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.

Fishy

What happened to Iridescent??? :( :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Iridescent Something's fishy here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.61.71 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we haven't fed him to the Pirhana, if that's what you mean. Last I heard from him by email was a good bit previous to the last time he edited (and that was over a month ago). I gather wherever he works isn't phone/email friendly, and I got the impression he rather expected to be out of contact for a bit, so I don't think there's anything worrying in that sense with not hearing from him (I hope). Some of you guys know him better I think maybe. Any of you heard from him? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not I, for quite a while. If he's reading here, He Better Write !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PA

I don't attack your work on FA, so if you are going to stalk what I do and persist in minimising my work, at least have the decency to sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Grow up! Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is how precious it's got, this is what Kudpung calls a "personal attack". Basically, disagreeing with an administrator is now a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 06:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This has happened to me too. All one needs to do is type five tildes instead of four. See Wikipedia:Sign#Using_five_tildes. It could be seen as accidental, if one is willing to assume good faith (and decency). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung accused you of attacking his work, not him, so I don't think he accused you of a personal attack.

I agree with MF's comments. MF identified himself as helping with the AP biology project, and he was easily identifiable from his earlier contributions to that page (and elsewhere).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So how do you interpret the section heading of "PA"? And Kudpung's "decency" comment? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheese and crackers! If it were a snake, it would have bit me!

You are right, and I was wrong. Most importantly, Kudpung was wrong.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a general rule- the more personal info an editor puts on their page, the more likely they are to assume PA. Tony1 threatened to haul my amphibian arse to ANI for alleging that he canvassed some other frog into supporting his de-cap campaign. Ning-ning (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to see your POV on the double standard, Malleus. The other day an admin called me a "pompous ass" and a "troll" in one breath. After pointing out that I've never even been blocked for anything with almost 10,000 edits in almost 4 years, he kicked me off his talk page and reverted the discussion. It doesn't seem very professional: and I'm not happy about it. If I did this to an editor in good standing I'm sure I would be blocked, especially for the blatant personal attacks. But admins can get away with it. Doc talk 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't, but I almost certainly would. The project is in self-righteous hypocritical chaos, otherwise known as a death spiral. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you'd get blocked: you were blocked for calling someone an "arse", but a "pompous ass" would have made people salivate. I see the double standard very clearly, and I think that scrutinizing you for civility blocks is untenable when admins can't even unilaterally abide by the rules of civility. Doc talk 03:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

MF, you know I called this guy a pompous ass after he pissed vinegar on WebHamster's talk page, right? As for civility, Doc, you know where you can shove it, to cite WebHamster--esp. after your pissy little comment on ANI. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're one of those admins. Allowed to be uncivil only to those you disagree with. The audacity of you preaching to others about calling other editors names and labeling them is astounding. Doc talk 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And, FYI, it wasn't "pissing vinegar", he answered me and I didn't post anything else, and he didn't delete my post or kick me off his talk page. So your chastising was completely unwarranted. Doc talk

How hypocritical. He was trying to get unblocked; of course he was playing nice. You will have noted that I was not the only one who referred to your comments there as trolling. And that's because it was. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment there is actual policy: WP:SOCK is for every editor to observe. I had already conversed with the sock The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs), so it wasn't like I wasn't "invited" to the party already. Again: if WH had reverted me, do you think for one second that I would have pursued attempted conversation? Do you think I would have "pushed" anything? Hear me now and believe me later: you do not want to call good-faith editors "trolls" and "pompous asses" as an administrator. Show some respect for your position. Doc talk 04:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit, pretty please?

As you may remember, I'm gradually writing about all the listed churches on Anglesey, and one of the few that got to GA status recently without you being the reviewer was St Edern's Church, Bodedern. I think I'd like to have a crack at FAC with it, particularly to justify to myself spending just under £20 to get an article through the British Library that told me nothing I didn't already have... Peter Vardy made a couple of suggestions (it was your idea to ask him, I think), as did Ealdgyth at its peer review. Might you have the time, at some point in the next year or so, to polish my prose (or perhaps I should say, like garages, "remove, renew and refit"...)? If so, eternal gratitude awaits, as do the benedictions of a probably fictional saint. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But not until tomorrow though ... maybe the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to do it immediately - unless of course you needed something to read that would be likely to send you to sleep... My weekend editing time will be limited, as my selfish wife [who has a doctorate when I don't - sounds familiar?] and kids think that I should spend my time with them after a working week away... so don't be surprised if I can't pick up the threads again until after the weekend. G'night. Bencherlite^Talk 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All too familiar, at least the wife with a PhD and the working away from home does anyway. Where would you prefer me to comment? I can always find things to complain about. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Wherever suits you - I'm sure I'll notice (just like I noticed Nikkimaria making a few improvements to it after I posted here!) Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ID and Science

Question: Do your schools provide equal time for evolution and intelligent design? Student response: We leave religion out of our discussions. Inference: Intelligent Design = Religion. Teacher: "Mission Accomplished". Now if I can just "brainwash" the other 15.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mission accomplished indeed. Mention "intelligent design" to most Brits and they'll just stare at you blankly, but we are a Godless people. It's nice to see a few of your students getting stuck into their articles, and even a couple now up at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, but classes of 16? Now, that's somthing even for which even godless Brits should pray.--Scott Mac 01:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Church of England has failed us all; however, with hope, fundamentalism will spread back across the Atlantic. Serpents and strychnine... just have faith. Ken Ham (answers in Genesis) actually did an appearance in our tiny little town. The local churches funded the trip. I now have multiple copies of Evolution:The Lie, courtesy of well meaning parents. As to student's efforts: I just completed a review on content of the spotted ray, I'm holding off on posting until after a GA reviewer has their say. The students get enough of my criticism in class. I am pleased with their efforts and somewhat mature responses to criticism. Although Yomomma (my daughter) called and stated she finds the constant sharing of cookies incredibly annoying. I'm inclined to agree. I am not pleased with their writing skills, six mis-spelled words in one 10 word sentence, not our finest moment. I am insistent that they check each of your edits with threats to their lives if they repeat the same mistakes. I can only hope you are seeing improvement. Regarding class size: My smallest class is 11 and my largest 19. Last year I had 7 in a bio class. Numbers make a difference, despite the rhetoric of those swinging the budgetary axe. Unfortunately, as political conservatives gain control, education will fall under the heading "social program" and no doubt we will return to classes of 35 and I'll have to give up my desk. But for now... it is incredible. What is typical in the Mother Country? Well a bit of a long post... but I've checked my spelling twice now and with just a little fear will now hit the save option.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Classes of 30 or more wouldn't be uncommon here. I have fond memories of my first school in a small village in Scotland. There were only two classrooms, one for those aged 5–8 the other for those 9–12. Each age group sat in rows, but all with the same teacher. Didn't doo me no harm.

