is given as 1937. I don't know when Granada devised/publicised (or even retconned?) character background biographical info but there is a canon-clash with the actual programme/script here. I'd long remembered seeing an episode in spring 1978 where Mavis and Rita were in the Kabin discussing Mavis' latest weltschmerz re her maidenly state vis-a-vis the Derek situation, and I distinctly remember Mavis saying it was her fortieth birthday that day which was what got her into that mood. I know this was in 1978. Anyway, looking it up, I found this: [1]. Not sure where they get their sources (contemporary TV Times maybe?) but the episode guides look accurate, though I wouldn't rely on a fan-wiki as a stand-alone source. Your advice would be appreciated. Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. "Support because I don't like those horrid Opposers" seems to be the IRC kiddies fallback rationale de jour ce soir. C'est la vie.

Hmmm. Well, clearly that source can't be considered reliable, but neither I think can we assume that an episode broadcast on 12 April 1978 was actually set on that date. The most reliable source I've come across, Graham Nown's Coronation Street, 1960–1985 : 25 Years quite clearly gives Mavis's dob as 9 April 1937, on page 52. On the basis that plot summaries are their own source, what I'd probably do is stick with the 1937 date as the best-sourced but mention the 40th birthday in the 1978 episode in a note. After all, it's quite possible that the script writers simply made a mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was rather how it looked to me too - except that her birthday is given as 7th April in the article's info box! Source ? Anyway, back then, Corrie was broadcast on Mons and Weds only but regardless of the actual date of birthday/broadcast, I still believe Mavis' 40th birthday is - at that time - more likely to have been 'out' by several days rather than several days + one year. I think Nown has guessed-and-retcon'd (presumably with the creator's very-general assent) except where certain datable incidents are well-known, and cocked it up a bit there. I'd assumed this sort of retrospective piccy-book bio-info was likely devised to sell to fans at the 1980's-opened Granada Corrie-set gift shop and the date of Nown's work seems to bear that out. You'd've thought the researchers would have combed through all the relevant episode scripts but no, they evidently didn't get specialist "Coronation Street 1976-1980" nitpickers like me in (I gave up watching in despair when Uncle Albert, Ena and Elsie went and it became all Tillsley). Anyway, I'll keep looking into it but will tread carefully with the article (and check out some others while I'm at it). Meanwhile, in a universe with no other sources, would that week's TV Times episode summary serve as WP:RS? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. Whichever date you pick as the most likely, I'd still mention the other in a footnote. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, it was courageous to GA review a soap character - I reviewed one, but never again. --Philcha (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It was. I'm not sure I'll ever do another. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I had given that article a review ... I would not have if I thought it was ordinary cruft.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, the only answer to this post was I don't really know... Parrot of Doom 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather strange to be discussing the birth date of a fictional character I agree, and my researches into Roy of the Rovers made it very evident that even the script writers don't always remember, or think about it too late and have to fudge the issue when found out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the little perturbations this has caused - I didn't mean it but can see how it had to end up this way. See, this was the only soap I ever watched - and for those four years only - and there I was lying in bed the other night staring wide-eyed at the ceiling trying to remember when it was that Mavis chose to cook Coq au Vin for the Weatherfield OAP Club at the Community Centre and for some reason left Eddie Yeats in charge and he burnt it, so Mavis - instead of dissolving into a tear-bespattered wreck - gamely rose to the culinary challenge and sent Eddie out for mince and tinned toms to make spaghetti bolognese instead and even Ena Sharples enjoyed it despite