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.

personal life etc.

• I know this is a waste of time, but I'll go ahead: I was talking to everyone. This spat is bullshit.
• As for you personally, then, here goes: You seem to think that fighting back is... what? somehow the correct thing to do. But it is not, for several reasons. First, you seem to have made "I don't tolerate fools" some sort of personal motto. That motto is purely based on pride, not on cool reason, or cold calculation, or on a long-sighted view toward victory. The fact is this: there are two types of enemies: empty-headed fools and wise snakes. [I am not assigning any individual editor to any category]. The way to deal with empty-headed fools has three steps: ignore them, ignore them, and ignore them. If they push themselves to the fore where they can't be ignored, then deal with them as firmly but calmly as you would a child who is throwing a harmless tantrum.... others will rally around you when you do so, and you score fucking huge style points by remaining calm... [Wise snakes are an entirely different matter, but tactical bickering still is not the way to go (see below)]... The second reason is this: Every time you [you personally, Malleus] engage your enemies, they always win in the long run (whether or not you prevail in the short run), simply because you have engaged. It is a war of attrition. Each spat inevitably brings you closer and closer to burnout.... another possibility is that that each spat in which you let them prod you into saying "fuck you" or "cunt" or whatever brings you closer to actually being site banned, some day in the far-flung future. Either way, they win, you lose, because you have let them employ your pride as a tool against you. Can't you see that winning in the short run by engaging in and trying to prevail in some tactical engagement (spat) is inevitably driving you to lose in the long run? There is only one path to victory for you, and it is paved with reason and calm demeanor, and the signposts say never, never, never engage your enemy. Take the long-run view.
• That's all. Go ahead and be angry. Good luck in all you do. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  You're quite right, you just wasted your time. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  OK, last post and unwatching: I sincerely wish you good luck in the civility case. You won't be banned, but they have to do something or other, or the opposing side will howl too much. I won't post on your talk again. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Obviously you're right; the lynch mob has demanded some kind of punishment and I doubt that ArbCom has the strength or integrity to stand to up to them. But please don't stop posting to my talk page even though we may sometimes disagree. I'd guess I've disagreed with pretty much everyone who's posted here at one time or another. Disagreement is healthy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okays; I just read that; Malleus, dear, darling, gorgeous Malleus, Leaf's comment there is actually pretty insightful. [Pesky ducks behind convenient piece of furniture, pokes nose out, dips ears, wags tail, etc.] If you re-read it as if it were something you'd written to someone else, you might see more in it. I try not to disagree with people more than I can help, it's too stressful in an already over-stress-filled Real Life, so I have no intentions of getting into a spat with either of you (or anyone else here). Maybe if we can get that mandate for a dream team to re-word the civility policy, maybe if we can have an amnesty for all involved in the ArbCom case on the basis that the damned rule is too nebulous ... maybe then we can get some real justice in the whole thing. I know of at least one Arb who I personally consider to ooze integrity; maybe that will make a difference. If we get a realisation, Wiki-wide, that we need equality under the law, that will be something. It will solve 85% of the problem. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly go some way towards sorting out Wikipedia's many problems, but the idea of not confronting one's enemies is, to me, simply cowardice. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It might also create a more toxic environment as the inmates run amok while others sit back and twiddle their thumbs waiting for the noise to die down.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. The Christian idea of turning the other cheek is just twaddle, pure and simple. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be useful in some situations, but in any sort of group dynamic like this place it's often (I suspect) viewed as a sign of weakness by those who wish to press on with their own agendas. What's really needed, but may never come to pass, is an evenly-applied set of standards. Pesky's super-committee is certainly one step, but unless those rules/principles/guidelines/whatever are applied evenly and fairly they won't work any better than what now exists. It's the "evenly" and "fairly" parts of that (especially, I think, the "evenly" part) that will sink any effort. IMO, of course.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's about right; I have in my mind the idea of the chivalrous medieval knight. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I confront my enemies in my bad dreams (not Wiki-enemies, Real-Life bar stewards). The scariest thing in my dreams is me ... which goes some way to explaining why I try very hard not to get riled. Once you've fuelled the dragon and let him off the lead, his recall is lousy! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's something a little strange; I have never, ever, had a scary dream. "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but one." Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's weird; maybe you just have them but don't remember them? I'm told one only remembers the dreams which one wakes in, and not those where one stays asleep. The weirdest dream I ever had just suddenly blanked out in the middle, to be replaced by a dream-error-message which said "Application Unknown has unexpectedly quit." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that's weird. I occasionally wake up and for a few minutes believe that my dream was reality, so I'm a bit confused when I find that I can't fly or whatever. Sometimes I even try and go back to sleep to get back into that time and place in which I could fly. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I find flying takes an enormous amount of concentration, and trying to hover near the top of the room to eavesdrop on the conversations, and maintaining invisibility so they can't see you hovering up there, is almost too much to do, both at the same time. I've always found staircases easy to take off from, once you've got both hands propped up, then you can get both feet off the ground, and kinda-float off ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky: Scary! --Senra (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Senra- not as scary as knowing Choker's still out there- I'm impressed that you found that! Ning-ning (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I can be the scariest badass witch granny. Trust me on this. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

{just seeing again Kenny Everett's 1981 on-air gem I was, for some strange reason, reminded of your good self) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ito-Balmond Serpentine Pavilion

This is confusing. Where actually is it and what actually is it? It was categorized as a defunct museum in London and a restauraunt in France but it located in Tokyo! Any ideas?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a temporary structure built in Hyde Park in London (it's a tradition that the Serpentine Gallery builds a new extension each year, which is then dismantled and sold). It was re-erected in St Tropez in France to serve as a restaurant. Tokyo only comes into it as the home of the architect who designed it (Toyo Ito). 78.149.252.90 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. I like to visit the new pavilion at the Serpentine Gallery each year, myself. The Crystal Palace was similar too — another temporary structure in Hyde Park which was moved elsewhere. Warden (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Plausible candidate