Your students are what, 14 or 15? I'm not sure what it's realistic to expect of their writing skills, but they don't seem much worse than lots of the other stuff I see around here every day. So long as they're learning, even if it's about English rather than biology, that's got to be a win. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, you're "fond memories of my first school in a small village in Scotland" is a pleasant surprise - I'm a Scot, although I've lived in SE England for decades. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought schools in the US were obliged to teach the debate: one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Geometry guy 14:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Most are 15, with a few seniors mixed in that are 17-18. The underclassmen are the more prolific editors. Regarding ID: The constitution keeps getting in the way... some nonsense about separation of church and state. I may move to Texas, I think they will soon be succeeding from the Union. A final note... My daughter shared this link with me, its a long read, I suspect you know most of the editors. It bothered me; especially since I felt that experienced editors found the opportunity to collaborate with high schoolers a positive experience. Apparently not a widely shared perception. If you have time: Public Education invades Wikipedia. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I just read that as it happens, and it's a depressing story. I think the poorly organised Indian initiative coupled with the foundation's increasingly desperate and ill-considered attempts to increase the number of editors whatever the cost has jarred with those concerned about quality more than quantity. But you and User:Jbmurray were singled out as beacons to be emulated I thought. All I can say is that I've found your students a delight to work with, and I'm very happy to continue offering them whatever help I can. And it's particularly encouraging to see old hands like your daughter still pitching in to help out with finding references and so on. So far as your programme is concerned, I think it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely workhouse(s)

Malleus. As one of the authors of our workhouse article, would you be able to point me in the right direction for the location of a specific parliamentary report? According to Peter Higginbotham's (SPS) site "The workhouse" there was "[a] parliamentary report of 1777 [which] recorded parish workhouses in operation at Ely St Mary". I have ordered his source (Denton, A (1986) Ely Union Workhouse) from my library but in the meantime I suspect that such papers may be available from here but I am no expert in the matter and your help would be appreciated. In any case, neither my Cambridgeshire nor my Lancashire libraries accounts access that site --Senra (Talk) 14:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

More detail can be found here, it's just a record of workhouses and how many places they had.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that neither of the libraries I'm a member of subscribe to that web site either. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is what you're looking for perhaps "Report from the Committee appointed to inspect and consider the Returns made by the Overseers of the Poor, in pursuance of Act of last Session:- Together with Abstracts of the said Returns. . Reported by Thomas Gilbert, Esq. 15th May 1777"? It's 244 pages long. I can access the HCPP, but it's not something that I've used before. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Yes. That is what I was looking for. So, iff the document is digitally searchable, please may I see a copy of the Ely in Cambridgeshire section? --Senra (Talk) 19:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Senra, I believe this is the relevant page- if not, I can take another look, but I have to look it up manually. This is the cite info- if you can't access that page, let me know. Although the page scan may be public domain as far as WP is concerned, I'm not really comfortable uploading it here- grab it quick! Hope it's helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Grabbed. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Your name has come up here: Wikipedia_talk:Block_protocol Gerardw (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

One more: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. Have you read the one above yours Sandy? I think I might vote for an amendment to the blocking policy that effectively excludes me from being blocked. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I started into it and got irritated and left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to find that WP:Malleus goes nowhere. Perhaps we should think of an appropriate redirect, something to enrage people as another redirect recently did :) Parrot of Doom 21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Get thee behind me Satan! Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Protective incantations and talismans that would make Hellboy covetous are only a click away. Speaking of which, did you see the candidates for ArbComm? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

#REDIRECT[[Scapegoating]]?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Cast iron defence against swearing Parrot of Doom 12:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But what will happen to The trifecta (Australian policing) of offensive language, resist arrest, assault police? How will gang members in blue arbitrarily detain aboriginal Australians? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo. Now there's a furpy if I ever saw one. My understanding is that it is fair dinkum for all Australians—not just the aboriginals—to express themselves in a rather forthright manner: stick that up your rooting feckle and smoke it! Figjam or what? --Senra (Talk) 13:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked the Queensland case which was found in favour of the appelant on the same grounds, that it hadn't seriously changed policing. Offensive language is used in NSW by police to start a trifecta going. Of course, disproportionate policing also happens to non-Indigenous Australians; in higher volume but at a much smaller rate. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Ely, Cambridgeshire

Malleus. I am notifying you of this peer review as you have recently edited the article.

--Senra (Talk) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we all have to be hippy tree-huggers?

Here's just one recent example of the increasingly stupid interpretations of the "personal attack" policy.[2] WTF is going on here? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's utterly insane. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, I'm not a "hippy" nor a "tree-hugger"... I do not play the pan flute nor do I eat granola. (I'm sure you're all happy with that knowledge...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I juggle (not very well, I struggle with the clubs), which is kind of hippy I guess. One day I thought, bloody hell, if he can do it then it can't be so hard. It is though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I hugged this tree once (I suspect this old yew has seen a fair amount of hugging on the inside, but let that pass). I have definitely hugged a windmill. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Careful, someone might take this section's heading as a personal attack. Seriously, this place gets crazier every day. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, yesterday I watched a presentation to the WikiMediaUK chapter by Sue Gardner. I think that any sane person watching that could see where much of the craziness is coming from. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, too-- most disappointing, and THAT is the sort of thing that chases off real editors, but that's OK, we can be replaced by children and students editing for a grade ... but more to the point, Peter Damian (WR) misrepresented what Gardiner said and the context of the conversation, which was DYK (she said she was told some articles could never make FA because of the nature of the sources ... yea, and ??? ... her point is?). Really, Damian's misrepresentation of the conversation is as irritating as what was actually said. Somehow they all (on all sides) missed the point that the problem at DYK has nothing to do with increasing quality-- it's the need to deal with copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste. Apparently not big problems if we listen to the WMF's screed on the "quality" problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner is obviously as nutty as a bag of squirrels, but don't underestimate Peter Damian. He ought to have been a great asset to Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Barney the Dinosaur should head the WMF.