herself, Parmesan cheese and all. So I phoned my brother and he was not pleased until he heard about the reason behind these insomia-inducing mentalations I was experiencing there in the bed and then we started wondering when Mavis' 40th angst-scene fitted in with this and if it had anything to do with her extra-ditherations about then and I reckoned the spag bol was likely a few months' later on. My brother recalls everything around that era according to what Boney M were doing, so he was no good there; so we sang the 01-811-8055 Line 1 to the Swap Song song and called it a night. I checked it out today and it turns out that the Coq au Vin episode was on my 13th birthday (27 Nov 1978) and Do Ya Think I'm Sexy had just shoved the Rat Trap off the no.1 spot. Think I should write to Tony Warren? Plutonium27 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no perturbation at all. PoD and I aren't joined at he hip and we not infrequently disagree over details. No big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if my joke above was a bit too obscure. Think Les Dennis. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I often need to have jokes explained to me, must be very frustrating. Les Dennis, Amanda Holden, pregnancy, car accident earlier today ... am I getting warm? Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've just got it, Mavis's catch phrase. Duh! Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wasted here :( Oh well. Sorry to hear about your accident. My nan, a lollipop lady, was sacked for stealing. I didn't believe it but thinking back, when I visited her, all the signs were there. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I very rarely laugh when I read something, but I did just then. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Me and all. But its taken me what - the best part of 4 hours? - to get it, mind. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It did me as well, but I wasn't really thinking what "lollypop lady" meant in Britlish, I am afraid my mind turned to Royal Doulton figures and "feed the birds, tuppence a bag". Once it hit me what it meant, the rest was easy, and it was somewhere near a groan and a laugh.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This is overdue for you; it took me a while to see beyond your brusque exterior and see the erudite and hard-working scholar beneath. I see it now. This is doubly special; as far as I can figure, this will be my 100,000th edit, and this barnstar was my own creation. All that said, I won't be offended if you don't like it. In any case, take care and keep up the good work. John (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever my view of barnstars, I couldn't fail to be deeply touched that you chose this to be your 100,000th edit. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More generally, I don't think I've been blocked since March now, six months ago, and I'm damn sure it's not because I've changed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A possible misconception

I hope I haven't overly impressed upon you my human potential to annoy. I think it is fair that we have disagreed in the past and likely will again. I also know that we agree on some things too. I respect your candor, even if I have a different disposition. And I hope you are not averse to debating points with me from time to time, if we have diverging opinions. My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good luck with this angle. Just don't piss 'im off again; and piss off ;> Doc talk 05:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What I'm averse to is the incessant noise from the kiddie editors not fit to clean my shoes. There, now I've said it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly a kiddie, and I may not be fit to clean your shoes. But I will tell you if you've stepped in some dog shit and I see the tracks. And I know you would do the same for me. My76Strat (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me a clue: what was the point of this thread? Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing nefarious. Only that if I ever gave the impression that I personally didn't value your input, that would have been a wrong impression. And that I was hoping to lead into asking you to comment at WP:ALTRFA. My76Strat (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I gave up on RfA some time ago. Nothing will change there. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So we were separated at birth?