An editor has suggested a possible explanation (aka plausible candidate) for a question you may have been asking since last summer: why the heck was the first Arbcom-L leak about you? It is just a conjecture, but the whole RTV/socking/alternate account issue, and the interplay between plagiarism and copyediting is very suggestive to me, even though I do not have the background in psychology that you have. Food for thought anyway. Geometry guy 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The email discussion I had with Iridescent, in which I was asking for his advice, was so banal that it's difficult to imagine any other explanation. But poor old William Leadford did some useful stuff nevertheless. I continue to find the accounts of the leaking incident that have been given so far to be unconvincing, particularly in conjunction with Iridescent's subsequent disappearance, but I doubt the truth will ever be told. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was me, man. I'm every member of ArbCom and Wikipedia Review rolled into one. Troll wins flawless victory. I'm a winner now. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been drawing up a mental list this evening of all those administrators who are or have been (in the case of those now blocked) habitually way more uncivil than I've ever been, and the effort it took to prise the admin bit from their hands, as opposed to just indef blocking a powerless peasant like me. Naturally I haven't put that list anywhere on Wikipedia, as to do so would be considered an improper attack on the establishment. But it's a pretty big list. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Moni3. I'm sure there's a lot more of it going on even at the highest levels than people suppose. I recall the case of Pastor Theo's RfA, which from memory I one of the few to oppose. But it just didn't smell right. Mind you, I think I also opposed Ched's RfA, which I now think was a mistake on my part. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my, I've lost the plot ... it's worse than a bad opera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been impressed by Ched recently too, but he was very much involved with PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon (being the only admin the latter would trust with his identity). My meta-opinion is that wiki-life, as with life, is way too complicated for simplistic analyses to be a helpful guide. Errors of judgement are often a matter of opinion, even with hindsight. Geometry guy 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

He was, and that probably needs to be explained. I was accused somewhere of opposing pretty much every candidate at RfA, but on closer inspection it appears that my vote corresponds about 66% of the time to the actual outcome. I am no disruptive influence, simply a voice of sanity. Most of the time anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I still haven't caught the plot, but Ched is the one who threatened to block me, and then asked if we should discuss via email (glad I don't do that/didn't do that), but do wish someone would give me the "What's a Willy" version here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder whatever happened to DHMO/Giggy? It always seemed unlikely to me that he would simply stay away. Geometry guy 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude speak, little substance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was just a random guess: there has been no edit analysis. Geometry guy 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No article overlap, but a case of high school pop culture turns into college biology student? But why do I have the vague (unsure?) idea that Giggy was Australian? Sure do have the dude speak in common, and that would explain a lot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Giggy was Australian. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a dud, then! So, Malleus, I guess Rlevse added another delay to your "sentencing"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably. They seem to be looking for any excuse not to creep out of the woodwork. Can't say I blame them though, given their history. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I got a kick out of Jclemens posting that it's because the new arbs are killing 'em on the email list by responding to everything. Imagine the verbiage they'd be dealing with if they still had Carcharoth !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Moni3 you are Tiger blood. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What more is necessary to write FAs than cocaine and hookers? --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A non-battlefield winning attitude. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about hookers, too distracting, but I do recall James Cameron saying once that he found it difficult to write without a bottle of whisky on his desk. Never tried cocaine myself though; I'm a child of the '70s, who tried to peep through The Doors of Perception. It was a most incredible experience, but one that I wouldn't repeat now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you should ever choose to expand your education on pharmaceutical fungi, they grow in their millions here in the New Forest ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I send you an order? Do you have a price list? Malleus Fatuorum 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

stopping by

Hello all. I had a link to this page, so I thought I'd stop by. Is there anything I need to answer for or respond to? Seems I have a LOT of reading and research to do. — Ched :  ?  03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the questions are, except you seem to have defended rather vigorously Rlevse/Barking Moon turned PumpkinSky, while he was beating on FAC. Hard to know if that means anything, but equally hard to know whose judgment can be trusted lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that there's something dodgey going on. Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To the best of my knowledge BarkingMoon was not Rlevse. xe (BM) was first accused of being Mattisse, and when that proved to be untrue the Rlevse accusation came up. Yes, I did defend him because I did (and still do) believe he was not a returning anybody, but rather a former IP who registered. I have often stuck my neck out, and often had it substantially whacked upon, if I get the impression that someone is being unjustly picked upon. I only made one post I believe to the FAC RfC though. I thought the idea of some sort of confirmation or election process was a good idea. I noticed that those of you who were familiar with the area supported a "status quo" however, so I just left it at that. And I completely agree that it's difficult at the moment to know who to trust. — Ched :  ?  04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me at all that Rlevse came back. I got drawn into the discussions around the Yogo sapphire article, which is where I think I first encountered PumpkinSky (possibly at DYK as well), but didn't see any tell-tale signs. It's all rather depressing, as I don't think it will end here and may get even messier. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it will either, as some editors have not yet been convincing about what they did or didn't know. There seems to be a culture of corruption here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ched, you can always trust me. I'm so Alzheimered that I forgot the passwords to my sock accounts, only one of which was that of a 'crat. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think wikipedia is too disorganized for there to be enough of a conspiracy for there to be actual corruption. It's more of an anarchy and at the moment, with a mob mentality that is easily triggered. The Rlevse/PumpkinSky tempest being the current one, but the whole thing you, Malleus, have been enduring over your unfortunate use of the "c-word" is another. All I know is that I have seen wiki go nuts on an annual basis around February and March for several years now, so maybe it's all just cabin fever or something. I've had a couple of people exhibit odd behavior in my off-wiki RL this past week or so that I can only attribute to seasonal affective disorder, so who knows? Maybe there are just aliens out there aiming a paranoia beam at all of us. I'm frustrated because I see a lot of good people at each other's throats for insufficient reason on this latest thing. Rlevse/PumpkinSky seems like a good egg, Sandy seems like a good egg, Malleus is a good egg (if a bit cracked at times -- noogies) and everyone else here too. What does everyone REALLY want? I don't think someone's head on a platter, I think we just all want someone to hug us and tell us that we are right and everyone else is a meanie. How can we all step back and stop beating on the horse carcass??? Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd just settle for a bit less of the stuff that the Mr Angrys come out with if you want to change "Bristol, United Kingdom" to "Bristol, England". It's the constant drip, drip, drip of being told what a rude, ignorant, immature ... waste of space you are that Wikipedia would be better off without. "Shape up or ship out" indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll buy that. Of all things, there is a minor editing dispute at the donkey article. Dana has quit trying to confront JLAN and since I called him a jackass already once and refractored it, I've now blown my wad, besides, if I engage too much, folks might not be able to tell the difference, given the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• <placeholder> ... I very much want to comment on this, but because I've actually gone out and had a few drinks, I think I should wait until morning. .... ahhhh hell ... wtf. I would much more rather deal with a person that tells me "pull your head out of your ass" than some sneaky slimy "If you don't do this, I'm going to tell that" kind of crap. The more I learn, the more I read, the more this place upsets me. I've probably said more than I should .. but DAMN this place pisses me off. I'd rather deal with 100 Ottava's than a single one of the sneaky, "I haz power" manipulating bullshit artists simply because they think they have some sort of power. .... on a website? .. really? Some fucking asshole kid that is barely out of diapers plays some "buddy buddy" game to get a button to block or delete something somehow becomes untouchable? Don't get me wrong .. I know I'm every bit as guilty - but I honestly thought I was trying to be better and make the "site" better. ... sigh .. why do I get the feeling I'm gonna have a "you fucked up" banner on my page tomorrow? ... whatever. Mal .. I do truly admire you and your integrity ... so damn few people in the world anymore that have that. later folks. — Ched :  ?  08:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear, is JLAN being bad again? I dropped a few words onto his talk page in the hopes that something good might come of it. I think that's really crying out for either an RfC or a topic ban on anything to do with horse heights and breed societies, broadly construed ... I can't think of anything else to suggest; some excellent contributions, but also some entrenched glitches in a few area. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Two matters