"I love you, you love me,

We're a happy family

With a great big hug

and a kiss from me to you,

Won't you say that you love me too?"

Saturday Night Live had a sketch where (Sir) Charles Barkley laid the smack down on Barney.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC) The Barney article has a nice quote about Civility:

"His shows do not assist children in learning to deal with negative feelings and emotions. As one commentator puts it, the real danger from Barney is 'denial: the refusal to recognize the existence of unpleasant realities. For along with his steady diet of giggles and unconditional love, Barney offers our children a one-dimensional world where everyone must be happy and everything must be resolved right away.'"

All too true I'm afraid. My favourite example is the football match between two primary school teams that was abandoned at half-time when one team was losing 9–0, to avoid any further hurt to the losing side. Hell, what their coach ought to have said at the break was, "OK, you've just had your asses kicked, but get back out there and kick their asses". Sadly though the civility police don't allow use of the word "ass". Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They should get back out there and animal abuse their donkey. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They also missed an opportunity to understand their importance in this universe, which is negligible. When I was retrieving the 10th ball from our net, our stopper complained, "KW, we are getting killed!". I replied, "Don't worry; in 120 years, everybody we know shall be dead." (C.f., Joseph Brodsky's "In Praise of Boredom.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wandered by, and had to read (yes, I was the kid who used to read every damned line on every damned cereal packet ....) I'm a kinda superannuated hippy. So what?! And re - juggling, my oh-so-sober-during-working-hours older son (a financial risk assessor) juggles ... flaming torches ...! Rather him than me. And when it comes to trees, the only reason I ever hug them is in the act of climbing :P You should never grow out of climbing trees. (>**)> <(**<) Forcible hugs to all and sundry. [screams of "abuse" ...] Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Dropping sticks

I must be a complete innocent here (is Moni around?), but is "dropping sticks" really a reference to sexual abuse? Geometry guy 01:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus was probably referring to this. Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for missing the context. Just another example of how confusions easily arise... Geometry guy 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough

So what is good enough? Gerardw (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for what? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re [[3]] Gerardw (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A clear and demonstrable improvement in Kaldari's attitude. Words are easy. Malleus Fatuorum 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Conversions

Thanks for helping with the metric conversions. Marissa927 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a tricky area, but there are a few rules of thumb, such as don't provide a conversion with greater precision than the unit you're converting. Contrary to what your teacher seems to believe we switch between imperial and metric units apparently at random here in the UK. For instance, we buy petrol (gas) by the litre but drive by the mile. It really makes no sense at all. Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't know that you switched either. I'll have to remember the rules as I keep going now. I'm glad I got these last things fixed before the GA review came! Marissa927 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

Since nobody has bothered to inform you of this discussion, I thought I might. Be warned though, the editor proposing that change has taken it upon himself to remove comments he doesn't like - mainly mine, from another section. That's what you might end up dealing with. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than trying to patrol other people's talk page, how about you rise to the challenge at WP:ERRORS and actually try to find evidence for the accusation you made against me. Or failing that, have the decency to apologise for making an unfounded accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And if Parrot is here, then please note that it was only your comments that I was deleting, because there where entirely unsuited to that page. Be honest about it if you are going to denounce my edits on other pages. Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have no right to remove my comments from any talk page other than your own. I'll be the judge of what is suited to where I edit, not you. Parrot of Doom 00:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Malleus, I wandered by your user page yesterday, which took me to WikiSpeak :D

Thank you so much for having that link in your page! It had me in fits of teary-eyed laughter all the way through; absolutely wonderful stuff! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I began that page in a moment of jaundice with the project, which to be honest never really wore off, and over time many others pitched in with their own entries. When I look back on my Wikipedia "career" it's up there among the things I'm most pleased with, so I'm glad you enjoyed it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still grinning, even now - bloody fantastic! Whenever I get one of those bastard days I shall read it again. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Polarization and courtesy

I fail to see how this might help to bring editors together, rather than encourage extreme views and polarization. If you believe the article is a lost cause, then why comment? Geometry guy 00:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. As a courtesy, I would also draw your attention to User talk:MONGO and User talk:A Quest For Knowledge, where you have been mentioned.

I fail to see why you think chiding me in this way is likely to lead to anything other my telling you to ... well, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks for yourself. As for MONGO and AQFK, I have no interest in anything they have to say about anything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am losing interest rapidly myself. But to answer your question, I have found in multiple previous discussions that one of your most admirable qualities is that you generally agree with me. Occasionally you disagree, and I chide you when you are wrong. Typically, I am subsequently proved right that you were wrong. Geometry guy 00:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's on the verge of being a brilliant riposte. It made me laugh out loud anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You may of course reuse it, with acknowledgment and for a modest fee. Geometry guy 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Gerardw (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