It's funny that you and I had a very similar idea (or let's say number), and I swear that I hadn't read your comment at the RfA. Compare your edit, made 2 hrs and 13 minutes before my edit.Divide et Impera (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Read the linked heading...for this is disruptive canvassing as explained here.--MONGO 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The day I need you to explain anything to me is a long way off. Have you actually read that link? And if you have, which I doubt, did you understand all of the words? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I did of course...I helped write that long before you were around, along with NPOV and other policies. You really don't seem to get it yet, but with the weekly to biweekly AN/I reports about you, I suspect it won't be long before all those supposedly great FA's you did won't be enough to protect you.--MONGO 03:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself then, as I don't see you in the article history. And as matter of interest that page was created six months after my first edit to Wikipedia so far as I can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey...you may have been saved by the bell...You've been around wiki since 2006?! WOWWIE!--MONGO 04:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself back in the day when you wrote all of these policies? Or are you just full of bullshit? Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is all sorts of stuff I have done around here...so you're welcome! Sometimes as MONGO even...as this more recently. Take a chill Malleus...stop biting me and I won't bite you...I take really big bites. Well, I got bit back once so, well, thats another story. BTW consensus rules ya' know.--MONGO 04:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not try answering the very simple question: what were you calling yourself back in the day when you wrote all of these policies? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• This was not canvassing, obviously. Sadly, MONGO's modus operandi seems all too often to be "revert-insult-threaten" rather than the more usual "bold-revert-discuss". He has also recently threatened me with losing my admin status if I continue to be a "POV-pusher". Sad really. But I think I only have about one more other cheek to turn there before I walk away once and for all, there are other and better things I can be doing than being insulted by people whose past behavior has left it hard to respect them. That MONGO is still editing this area after this episode says a lot about him. --John (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It is indeed sad, as is MONGO's dishonesty and dissembling here. He may perhaps be able to elbow that 9/11 article through its GAR, hopefully not, but it will be an FA over my dead body. Such a shame that those editors won't listen. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If the message was only posted to GA reviewers who failed the article and not to GA reviewers who passed the article, it's a violation of WP:CANVASS, specifically, vote-stacking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • If that were true, you might have a point, though it'd be a stretch. But it isn't. That took me nearly 30 seconds to find, by the way. --John (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Why is there so much dishonesty surrounding this article? Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • @John: That's why I prefaced my statement with an 'If' and put it in bold-face to make sure no one missed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • No, your phrasing calls you a liar. It would have been very easy for you to check instead of supporting MONGO's ludicrous claim. Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't check your contribution history because a) I honestly didn't care and b) my statement is 100% true regardless. Maybe instead of boldfacing, I should have used a blink tag like some really bad 90s web site? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Alternatively, you might try being honest. Malleus Fatuorum 05:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Why would I lie? Or even better, why would I need to lie? My statement was true when I wrote it. It remains true regardless of whether you canvassed or not. If you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, that's not my fault. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • Local saying where I come from: "If my mum had balls, she'd be my dad". I wouldn't say it was a lie, but it might be better to check someone's contributions before casting aspersions like this in the future. --John (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • @John: I did no such thing as the record clearly indicates. But in the future, I'll consider using a blinking tag or some other mechanism instead of bold-face. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • Hmmm, I was trying to assume good faith, but in light of this answer maybe Malleus is right and you are dishonest. --John (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                        • I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense that I can discern. As best I can tell, you are accusing me of saying something that I didn't say, and rather than admit that you are wrong, that somehow makes me dishonest? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                          • I'm sorry too, because I just lost any remaining respect I had for you as an editor. I hate when that happens, really. If you are lazy and arrogant, you'll frequently make a fool of yourself, but if you're also dishonest and cowardly, nobody will trust you or believe anything you say ever again. You made a sneaky and inaccurate insinuation, were called on it, then slithered off without apologizing. I'll remember not to make the mistake of taking anything you say seriously in the future. --John (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