Hi Malleus, how are you? I was reading the last section of The Emigrants (a great book), and wanted to type for you here a part of the opening of that section, in which a German kid is flying into Manchester in 1939 (never to leave again). But the passage is a bit long, and the rest of the chapter is fantastic (lots and lots on Manchester neighborhoods, industrialism, immigration, Jews), so I have decided to just tell you "hey, read this book," if you haven't already. (Here's a note and a quote, from after the boy lands. I don't know if you can see this Google Book link or not.) Also, when you and Sitush meet up (I hope you do), make sure that he buys you a beer. He knows why. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective on mid-20th century Manchester. I haven't fully made my mind up yet about the meetup; to a degree it depends on the outcome of you-know-what. And to be honest I've written or reviewed approximately zero here in the last couple of months, and I'm beginning to find I don't miss the hassle. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hassle? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm starting to wish that Ottava Rima would start socking--it would save me a lot of work trying to add factoids to stubs such as Le Rime. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The hassle, for instance, of the interminable and tedious arguments about whether or not wife selling is sexist, whether Bury is in Lancashire or Greater Manchester, what the significance of V for Vendetta is for the Guy Fawkes article, whether it should be "hung drawn and quartered" or "hanged drawn and quartered", anything to do with Irish republicanism ... the list is endless. And just try opposing a Brazilian article at FAC if you think you're hard enough. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. You could have been an administrator, having to defend the very existence of these hassles. I now speak as a peon, of course. (I prefer that term over "peasant", which you used above, since "peon" also suggests "pawn". BTW, "hanged, drawn..." is impossible with those two plosives, IMO.) Drmies (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"I could have been a contender" eh? Actually, the official sentence was hanged, drawn and quartered. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Article lists

Would you support a Good Article list status for good lists which are not quite there as a featured lists? If not why not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't, no more than I'd support a good picture process. The featured list criteria don't seem particularly onerous to me, and I can't see which of them could usefully be weakened to allow "good" lists. But you might like to run the idea past someone with more experience of lists than I have, such as Peter I. Vardy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I thought you'd have that perspective given that the lists generally don't require as much as a full blooded articles. But I have seen some lists fail FLC like the List of Russian explorers which seem good but failed so that was why I brought it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the review, but why not just fix the article so that it does meet the FL criteria? Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If editors want a GL process, they can set it up. Like Malleus, I wouldn't personally support or encourage it, as I think it might misdirect resources relative to the size of the issue being addressed. The true worth of GA, in my view, is that it is an honest attempt to tackle the vast number of really poor articles on Wikipedia. Even discounting articles that almost nobody reads (and I am not taking a swipe at FA here: almost all FA's are very well read in comparison to the huge tail of articles that almost no one is interested in*), there are hundreds of thousands of these. No "featured" (i.e., "best work") style process can deal with this problem in the next millennium.

I do not see a similar case for lists: there are far fewer of these, and it is far more reasonable to attempt to bring the majority to FL standard in a reasonable timescale. Geometry guy 23:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• PS. Just click "random" to see what I mean. Regular readers of this talk page may be amused to note that on trying this myself, the first random article I got was Willy Will. It gets about 400 hits per month, which is relatively high compared to the tail (but still way lower than the outrageously high bar of 3000 hits per month used by some editors in their analyses). My second try got South Carolina's 9th congressional district which is more typical (less than 200 hits per month). One day somebody might bring this to GA or even FA standard, but expecting that to happen across the board of articles like this is a pipe-dream.