More evidence

You are an anti-American bigot...this revolting anti-American screed is so disgusting I don't know where to begin and retracting it won't protect you now.MONGO 15:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of retracting it. Why should I, as it's the truth? The real problem here is that you just can't see it. Your problem isn't that you don't know where to begin, it's that you don't know when to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely you can track my edits...I posted this at AN/I....that's my first stop...MONGO 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, I sometimes consider myself "American" (or some USA version of that), and sometimes consider myself redneck even, and I don't find anything wrong there. Neither apparently does anyone at ANI so far, but your section heading certainly lacked originality. It may be time to think about whether you are too close to the material and your objectivity is affected. On the other hand, I'd be much happier if Malleus would start to acknowledge the superiority of California girls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the Beach Boys where Californian girls are concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also American and don't find anything wrong with it either. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would I spend time tracking your edits MONGO? But I understand from the comments above that you've initiated an ANI without informing me, as you are required to do. Tut, tut! Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy...you got it backwards...Malleus was griping that a section was missing in that article which discussed the the reactions of the USAF...so I added it...I made hundreds of edits to that article and worked to clean up MOS issues and the citations...Malleus has but a fe ce edits to the article and has filled the talkpage up with little other than insults and if not overtly so, still some pretty borderline anti-American sentiments. There is zilch in Malleus's talkpage banter or edits to that subject matter that indicates he is there for anything other than disruption...most others would have been to troll away. There is no sense detailing this here...I'll get an arbcom case together asap.MONGO 19:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now here's your warning. If you persist with these personal attacks on me then it will be you who will be sanctioned at AN/I. Now bugger off. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the ANI was closed and re-opened and closed before I got to put in my sometimes Northamerican, sometimes Southamerican "version of the truth", I'll put it here for MONGO et al. I sat around a pizza table in Caracas ten years beore 9/11 (maybe more) with a bunch of Venezuelan commercial pilots discussing how absurdly aviation was not controlled in the USA, and how easy it would be to fly into the towers and bring them down. This was after a dumb Argentine did almost just that. So, yes, the idea of an analysis of how the USA got so lax and allowed it to happen is not offensive to "all" "Americans". You are too emotionally involved, MONGO, and you should stop attacking Malleus on this lest you be the one to be topic banned, and I don't think that would be a good thing-- I'd rather see you work with others to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(drive by) The February 20, 1981 Flight 342 altitude event did not occur. It is a clear conspiracy --Senra (Talk) 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I personally never investigated if it did or didn't happen-- what I knew for sure is that I sat around the table in 1982 with a bunch of Venezuelan commercial pilots who were talking then about exactly what happened years later, how easy it would be, I wasn't surprised when it did happen, and I found myself strangely out of sync with everyone around me, as most US Americans were so shocked at how it could happen. US Americans are a curious lot-- so insulated. It was waiting to happen-- totally foreseeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• This whole conversation is pretty sad. Thousands died horribly and disgustingly because a powerful nation thought it was invincible and could do and fund what it liked. Putting aside the obvious and unjustifiable blame on the truly evil perpetrators, some amount of blame must also be with America's former leaders and those who elected them. I personally will never forget the horrors of the numerous bombings of the 1980/90s, in particular the Warrington bomb attacks; there "only" a couple of kids died; but where did the funding for this terrorism come from? That's a question many Americans should ask themselves before berating those who have a measured and distanced understanding of the 9/11 attrocities. Giacomo Returned 20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure any leaders can alter the culture here, Giano; the country is so big and the demographics are such that US Americans can really be isolated in ignorance and a lack of global awareness. I just couldn't connect with the shock of 9/11 here, since it was so foreseeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden was an absolute moron. He thought that the attacks would cause the US to leave the Middle East. Instead, it triggered not one, but two wars and lead to even greater US presence in the region. 9/11 was a complete disaster for Al Qaeda. If he had any brains at all, he never would have approved the attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well he did not have any brains did he? - if he had, just imagine how many people he could have killed in "defended" America. Sandy: the culture may not be changeable there - it's more important to alter the perception here. Giacomo Returned 21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Malleus Fatuorum. I saw the kerfuffle at ANI and I would like to clarify something for myself. When you said "The truth about what's going here has surely been evident for some time now. This article is designed to be a memorial, not a neutral account of the events of 9/11 and their aftermath, which is why it will never be better than it is. It may well be satisfactory to American red-necks in its present state, but it most definitely is not to anyone not draped in red white and blue."] at the Talk:September 11 attacks page, was it your intention to label the actual editors of the page as "rednecks"? For me, that's how I personally interpret that comment, given the use of the terms "here", "designed" and "may well be". If that wasn't your intention, I'd be interested to hear what your intention was, given your strident defence of it above. If you can see your way to replying, that would be grand, and I might have follow up queries of a similar nature. In peace, Malik P. MalikPeters (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to readers of the article, not its authors. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, given that, do you accept that some editors could read it how I have done so, and if yes, would you be prepared to re-factor it in that case? Also, do you accept that there's probably a better way to critique the quality of an article on its talk page than by asserting it would only look fine to rednecks in its present state? Do you accept that there's probably a better way you could have got your point across to the current/future editors of that page, if the goal is to somehow get it out of the poor state you think it's locked into? MalikPeters (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that your interpretation is a reasonable one, and I have no intention of refactoring anything. Neither do I have any idea whether the editors of the 9/11 article, with a couple of exceptions, are American or not anyway, much less rednecks. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I never said you did, but thanks for the clarification on the first point at least. MalikPeters (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question then, the answer is also no. I could certainly have used different words and phrasings, but they wouldn't have had the necessary cutting edge. Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a fucking shovel. Many suggestions have been made as to how the article could be taken forward, both on the article's talk page and during its recent GAR, but MONGO in particular has been aggressively intransigent right from the off, and continues to be, as evidenced by his posting here. In which universe does it make sense to you to be asking about my use of the term "redneck" while being apparently completely unconcerned about accusations of anti-American bigotry? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(Malleus is not much clued in to the nationality of editors. He thought I was American for a couple of years. Geometry guy 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