                            • I've attempted to discuss this with you in good faith but I am done. I've wasted far too much of my time on this ridiculous discussion. If you want to get in the last word, knock your socks off. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm full of bullshit...I've never done anything here on this website at all...articles I write are "crap", I have never helped write a single policy or had anything to do with semi-protection implementation...even my stubs and FA's were written by someone else and the edits there are all phoney! CANVASS is an an amalgamation...get it...that means it is a combination of various pages....hello. What the Seabhcan case says about me is that he got more penalties since he was promoting fringe issues (and he really was more incivil than I, believe it or not), that should be a learning lesson for both of you...John equates the emphatic "no" with something more than that...he doesn't like to be told "no"...odd, it isn't just me that says that to him. Alas, I don't always disappoint now do I John? Malleus, I have been around almost as long as this fellow...but I have been MONGO since 2005...I like MONGO...with a username like that, no one expects me to have manners...so I have an excuse, what's yours? AQFK...Malleus didn't contact the first GA reviewer who faile dthe article until it looked like he wasn't going to gain consensus to have the article demoted...check the timestamps...thats "cheating".--MONGO 05:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So what were you calling yourself when you wrote all of these policies that don't seem to have been written by you? Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Was stalked so account abandoned 2004...thats all I can say or will so if you don't trust me thats fine. Policy has changed, but as MONGO, see 2005 semi-protection implementation...went from little support to almsot total support, the GWBush article was a vandalism target so the only option was ot do constant reverts or do full protection. Canvass was a copy paste from several things, I worked on one of those in 2004. See WP:NPA in fall 2007 linking to attack sites. How much longer are you going to keep your pathetic GAR going?--MONGO 05:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow...this is pretty close to what I had been fighting for in 2007..so thats good to see....I had dewatchlisted the page long ago.--MONGO 06:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS didn't exist until late 2006. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

True...--MONGO 07:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So how come you managed to write it a long time before I was around? Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus that calling a GAR to the attention of editors who had commented in a previous round is not a canvassing problem, and indeed, is probably desirable. I would like to point out, however, that the timing of intensive debate about this article this particular weekend is not optimal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then Malleus has bad timing for sending it to GAR when he did, as he threatened to do so with nothing other than malicious intent. There are plenty of GA's that are far worse than this one, some of which Malleus promoted. The notification of the first GA reviewer (who had not promoted the article) happened well after the more recent one, and this wasn't done for any other reason than to votestack, for had it been to truly notify, he could have notified both reviewers at the same time. I disagree entirely that Malleus has any interest in this affair other than provide further evidence of his condescension, his sanctimonious, termangant and elitist snobbery and in that he has exceeded all expectations. However, I am done with his charade, this alleged effort to make sure articles meet certain ambiguous standards...it is what it is.--MONGO 16:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Name one of these GAs that are in far worse shape than your offering or shut up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. I always notify the GA reviewer and any significant peer reviewer of a FAC if they don't weigh in within a few days. I also make it very clear it is purely for their information and I'm not angling for a support, though of course it would be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very naive suggestion, and Malleus forgive me for barging in on your talk, but I think the best course of action would be for everyone to stop the mud-slinging, and for the main contributors to the page to stand down for the next few days and let the best copyeditors we have work the prose. The page will have a lot of views, and from the point-of-view of what we want to deliver to our readers, that's the only alternative. Personally I have issues with how the page is currently organized and the sourcing, but I think to triage the problems the first thing to do would be to tackle the prose. To do so requires community commitment and collaboration and I'm not seeing the spirit of that on any of these discussions. I have little hope this will happen, unfortunately. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the organisation of the page either, and if sanity ever prevailed that's what I'd recommend addressing first. The omission of any mention of "conspiracy theories" – I don't believe that a discussion of NORAD's ineffectiveness is a conspiracy theory – is just one aspect of that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with you. It needs a complete reorg first and then a copyedit. I can't even get beyond, or through, the first sentence in the first section. 19 highjackers, four planes, two destination, three origination points. It makes my head hurt trying to understand, and I know what happened, but it's been ten years and can't remember all the details. It should be very clearly organized and written. It's not. And I think to some extent that's a symptom of edit warring. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess is bunker mentality. I'm still processing of all of this, but have followed the page on and off for years. What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of the FAC nom, "here is the nom, the page is a bit shit we realise, but its 9/11 damn it and standard should not apply. The old days were the good days and FAC has gone down hill demanding objectivity, correct English and good sourcing. Vote support or else you are another of the nutters. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Millwall F.C.

Interesting - football fans often write with an exuberance that would be nice to preserve despite trying to mould text to neater more neutral prose. Tricky thing about this one (which I am reviewing for GA) is exactly how much space should be allowed for discussion of supporters (given discussion that exists about the club...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Sigh, I tried to take care of this without any drama, but was reverted by Parrot of Doom.[2] Anyway, you know the drill. If you're having problems with Nick, take it to a dispute resolution forum. Escalating the debate with personal attacks isn't going to help. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)