• For part of last year I mooched around New Pages a bit, which is just about as dispiriting an experience as anything on Wikipedia. When you begin to see the amount of crap that's being added daily you realise that one thing is inevitable; the overall quality of Wikipedia is getting lower and lower, and there's no process that can turn the sewage into something at least respectable on any scale matching the deluge. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  That depends crucially on how you measure (or weight) "overall quality". See below. Geometry guy 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  It does, but I don't really have a problem with the "XYZ is a canton/county/province in PQR" articles, even though Dr Blofeld and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on what I've called micro-stubs. But I think we're over that now. What I find depressing is the flood of what can only be called illiteracy: poor spelling and even worse grammar. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally support or encourage it, as I think it might misdirect resources relative to the size of the issue being addressed ... In fact, IMO, this is exactly what Featured Lists did to Featured Articles. In some senses (not all, no generalizations here, I know of many very hard to write Featured Lists), Featured Lists are easier to write and review than Featured Articles, so that process drained resources from FAC. Other than that, I like the rest of this discussion :) Especially the part about Sue Gardner :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Malleus it needs quite a lot of referencing work. My first one at random was The McPherson Tape... Says it all really..♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Then it would probably need just as much referencing work to get through a Good List process as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm encouraged by the fact that most articles are uninteresting dross. There is no priority to improve them beyond stub level: as long as they have a reference or two, and a wikilink or two, they are no cause for shame (a WikiProject to work on such a minimal requirement would be worthwhile; several related projects already exist).

Wikipedia has nearly 4 million articles, so it is a relief to know that 95% or more aren't interesting enough to make into great pieces. It means that we only have to deal with a few hundred thousand articles that really need to meet at least the GA criteria. GA has the potential to handle 5000 articles per year and more, so can make substantial impact in 10 years. It also means that each GA is a larger contribution to that goal than it is towards the unrealistic aim of making the entire encyclopedia GA standard. Geometry guy 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective. Do you believe that there's an upper limit on the number of articles that GA could handle annually? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course (the number of edits Wikipedia can handle per year is bounded), but I think you are asking a more refined question. The evidence to date is that the number of articles GA can handle continues to grow. The question is why, and how far can such growth go. Here is a summary of my analysis to date.

The reason for the success (aka continued growth of articles/year) of GA is that it has an excellent conversion rate from article improvement effort to reviewer effort. The rise to respectability (or at least notability) of Wikipedia means that there is no shortage of editors wanting to improve articles. Improving articles to GA standard involves a lot of work, perhaps 20 times as much work as reviewing an article against the GA criteria. The precise figure is not crucial: sometimes it takes less work, sometimes a lot more. Lets pretend 20 is a plausible factor. Then GA thrives by converting close to 1/20th of the improvement effort into reviewer effort. It does so by encouraging nominators to become reviewers, and by only requiring one reviewer to list an article. If GA required 5 reviewers to list an article, it would need to improve the conversion rate from improvement effort to reviewer effort by a considerable amount (not as much as 5 times, as the multiple reviewers would not all have to cover the same ground, but certainly more than twice). This is the underlying reason for the scalability of GA: "one nominator, one reviewer" is a simplistic explanation for the balance, but the 1:1 balance between nominators and reviewers (rather that 1:5) is significant in the high conversion rate between nominator and reviewer effort: the average nominator does not have to do a vast amount of reviewing to balance the work they create.

So how far can this go? Well, GA certainly needs to adapt to growth, for example by being easy to use: templates and bots have been introduced to help editors focus on the reviewing process, but where the mechanics are still confusing, they need to be simplified. Ultimately, assuming continued growth, the nominations page will have to be reorganized, and probably split into subpages.

However, in my view the main threats to GA growth are: (1) reduced interest in improving Wikipedia; (2) falling conversion rates between improvement effort and reviewer effort. Consequently, any strategy for GA growth should aim: (1) to make improving articles to GA standard attractive to editors; (2) to encourage the conversion of as large a slice of that improvement effort into reviewing as possible.

In the last few years, the backlog strongly suggests that conversion rates, i.e., issue (2), are currently the main limiting factor. The backlog has been an ongoing concern at GA, but it is a symptom of success, not a problem, so I've always opposed attempts at cure. However, last month I had an idea that might be the next step in addressing issue (2) without undermining (1). Whether now is the time for my idea, I do not know, but I certainly see such changes as part of a future in which GA growth reaches 10-20000 articles per year. Geometry guy 03:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge "shortage of editors wanting to improve articles"! After falling ever since early 2007, the number of editors making +100 edits per month in article space has supposedly stabilized at around 3,500 (we'll see), and we know most of those are just reverting vandalism, adding crufty extras, or concentrate on either DYKs or FAs, both on tiny topics. I'm sure GA has been successful in channeling the efforts of many of the rest, but if it has not yet hit the outside of the envelope in terms of the overall number of editors available, then it very soon will. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a major issue, which is likely to impact (and no doubt already affects) GA, but much of the decline you note comes from the maturing of Wikipedia: article growth is now falling as there are fewer new articles to create; improving interesting articles is harder, as many are now more developed than stubs. DYK is a good example of an area where substantial change will take place: its focus on the newly created will increasingly misdirect efforts, and that is not sustainable. Geometry guy 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no data to back up my opinion, but I suspect that the number of reviewers has declined even more sharply than the number of active editors. And obviously, without reviewers there will be no GAs or FAs. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence for that at GA, where output (a measure of reviewer effort) continues to grow. Here's a graph illustrating the difference:

Geometry guy 02:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Johnbod—don't believe everything Sue Gardner tells you. A statistical blip of a surge in "editors with 100+ edits" in December allows her to claim (correctly) that the number for December 2011 is higher than that for December 2010, but it's extremely misleading. The raw data is here, and it's immediately apparent that every key indicator (number of casual editors, number of regular editors, new page creations, total edit count) has been nosediving for years, other than mean article size (and the rise in that can be accounted for by the drop in new page creations). Even in December (the time of the supposed surge in editing) the most important indicator of all when it comes to Wikipedia's general health, total edit count, was at its lowest level since the pre-Siegenthaler days of June 2006. 188.29.24.41 (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, hence the scepticism above, but the "nosedive" phase stopped by late 2010, and 2011 was the USS Wikipedia slowly settling into the mud at the bottom, I hope. Subjectively, I do see signs in my own area (where there is absolutely no shortage of low-hanging fruit) of revived and usefully directed activity. What we still lack (as SG Sue Gardner is well aware) is ways to analyse the edit stats to sort text addition from the other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The other SG ... <groan> ... even on a page I frequent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the usual grovelling apologies! Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a nice man ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see there's a navigation button to find featured articles - the best articles, and one to find random articles - which seems to throw up mostly the worst, but not one to find good articles - which would probably show the greatest number of articles that we wouldn't be ashamed of. Something seems amiss there. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember how hard we had to fight even to get the little green blob on GAs? GA has long been considered a worthless competitor to DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I put an article up for DYK recently and had to review another one as part of the process. What I found was that there are some people who seem to see notching up DYKs as an end in itself and put a minimum of effort into creating a short article for just that purpose. Trying to get the creator of the one I reviewed to improve the article was like pulling teeth. I was then told that it was 'misleading' to say that websites were unreliable as sources and that most of the new articles were created using them. I despair sometimes. Richerman (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK is an anomaly that's well past its sell-by date. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bah, it's well past the salmonella date! The minute Nikkimaria turns her back, same ole same ole. RFC, replace DYK with GAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You gave GA a good tongue-lashing a few years ago, and it responded positively to become what it is today, which is nothing that any of us need to be ashamed of. DYK on the other hand is a permanent blot on the main page. Why? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope - no DYK, no ITN, no FP, no clutter of any kind. This is what a wiki front page should look like, not a design that looked dated when it was was last changed in 2004. 188.29.238.214 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice, but won't work. That site has a "team" (staff). We have "volunteers", many of whom want their day in the sun, regardless of the greater good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. 78.147.136.64 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not even ... a growing list of employees sucking up money on junkets, several of whom know nothing of content creation (with a few exceptions like Ironholds, MRG). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I share your concerns about junkets and jobs for the boys, particularly with chapters like the UK one. But I also find it difficult to believe that anyone who's had their "day in the Sun" on the main page would ever want another one; I've always found it to be a nightmare. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But you know the short stint as a DYK (that no one reads) is nothing like the 24 hours TFA that everyone reads; DYKs get face time with little accountability or improvement. Shoot, I've tired of finding huge copyvio, unreliable sources, even flatout errors in DYK, and realizing that no one cares, no one notices, no one reads them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a stint of new-page patrolling last year, just to see what was going on there really. I'd guess that I flagged rather few as clear copyright violations, but some just stood out as having been copied from somewhere because of jagged or archaic phrasing. Something needs to change. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK is, in its present form, an anachronism. Creating new articles or improving stubs to start class is no longer the order of the day. If something like "Did you know" is retained, it should be based upon articles of much higher quality than newly created ones. Wikipedia has nearly 4 million articles now: we don't need to advertise that there is something new being added every day. There is something new to be found in tens of thousands of well-established and high quality articles, a resource which is almost entirely wasted at present. Geometry guy 02:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is they brag about having 20 million articles and how many of them exactly are even readable let alone good quality across all wikipedias? The problem is that wikipedia has always been set up in a way which makes it more a rough encyclopedia development charity project rather than a formal encyclopedia. Most of the time when you are looking for a decent article on a subject you really want to read about it isn't there and is either a barely outlined stub or waffles and is unsourced to the point you can't read it and extract the important points, let alone believe a single word it says. I mean look at the article we have on Calais, very poorly researched (before I started on it) and its typical of the level of quality on important topics on here. Sometimes I do think it would be nice to search for anything and to not have to do any work to the article like a proper encyclopedia. At times the problem is so bad I just don't know where to begin as however hard you work on an article the majority in the categories need the same amount of work to the point you think, this task is impossible. I think what we all want here is a comprehensive universally high quality encyclopedia but the whole openness and set up of wikipedia means just the opposite of this. And I think that this very problem will lead to another fork of wikipedia in the future but something which will actually attract the pool of editors needed to write quality content who are compensated for their efforts instead of the people who think they govern it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." ([http://bible.cc/luke/15-7.htm Luke 15:7). DYK should be restricted to 5x expansions and new articles above a higher size limit (which applies to the expansions too). Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think a monthly prize given to the best article expansions of existing articles and core articles is the best way to go about it. DYK is flawed, so is wikipedia, but we do need some mechanism to get editors enmasse to improve existing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough already

Why are we all whining on Mally's talk? Why has there been no RFC on DYK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Malleus's talk page can't be closed as "no consensus" by someone afraid of losing their Wikicup points, within three hours of being opened. See also Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 69#RfC: DYK quality assurance and archiving. 188.28.66.209 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, posting as an IP must be so liberating !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend it. If you have something sensible to say people generally treat it with as much respect as they do from a logged-on editor, but IPs don't carry the baggage of old scores and half-forgotten arguments that weigh down those of the logged-on persuasion. Come, join the IP revolution. 188.28.66.209 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Lots of people would still be very recognisable by the edit summaries they use, or the posting style they use. Within the same discussion, you would have to have stable user-ids (imagine how confusing it would be if someone's IP address changed mid-way through a discussion?), and so the potential is still there to end up focusing on individuals and arguing with them. Anyway, I was reading the above and I think Johnbod makes a good point: "DYK should be restricted to 5x expansions and new articles above a higher size limit (which applies to the expansions too)". What you don't want to do is throw out the good DYKs along with the poorer ones. Not everyone wants to take a new or recently expanded article through a Good Article review. If there was an RfC on changing DYK to be reviewed new or expanded articles, and GAs, I'd support that. I'd also support reducing the DYK throughput to allow more careful review of the articles. The final point might be to have all the other DYK submissions (the ones that have been checked but are too short) appear briefly on a one-line ticker at the bottom of the DYK section, asking our readers to help improve them (a "new articles needing expansion" section). Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How about "5x expansions, new articles above a higher size limit, and recent first time GAs"? That would be a first step towards a longer term solution, at least. Geometry guy 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tut! "Nobody reads" DYK's???? wot, really? [Pesky gloats smugly, dips ears, wags tail ... grins, ducks, and runs behind sofa, eyeing the rolled-up newspaper warily...] Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty please?