Well, not to be flippant, but the universe in which MONGO's comment came after yours and was obviously made in response to it, however wrong he is in what he said. I'm interested in your thoughts and motives, I'm not here to act as mediator between you and MONGO. Given what you've just said though, how much of your frustration expressed in that comment do you think is down to something inter-personal with MONGO, and how much of it is directed against the general editors of the article. 60:40? More? MalikPeters (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean that universe of playgrounds where "he started it" is an acceptable defence? Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not here to mediate between the two of you. I'm interested in the 'redneck' post, that's all. MalikPeters (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As I don't know MONGO there was absolutely nothing personal in it at all, so the answer to your question is 0:100. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK then, how about 'inter-editor' dispute? You accept there appears to be an editorial dispute between you two over that article, yes? MalikPeters (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as I have absolutely no intention of ever editing that article. My involvement began when I nominated it for a GA review, since when MONGO has been acting like a PITA. He's in conflict with me, not me with him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you feel it necessary to create a new account just to ask me that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not say if that's all right. I don't want to cause anyone any embarrassment. If it concerns you, I'd be happy to discontinue. MalikPeters (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't alright, it's sneaky. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Would you like me to stop? MalikPeters (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Very strange that someone would feel the need to create a new account to 'investigate' something that was recently thrown out by ANI. Under what "legimate use" does that account fall I wonder? Richerman talk 22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop what Malik? I have no idea what you're trying to do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Richerman: Except for clear and obvious cases, ANI is effectively broken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stopping asking questions of you on your talk page. MalikPeters (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What an utterly bizarre question. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me why you're asking the questions and I'll tell you whether or not I want you to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To get to the bottom of what you meant by and why you made the 'redneck' comment, what you thought it would achieve, and whether you appreciated how it could be taken by others (not just MONGO, who has made his feelings pretty clear). As a fellow editor interested in the health and well-being of the site. Nothing more suspicious than that, I promise. MalikPeters (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a term "little Englander" for those with a parochial view of the world; I used the expression "American rednecks draped in red white and blue" as a comparable expression, referring to the readers who would find the article in its present state to be satisfactory. Bear in mind that I have made similar observations to MONGO and others in the past, that the article looks more like a memorial than a comprehensive and neutral account of the day's events and their aftermath. You may not have been aware of that background but MONGO certainly was, so I find his interpretation to be disingenuous. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be much which is disingenuous here: see User talk:Kaldari. Geometry guy 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's something very strange going on. It seems very clear to me from MONGO's posting at the top of this section that he understood I was referring to those Americans who might find the article to be an acceptable account, and not to the editors of the article. So why is Malik pursuing the path (s)he is? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the account - was very very tempted to leave "autoblock IP address" ticked, just so we could see who sheepishly had to request it to be cleared... but I'm not vindictive. It's a disappointing level of wimpishness when someone has to create a bad hand sock just to harrass another editor :S --Errant ^(chat!) 00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I apologize for calling you a bigot and have struck the word.--MONGO 23:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

But you left "anti-American". What evidence do you have that I'm anti-American? Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected.--MONGO 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for striking what you have, but really it's little better than it was. It still claims that I posted a "revolting and disgusting screed". Given that it wasn't a screed anyway, and you've now removed "anti-American" and "bigot", how do you square that? Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can cross the entire thing out, even ask for oversight if you wish...please define what you think a red-neck is. The manner in which you used the title indicates that in your estimation, a red-neck is a dullard, perhaps even an idiot. I was born in Montana, I own a black 10X beaver felt cowboy hat, I drive a pick-up truck, I currently live in Nebraska, I like to go camping and build a campfire...and I sometimes even spit.--MONGO 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to explain above what my interpretation of "redneck" is, and it has nothing to do with dullards or idiots. It's to do with parochialism, the lack of a world view. Nothing to do with the car you drive, the hat you wear, or how you like to spend your free time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way do you think using that derogatory term helped to advance your argument?...Some Americans such as myself may refer to ourselves as "rednecks", but it isn't okay for outsiders to do that..it is much akin to African-Americans sometimes calling each other "nigger" in jest, but it is completely unacceptable for a white American to ever use the "n" word.--MONGO 01:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to advance my argument, simply to bang some heads together by pointing out the self-evident truth. Look, it must surely be obvious to you that I don't have even the slightest interest in whether or not you or anyone else finds the term "redneck" to be derogatory. You came stomping on here with claims of "repulsive and disgusting anti-American bigotry", which nobody could see as anything other than a clear, unwarranted, and outrageous personal attack, and you went on to initiate a frivolous ANI report. You ought to be examining your conscience, not trying to reignite an argument here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one of those courtesy notification things

I've mentioned you here User:Gerardw/Notes on civility. (Actually you're the main attraction.) Gerardw (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'll note I was also disappointed with your comment on the 9/11 page -- I'd expect someone who is allegedly a good editor to know that "redneck" does not have a hypen in it. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a word I've only heard in the movies, so I just guessed at its spelling. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Afrikaners use "rooinek" to describe English people settled in South Africa, a bit like the Australian "Poms". Sorry I missed your latest AN/I; maybe for once this conflict will lead to article improvement, I hope so. --John (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry John, I'm sure there will be another along soon. As for the article, there do seem to be some hopeful signs developing, largely thanks to Geometry guy's efforts. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article. Given Wikipedia's global contributor base I doubt that anyone could come up with a satisfactory definition of civility that didn't look like a code of conduct for nursery school children, which is why I've long argued that it should be dumped and the spotlight turned instead on NPA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A few notes: I'm trying to teach my 2-year old daughter not to speak like a redneck. Those vowel glides (see Southern_American_English#Phonology) irritate the hell out of me; the things they pick up at daycare. Also, please don't take my remark too personally: I am a cunt, after all, perhaps even a fucking cunt under some circumstances, and to pounce on you (a pouncing cunt?) for that tiny thingy was too much to resist. Finally, I wish we had a barnstar for metaphor bending (I'm giving a redlinked neologism away for free)--you deserve it for this one. Happy thanksgiving holiday, MF--do you Brits carve up a turkey as well for that venerable international feast? I am sure it was delicious. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have thanksgiving over here, it's only you Yanks. A lot of people might have turkey at Christmas though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yank? Them's fighting words when addressed to a Dutch expatriate Southerner, boy! Hey, I hope your satellite dish is working properly: get ready for the Iron Bowl this afternoon. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I remembered after I wrote it that the Yankees were the northeners in the civil war, but we don't tend to discriminate. Speaking of accents, I watched The Searchers on TV this afternoon. Ever seen it? The accent of the Charlie McCorry character played by Ken Curtis is just unbelievably irritating. Do people really talk like that in the south? I felt like jumping through the screen and winding him up, to make him speak at a normal pace. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually we do have a Thanksgiving celebration in the UK - it's called the Harvest Festival but it's now only celebrated in churches and church schools. For those who don't go to church (the majority of people in the UK) it just goes by unnoticed. As for Yanks, there was a joke going round during WWII when the GIs first arrived in Britain "Have you seen the new utility knickers? - one Yank and there off." The other one was "It's all over for the Americans - over-fed, over-paid, over-sexed and over here". Richerman (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember that, going to school assembly and carrying a basket of food between the rows of children. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We went to church and there was always a basket of coal as well as the fruit and veg.J3Mrs (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yay, Harvest Festivals! I remember the internal snickering once I discovered that corn dollies were allegedly paganly-symbolic, and seeing them all over the (allegedly-Christian) celebration. But who are we kidding, eh?! Favourite thing about Harvest Festivals, and I can;t remember the original, but it was immortalised by Thelwell in one of his cartoons, was when the vicar-of-somewhere-or-other said something along the lines of "Due to the widespread flooding between here and [somewhere], we will omit the line about "soft refreshing rain". :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Somerset Coalfield

Hi again. If you (or your talk page stalkers) had the time and inclination (and I see from above you may be busy with other things) to cast a critical eye over Somerset Coalfield that would be really great. I've been tidying and updating to "current standards" this article which I started back in 2006. I'm hoping to get it to GAN standard (I know a few page nos etc are still needed), but, as usual, it is the standard of my prose which is most likely to let it down. If you are too busy I quite understand and there is absolutely no urgency.— Rod ^talk 17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Rod, I've looked at the lead and looked over the rest of the article. It looks like an impressive piece of work. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits - I don't have any problem with any of them but your edit summaries show up my poor level of English (I wouldn't know what "two gerund-participles" were if you hit me with them).— Rod ^talk 17:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unless it's in the list of "vital" articles I think I need to get a chitty from the WMF to work on it don't I? Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty important piece of industrial history in the local area but I recognise it might not have quite the same significance on a world wide (or wp wide) basis. (only getting about 1,000 page views a month). — Rod ^talk 18:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lot of interesting stuff there. Just a thought perhaps the geology section should follow the Lead, a sort of natural progression coal was formed, then it was mined. MF & I did this for Bradford Colliery and I hope to copy it when I can get going on some more collieries (sometime, whenever...) I can't understand why anyone would need to be apologetic about industrial history it's infinitely more interesting than tv programmes or football, to name but two things.J3Mrs (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

With only a very few exceptions I agree with you, and it's a very under-represented field as well. Anyway, when are you going to finish Astley and Tyldesley Collieries? And you've got that list of Poor Law Unions to sort out. Stuff the so-called "vital" articles. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What's all this "vital" article malarky? I will finish in my own good time, I have other things to do like forgetting my camera when I go out walking.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't seen this analysis then, of how we've been wasting our time here by chasing FA stars for articles on trivial topics? (Trivial is defined by fewer than 3000 page views per month.) Here's something strange though; do you remember Tickle Cock Bridge? That consistently gets well over 1000 views each month. Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not good enough then!! I really don't read much on here (usually things less than four lines or I lose interest) but I'll have a look. 3,000 views :-( , I might as well give up. Oh well I do this to amuse myself not anybody else.J3Mrs (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at MediaCityUK's stats if you feel in need of some encouragement; you might be pleasantly surprised.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The geology section could use a looksie. I could help if you'd like, Rod. ceranthor 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Any help appreciated & I agree geology before mining makes sense. I don't think I've ever edited an article on TV programmes or pop music & like others I work on areas I find interesting.— Rod ^talk 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That presentation demotivated me too but perhaps for a different reason. I have been tinkering recently in some hot areas such as Falklands, Muhammad/images and I stood well back from yesterday's 9/11 attacks (plus the blast radius). I just cannot see quality vital articles being collegiately produced in volume. Maybe my glass is half-full. I know I am not a quality editor—though I feel pain arising out of this for those that are—nor have I produced quantity but I had, until that presentation, felt I was making a contribution --Senra (Talk) 20:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up, many felt and still feel the same. And who told you that you weren't a quality editor? You tell me who it was and I'll go sort them out. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have. I've even edited Japanese Manga articles. Basically, unlike the present climate, I think that quality is everything; if we're going to have articles on soap characters or lists of Manga episodes, for instance, then they ought to be the best we can make them. I don't think I've ever refused to help with an article because I didn't consider its subject matter to be important enough. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious

Why did you just remove my comment? I thought it was reasonable to say that it's up to people to build bridges if there's a gap in relationships, or was that a moment of stupidity on my part? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of removing any comment of yours and I certainly didn't do it deliberately. Maybe it happened accidentally during an edit conflict? Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just checking :) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think she meant the comment at [5], FWIW. Accidents happen :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things: deliberately removing comments made by other editors is something I just don't do, never have done, and never will do; secondly I happen to agree with the thrust of the comment anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

dismissive or what?