Could you cast your expert eye over The Meermin slave mutiny? Nortonius and I are working it up in the hopes of getting it to FA, and a really sound set (or three sets, or whatever) of eyes polishing it up would be greatly appreciated. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you're one of the few not snapping at my heels in the ongoing ArbCom trial I guess I owe you one. I might not get to it today, but hopefully over the weekend, depending of course on what ArbCom's proposed decision proves to be. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I try always to approach that kind of thing from a purely principle-centred basis, keeping the principles as simple as possible. I don't always succeed, as I also admit to having OCD and C-PTSD, with a particular personal hatred of injustice and abuse-of-power things, and a strong-as-steel belief in the one of the Ten Commandments which says "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (though my adherence to many of the others is often a bit shaky ... lol!). I just hope that intelligence, justice, insight and basic humane-ness (not quite the same thing as "humanity", which can be used simply as a word to describe "all humans", many of whom are inhumane in the extreme!) will enlighten the decision-making process. For my eyes, the solution is incredibly simple, and very humane, and totally reasonable. Not that I'm biased in favour of my own solution, or anything ... the simplest, most effective, most humane, most thoughtful solution is usually the best one. I see a three-stage solution here. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Elen alerted Sandy et alia about Alarbus's known sockpuppetry.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There's so much deception here you'd think a plain speaker like me would be welcomed, not pilloried. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If only there were more deception than "self deception"....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The passive-aggressive and obscene cliche "First they came for methe Communists" has been propagating around WP the last weeks. Can you guess what happened when I asked who was the Nazi and who was the victim at ANI, etc.?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it was "First they came for the communists ....". Hmm. Maybe I should stop using that quotation ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Substituting "me" for "the Communists" was out of character for me! (Have you used it too, TPC?!!???) I was first irritated by it when I saw it used by Alarbus or Lecen, then the other, ....

At least when Protestant ministers of the 1950s and 1960s started quoting from the Confessional Church, they put their church's money where their pulpits were. They sent buses to the 1963 March on Washington (which was organized by Bayard Rustin with help from Tom Kahn et alia). Despite death threats, etc., no minister would have dared to compare himself with the sacrifices of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or The Crucifixion. Now, we have WP editors comparing themselves to victims of Nazism! (*Outrage*)

Not to be confused with "bing-bing-bing" or "bling bling", bang-bang rhetoric evinces suboptimal self-control or crowd-control.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only ever used it as a parallel for the sort of "Don't just ignore it when injustice happens, you could be next" kind of situation. Never as an actual "You're a Nazi!" thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A Community of Witches

Hello there Malleus! I've recently been trying to pull the article at A Community of Witches up to FA status, and in the FA review User:SandyGeorgia noted their opinion that it needs improvements made to several areas of the text, and recommended that you look it over. No pressure to do so obviously, but as you are recommended, it would certainly be approciated. Many thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I was forced to study sociology as part of my psychology degree, and I hated it ... but on the other hand this is about modern-day witchcraft, so that retrieves it as far as I'm concerned. The article would probably have benefited from either a peer review or a more rigorous GAN before being taken to FAC, but that's water under the bridge now. My time here may be limited (see my reply to Pesky above), but when I've looked over her article I'll try and take a look through yours. If I were you I'd concentrate on getting the lead right first, as you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Right off the bat I notice that the opening sentence of the third paragraph repeats what we were told right at the start of the article, that the book is sociological study of the Wiccan community in the Northeastern United States. In fact that third paragraph somewhat contradicts the earlier statement that it's a sociological study of the Wiccan and wider Pagan community in the Northeastern United States. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Malleus! Much appreciated (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

So it's not about the local coven, then? ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reginald of Durham

You might be able to help with this article. I maintain that there has been misinformation in it for five years, but another user has been edit-warring to keep it in. What do you think? 94.196.125.185 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the assertion that the Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources can't be trusted in this case needs to be backed up. Until then, I've removed it. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What Nev1 said. But even though you're in the right be careful about not breaching WP:3RR, frustrating as it so often is. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