Well a power point, ugh, I've skimmed through it, it's just like work! And so dismissive. I can't imagine anything less motivating for the editors who have freely contributed to this project. There's no way I, or I suspect most editors, will be coerced into writing what wikipedia thinks it wants, wikipedia will have to make do with what it gets. I disagree about giving the masses what they want, my experience is most don't know what they want. I noticed a sentence that suggested paying someone, unless it's me I won't be contributing if it happens. Is the author touting for a job? Well business as usual, best ignored.J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think many of us felt the whole thing to be demotivating, coupled (perhaps coincidentally) with the WMF's Sue Gardner's expressed distaste for the FA project. Which you can see the ongoing ripples from at WT:DYK if you're interested. Everything needs to be dumbed down, so that we can recruit gangs of semi-literate five-year-olds to replace all the editors getting hacked off with the way things are run here. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"expressed distaste"? Remind me. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear from comments here and elsewhere that you and I have interpreted Sue Gardner's pronouncements somewhat differently. And I certainly have no intention of wading through that dreary treacle again just to pull out a quote or two. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I've read through it again, I feel really annoyed much as I do with the bits of feminist claptrap I've encountered. I just looked at the GM page, and there is some really interesting stuff. Somebody told me something about the ship canal a while ago, it was what you & PoD had written. I don't think the average reader has that much idea of quality or what goes into producing even half-decent articles and the effort it takes to check what is subsequently added is sensible, or the battles with pov pushers and semi-literate. J3Mrs (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it and found it hilarious: talk about "those who can do..."! The analysis of FA is a joke, full of statistical nonsense. Why do we have so many FAs on mushrooms and hurricanes? Because we have User:Sasata and User:Juliancolton! What statistical conclusion can we draw from this? None whatsoever. On the plus side, the article did at least praise User:Jakob.scholbach's work on Logarithm, and noticed that GA is delivering on its promise to be a scalable workhorse for improving content on a larger scale. Geometry guy 22:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I felt sorry for Ucucha, whose rodent articles got a bit of a grilling. The great thing about esoteric FAs is that they are often the only place where the information on the subject matter has been collated which is accessible to the general public - amazing when one thinks about it really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Some kind soul, perhaps SandyGeorgia upon first seeing me trying to pretend nothing happened after my lunch money was stolen, gave the friendly advice that people who stay on Wikipedia edit in quiet corners, where they don't have to defend their work from POV-pushers enabled by the babysitters' club.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: SandyG said on her talk page a few moments ago that FAC was the last working process left on Wikipedia, but I think that's rather a harsh verdict on GAN; that also seems to work pretty well. I've found it encouraging that people these days often talk about FA/GAs together as our quality work, a big difference from the darker days when SandyG was (rightly) so critical of the project and we had to fight so hard for that little green blob. And you're quite right about the mushrooms and hurricanes. As has often said elsewhere, and Casliber repeats above, anyone who wants to know about cooking or houses has a plethora of places to go, but obscure mushrooms? And dare I suggest obscure mummies? Or little known resurrections? To say nothing of Ealdgyth's amazing work on early Archbishops of York and Canterbury. What a resource that will be if she can ever finish it. You and I will never agree over all of the details, but there's no doubt we share the same vision. Just we go about it a little differently.

@Casliber: I too felt that the demeaning focus on Ucucha's work was grossly unfair, for exactly the reason you suggest, and in his position I'd be feeling more than a little pissed off. Hopefully he's made of more forgiving stuff than I am. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, ok, I goofed again ... I'm trying to decorate for Christmas and had unexpected guests for an afternoon visit and I type too fast, ok ?!?!? I'll go fix it on my talk next. Sorry-- y'all should know me by now. And on the Ucucha thing, yea, that set me off. If some nimwit had attacked "me", I would have taken it in stride, but the injustice done to Ucucha and Iri just stunk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the criticism of Iridescent's article, but the same point applies about the value of articles on obscure topics not likely to be found elsewhere. In fact TCO's main criticism, an issue about coverage, was discussed at length before and during the review, including by me. How clever of him to ignore the conclusions of those discussions. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I found that ridiculous too, but my reaction is that it reflects badly on User:TCO (the writer?), not on Ucucha, even though TCO included many apologia before the analysis.

I also think it is great that editors who champion content improvement generally pull together these days, even if we have different approaches. I have in the past been critical (perhaps more in my mind than on record) of the way that e.g. WP:WBFAN tends to encourage editors to work on more obscure topics, but I entirely agree with you that this also makes Wikipedia a unique resource, and all good contributions should be celebrated. Those who spend 105 pages plotting such volunteer efforts on charts, with pejorative labels such as "star collectors" and "dabblers", should consider whether they could have made better use of their own time. Geometry guy 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's another reason low vis articles get worked on: fewer people that care about a topic, the less hassle it is to work on, ie, you don't have to get as many factions and cabals to agree. PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. However such a strategy can occasionally result in extraordinary hassle. Geometry guy 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary hassle indeed. I really wasn't prepared for that, and I don't think PoD was either. I just thought it was an interesting social and pseudo-legal topic that was in danger of being forgotten. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I too am finding the mutual support among those editors committed to a quality product to be one of the bright points among recent events. I also think the way the feuding between GA and FA was worked out a couple of years ago ought to be a model for DYK, which can then hopefully take its place in the quality processes. So far as WP:WBFAN is concerned I can only speak for myself. I think I'm in the top 20 or so there, but I can honestly say with hand on heart that I have never written an article thinking "Ooh, here's a nice easy one for another star", and I doubt that anyone else has either. My view on the star, or indeed with some articles the green blob, is that it's a form of closure; once an article such as the Samlesbury witches has been through the wringer it's a feeling of job done, let's move on to the next. I just checked how many that hits that article got last month, and it's 901.[6] But for me the important thing is that if anyone wants to know about those accused women they're likely to be directed to our article first, which is quite possibly the best online account available, free or otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The second part of your post here speaks volumes about the motivations for writing excellent content. It should not simply be lost here in user talk archives, nor should your exemplar of Ealdgyth's work on archbishops be forgotten. Geometry guy 00:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with the concept of writing an article or nominating something at FAC and thinking "Ooh, here's a nice easy one for another star" - NONE of the FAs I've worked on or even the GAs (heck, even the DYKs!) have been "easy". The amount of time spent hunting down sources, dealing with libraries, copying articles, downloading articles, tracking down obscure journals/pamplets/etc for the research, then the hard work of writing the article .. all that goes into any article, whether it goes to FAC/GAN or not. I figure I have at least 10 hours of hard hard work in any GA, and the minimum for an FA is 20 hours. Most take a lot more time - and spend months getting prepared before I'm ready to nominate them anywhere. No FA is an "easy star"... at least if it's worthy of the star. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading this with interest. I have to agree with Casliber's point about being a collecting point. That is what drew me here, when an article is decent, it's a great starting point as otherwise you often have to search all over to get a decent set of info on an article. Where is the thread/link that started this thread here? I'm not sure what you're referring to. PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