ODNB gives his name as "Coldingham [Durham], Reginald of (d. c.1190)" in the first line - seems pretty clear to me that it either name is correct. Note that Sharpe's Handlist of Latin Writers has him under "Reginald of Durham". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP is a trolling sockpuppet of a banned user as indicated above. He is having a period of hyperactivity at the moment all over wikipedia. The edits were not removed because of any problem with the content: they were reverted because they were made by a user banned as a serial wikistalker and puppetmaster (see the complete SPI archives which give a a complete account of this user). Mathsci (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So putting back in incorrect information just because some sockpuppet or something did the original removal ... is correct? I thought we were about providing information to the readers - not fighting sockpuppets. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He was reverted because he followed me to the new article St Cuthbert's Well that I wrote a week ago. That article contains three accounts of miracles recorded by Reginald of Durham in his Libella (little book of miracles of St Cuthbert). I added the link to my new article and Echigo mole followed me there half an hour later. Although I don't have the article on my watchlist, I watch the edits in his IP range using a rangecontrib tool. That IP was blocked. I added a citation to an article on Reginald of Durham by Victoria Tudor in the St Cuthbert article. Echigo mole (previously A.K.Nole) has been a stalker since 2009. Any content he adds on arbcom pages, on ANI, on mathematics articles (where his understanding is negative) or elsewhere is instantly reverted if noticed. That is why all the IPs that have been reported have been blocked. The IP that made the second edit was blocked for one month by an SPI admin. [2] Note he followed me to two articles: on the mathematics one he is completely at sea. Here's an edit to a music article that I created. [3] Just trolling. I don't have that article on my watchlist. It's not well written as I discovered when creating the other articles (which is paired with St Cuthbert's Cave). Mathsci (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But Ealdgyth, fighting sockpuppets is so easier and more fun, along with all the patrolling that needs to be done. If Mathsci restores this clearly incorrect information then I'll remove it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article St Cuthbert's Well contains a proper reference to Reginald by Victoria Lowe. His book Libella is not even mentioned in the article on him, which I think is poor and not even on my watchlist. I don't think creating either St Cuthbert's Cave or St Cuthbert's Well was particularly straightforward, which is what I was doing at the time. In that sense I don't quite understand your comment. The named sockpuppet William Hickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also active at the time in many venues. His first edits were to make a report on non-sockpuppets of Echigo mole (i.e. himself) at WP:SPI, claiming they were Echigo mole. He was seen through immediately and indefinitely blocked after a checkuser looked at his account. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Then allow me to spell it out for you. I don't give a damn who the person is behind any edit that improves the encyclopedia, and in this case the IP was perfectly correct. I don't give a rat's arse whether it's in some kind of range block or not, and neither should you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So whoever reverted the IP editor didn't check to see if their edit was correct or not? Wouldn't it be better to either double check the reversion to see if the edit was correct or not, or if you're not qualified to do so or don't have the sources, go to someone who does rather than blindly reverting because it's a sockpuppet? In this case, it appears that removing that unsourced line was the correct thing to do - note that I've not got Reginald of Durham on my watchlist so I'd not have noticed the edit either adding or subtracting the information. I'm always happy to help out folks with my sources if they need something looked up. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did in fact look in the article of Victoria Lowe which I had located to check references to the Little Book of Miracles of the Blessed Cuthbert in Recent Times, which came from another source. There was nothing in Tudor's article. At that stage I was looking for material on cup and ring marks at Dod Law, near Cuddy's Cove, so was busy doing something, as I am at the moment (creating 46 midi files of Bach chorale preludes), Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the person behind the IP has been ostracised by The Community they made a valid point. The first edit summary was crystal clear and should have been considered when weighing whether the edit should be retained. Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that Echigo mole (talk · contribs) is not a "banned user", as Mathsci persistently and falsely asserts. He uses that excuse to revert a lot of edits, though. Laura Timmins (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The above account does not yet have auto-confirmed status, so cannot comment on the most recent request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole, which is semi-protected because of previous shenanigans. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And I should caring about that why? I'm very fed up with this culture of grave dancing; "Oh goodie, XYZ has been blocked/banned; that means we can now trash everything he's ever posted." You surely cannot seriously be suggesting that your edit-warring was actually intended to improve the article? As opposed to simply reverting on sight something you believed was posted by a blocked/banned user? Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the SPI, something extremely dubious is going on here. You seem to accuse everyone who ever disagrees with you of being "a banned user", regardless of the quality of their edits. This reminds me of the Peter Damian saga all over again. 188.28.66.209 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There are similarities, although I've yet to be threatened with sanctions for agreeing with the IP as I was by Sandstein for restoring one of Peter Damian's articles. Nev1 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "evil" Peter Damian, not to mention the equally "evil" Ottava Rima. If Wikipedia wants decent articles on literary and philosophical subjects, for instance, it has to find ways of dealing appropriately with editors like them; a start might be to stop treating them like naughty children. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread illustrates a stress point between administration and content contribution that does not need to happen. I entirely agree with Ealdgyth that Wikipedia is about improving content and providing accurate information to readers. Patrolling recent changes, reverting vandalism, chasing socks of banned users, and blocking point of view pushers are all means towards that end and not ends in themselves: they are about providing an environment in which good content can be created and maintained, so that it survives and thrives.

It is unfortunate that admins sometimes seem to forget that such work is a means to an end, but it is also unfortunate that those working on content sometimes seem to underestimate how important the maintenance of that environment is. We cannot work in an environment in which disruptive editors can return freely as IPs or under sock accounts. We should be concerned that the above post by Laura Timmins is the first post by a newly created account.

Real problems arise where administration and content producing roles become confused. It is perfectly possible for a sock or IP of a banned user to make good edits. However, there is also a risk that they have returned to make damaging edits. Without looking into the details here, I suggest admins should explicitly identify their motives in edit summaries: for example "Revert sock of banned user without prejudice - please check edit for accuracy". The point is to draw the attention to a potentially damaging edit. If it is not damaging, great - undo the revert and move on. There is no need for a big philosophical clash over this issue. Geometry guy 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't. But the point has clearly been made by at least three editors that the edit in question was an improvement, a point that Mathsci seems determined to ignore in favour of some kind of "rules is rules" philosophy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Then he may well have been confusing administration and content producing roles. I will look into it more closely and comment further. Geometry guy 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. How admins treat current (unbanned) editors, and how we decide when to ban disruptive editors is an issue over which there are philosophical disagreements, but these are different issues. Geometry guy 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How administrators treat non-administrators is an issue over which there can be no "philosophical" disagreement, given the evidence. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an entire Arbcom case related to this issue taking place right now, I believe. :) Geometry guy 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there? All I've seen is a lynch mob. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page is the Bataan Death March of talk pages. Wikipedia is the Holocaust of the Internet. I am the most prodigiously hyperbolic editor in the history of the universe. Or rather, if people can only see parts of Wikipedia as dens of inequity where people are drug from their homes and tortured and killed, or women are vessels which are targets for gang rapes, perhaps this site should be investigated by the International Tribunal of War Crimes. Or you know, log off every now and then. --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that didn't take long: I hadn't realised you were arguing over a stub (sigh). MathSci was obviously bugged by the IP following him to the page, and reverted twice before disengaging, but full credit to Nev1 for "removing the unsourced assertion". The IP stated it was an "obvious hoax",without providing further explanation Unfortunately talk page comments on this were also deleted, but the edit history does: "see how long this lasts" according to User:Stbalbach (who has not edited since 2008). Well, it lasted for nearly 5 years, as the IP/OP stated above. Added: it is even more complicated than this: see below.