#Somerset Coalfield above links twice to a PDF of the presentation. Geometry guy 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I find myself agreeing with Malleus a lot. As he said, if we work on an article, we should make it as good as possible. A few comments on what is said in that PDF: 1) most wiki articles are crap, just click on random article 10 times and see how many are good (however you define good), for me not even 1 in 10, 2) FA regulars are way too entrenched, agree that needs a shake up 3) I totally support Ucucha to write on whatever he/she wants and anyone who is like him--great writer, kind, helpful to others--I'm only come across him a couple times but that's my initial impression 4) wiki is totally ineffective in helping new users and controlling disruptive users 5) wiki's model is broken and beyond repair without a total shakeup and reorganization 6) FA/GA are in fact Sue in % of total, as they say--numbers prove it--and it's because of the total BS those processes have become, esp FA/FL 7) "be assessed versus what its customers want", uh as a volunteer project you can't force that 8) the focus of the PDF is on "core" topics, but we can write whatever we want, it's a volunteer project 8) FA process: "How does FA better train new contributors?" it doesn't, it like a lot of wiki, browbeats people 9) This PDF was written by TCO? Where does the connection to Sue Gardner come in? PumpkinSky talk 23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FAs are *not* decreasing in percent of total (I don't know about GAs): see WP:FAS. Also, it's not "where does Sue Gardner come in"-- it's really, where does this obscure TCO come in and why did anyone even care about his pseudo-presentation? It's because they were already upset about Sue Gardner's presentation, and TCO simply fed the flames. If not for Sue Gardner's recent presentation where she distinctly (no matter what Johnbod said) laid all of Wiki's problems at the feet of "quality" and FAs, I don't think anyone would have given TCO the time of day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got it just about right, it was the conjunction of the two events that's caused the rancour. And why Johnbod persists with his selective deafness is a mystery to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about agreeing with me. You'd be amazed how many have started off arguing with me and then come round to my way of thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't, cuz it's a twist with me. I STARTED OUT agreeing with you when I came across you at RFA re RFA and admins. ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a sensible (fellow?) then. ;-) So far as a connection between the two presentations is concerned it's really only a temporal one; TCO and Sue Gardner just happened to have made their misgivings about the FA process and the importance of quality in general (or the unimportance of quality) known at about the same time. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if TCO understands why I work on obscure topics. It isn't because I'm not interested in vital articles; it's because I find obscure topics like Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies fascinating, and also because their very obscurity means that most people don't start whinging about masks and cartoon characters which MUST BE INCLUDED NO MATTER WHAT. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

BINGO! see my 00:13 post above, that's what I said!PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And what have you learned? Geometry guy 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you're a champion PoD, whereas I'm a mere starchaser. Maybe the world looks different from your elevated position. :lol: To be serious though, one of the reasons I have always worked on obscure topics is precisely because they're obscure, and therefore in danger of being forgotten. Take Bradford Colliery for instance. How many people visiting Manchester City's match tomorrow will know that the stadium is built on the site of a former colliery, and sits on some of the richest coal reserves in the northwest? Or even that there once many mines in and around Manchester and Salford at all? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Battleship, bitch, and don't you forget it. Parrot of Doom 00:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from using profane language, as I'm a mad as a button Californian and it's illegal to swear here ... fuck, what am I thinking? Where did I leave my tin foil hat? Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What's a willy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Did your mother ever sing Wee Willie Winkie to you when you were a child? Mine did, and I always found it a bit scary, not at all conducive to sleep. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of it-- but you still didn't tell me what a button Californian is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm into a phase of inventing new idioms. For some reason "mad as a button" struck a chord with me, maybe something to do with those Levis jeans that have the pretentious brass buttons rather than a proper zip. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Levi's predate the first properly functional zipper by 40 years, dude (as we say in California).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From where does Ian Anderson come? In which parts of the U.K are cod pieces fashionable menswear?

Each of you is "as cute as a button"!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even a "dabbler" :P I (don't) own a grand total of four articles, two of which are GA simply because I liked doing them. When I did the first GA/DYK, I'd never even heard of DYK/GA, and had no idea what people were talking about when they mentioned same ... far from dabbling toes in the water, I just fell headlong into the pond without seeing it. But now I know it's there, I like the idea of making sure that anything which is "mine" is GA standard (preferably before it even leaves my sandbox), purely for my own comfort with the article. But then I also obsessively-compulsively clean kitchens ... maybe there's a link here? And as for "what people read" - how can one possibly really predict? My first DYK (subject not exactly what one would think would appeal to a huge audience) got between 9,000 and 10,000 hits over two days. Weird. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing else to say ...

... except, with awe, inspiration and extreme humility, thank you --Senra (Talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We've only just started. Make sure you're wearing a seat belt. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do a bit of patching up of the lead, so check the change I just made about the island. Basically, reviewers are human, and if they come across a good lead they're likely to look a little more favourably at the rest of the article. But you know that anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No need for a seat belt; I'm in it for the ride. Anyway, I am tough and tenacious so no worries. I am also well aware the whole article needs more work. I pushed my library card to its limit today to that end. It is all boring stuff too such as Miller's ... Bishopric ... :( Nothing interesting seems to have happened here although I am still digging. I wish I had a canal, coven or a sword fight to write about. Oh wait. Where did I put that Hereward book? He he. Thanks again for your ce's. Very much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Having written a few myself, I'm firmly of the opinion that articles on settlements are among the most difficult to write, so don't think that the rest of us find it any easier than you do. We don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not trying to read Miller's Bishopric cover to cover, are you? Granted, it'd be a great cure for insomnia but... yikes, no. (shudders). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Senra is a very committed and dedicated editor, an example to lazy planks like me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

…and lazy log dwellers. The Russian cannon shown in the article is mounted on a wrought-iron carriage from a barbette. Item number 230670752174 from a US vendor (on a very well known internet auction site) shows the complete installation; the wheels run on inclined rails and the hooked bit at the back appears to be connected to a recoil-damping setup. Full details are in "Cannon: the conservation, reconstruction and presentation of historic artillery" by Austin Carpenter (which I haven't got access to at the moment- I hope the public library it's in doesn't de-accession it and flog it off for a quid). Don't think there's anything on W. about these; the cannon were given to towns across the country with much fanfare, some of them were cut up for scrap during WW2, but there's still a few remaining apart from the Ely example (e.g. one in Retford, two in Leicester). Ning-ning (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)