I expect MathSci is pretty embarrassed right now, but he did not state above that the edit was wrong, only that the IP had previously made bad edits and followed him to that page. There may be complicated behavioural dynamics taking place here (such as baiting, for example): all the more reason to follow what I suggest above and clearly separate administrative actions from content actions. Geometry guy 23:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci was clearly in the wrong. Full stop. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the IP's first explanation wasn't simply "obvious hoax" (that was the edit summary of the second edit) but "remove doubtful assertion contradicting two normally reliable sources". That seems like a reasonable explanation of the sitation to me, and the IP repeated the explanation on the talk page (though that too was reverted). Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be so, but if you think MathSci is to blame for not checking whether the edit was helpful or not (despite the fact he was acting administratively), how come nobody did the utterly simple check on the edit history (before I did - or indeed the talk page history) to find where the edit was first added? I thought expert reviewers did this routinely in much more complicated situations than a stub. Anyone who has found plagiarism must surely have checked back for the original edit, no?

I see a pervasive problem here on Wikipedia, that infects all editors from content contribution to Arbcom. Editors are willing to spend more time asserting a position than investigating the background behind the various alternative positions: just look at the Rlevse/BarkingMoon/PumpkinSky story, where contradictory evidence has resulted in repeated assertions of contradictory positions, rather than any substantial attempt to rationalize them. Opinionated editors may believe that they have everything right, but until they learn to read as well as write, they will achieve nothing. Geometry guy 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you making such sweeping generalisations based on what is a very clear case? There is no justification whatsoever for retaining the misinformation that Mathsci edit-warred to keep. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MathiSci did not edit war to keep misinformation; he did so adminstratively to revert a sock. He did so badly, but there are big differences between performance, justification and abuse. Geometry guy 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're making too many assumptions here. I checked the edit history too but since Stbalbach hasn't edited since 2008 there's no point in turning to him/her for an answer, and it didn't affect my decision to remove a curious and unsupported statement. I do think it odd that the person who started the article added what could reasonably seen as a hoax, but since they're not here to explain I thought "so what". I'm not interested in apportioning blame, and having dealt with socks before know mistakes can be made but it cannot be denied that restoring a dubious statement was a mistake. It should serve as a reminder that automatically reverting an editor's contributions may damage the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor am I. Reverting an editor's contributions should be accompanied by appropriate reasons, which were absent here, but that does not make such reversion wrong per se. Geometry guy 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't any confusion and I am not at all embarassed. Echigo mole/A.K.Nole regularly uses the word "hoax" when removing something without checking. If you bothered looking at the multiple edits of this user, reported at several parallel SPI cases, you would understand the problem. At weekends he is hyperactive, a week ago as William Hickey and through ipsocks in the ranges 94.196.*.* and 94.197.*.*. Multiple checkusers have blocked the socks and the edits of this user have been reviewed off-wiki by checkusers on the arbitration committee when a year ago he was accessing the web differently and where there were serious outing issues. His mathematical contributions are trolling well outside of his depth, with chronic misunderstandings of higher mathematics (most recently about what "invariant subspace" means). If the disruption and wikistalking remains at this level (we are now on about the 11th named sockpuppet), then probably a profile will be written for long term abuse. AGK in his checkuser capacity has commented that this editor should not be encouraged, as is happening here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your approach, however, carries a strong impression of "revert first, ask questions later", which has resulted in a lot of wasted editor time here. I politely suggest you consider ways to clarify the intentions and limitations of your edits. Everyone has something to learn here. Geometry guy 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor's standard editing is to add trolling content as a wikistalker: whereever he can, but particularly to arbcom pages. Here are four recent examples all on the same amendment request:

• 94.196.72.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [4]an IP from his new range (blocked for 1 week as a result of 2 edits)
• The Wozbongulator (talk · contribs) [5] (indefinitely blocked as a sock of Echigo mole)
• Reginald Fortune (talk · contribs) [6](indefinitely blocked as a sock of Echigo mole)
• William Hickey (talk · contribs) [7][8][9][10] (indefinitely blocked as a sock of Echigo mole)

These were the edits of the same wikistalker who. as Quotient group (talk · contribs), in 2010 in email exchanges with an arbitrator admitted to being A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) and agreed to stop wikistalking me. In 2011, while I was giving a Part III lecture course in Cambridge, Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs) edit warred over related content added by both me and R.e.b.: his attempts to make mathematical edits were clueless trolling and involved privacy issues which required contacting arbcom. He was blocked at that stage, along with three other sockpuppets Zarboublian (talk · contribs), Taciki Wym (talk · contribs) and Holding Ray (talk · contribs), by the same arbitrator to whom he had made his earlier prommises. Another arbitrator has described him as delusional. His activities at the arbcom page are just disruptive as he adopts different personas, all easily identifiable (because of his long term obsession with my edits). I am surprised that editors here are spending so much time defending or enabling this wikistalker and troll. Just before being blocked as Laura Timmins (talk · contribs), Echigo mole/A.K.Nole tried to justify his recent extreme disruption by the support offered to him on this page.[11] I am the only person to add new sources to Reginald of Durham) copied from St Cuthbert's Well): I also added some content, but more content could be added about Godric, whom he knew. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• What, what? I'm totally confused now. The assertion was not added by User:Stbalbach, who was a hugely useful editor on medieval stuff, & much missed. He merely relocated it after yet another ISP added it too low down. The ISP who removed it just recently is very fond of "obvious hoaxes" - unfortunately another removed in his few edits is from an utterly impenetrable maths article. Frankly I'm suspicious. I probably can't convey how totally unsurprised I am by assertions that a couple of oldish reference books contain errors. The ISP who added it way back seems to have been a useful type, if a bit eclectic - see his next edit - of course it may not all be the same person. My money is still on Mathsci being right, though I think I would have moved it to talk or tagged it myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right Johnbod, I've struck my mistake. Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) ODNB lists both names, however, so the statement "Note that the alternative name Reginald of Coldingham, while perpetuated in the Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, is spurious." Is incorrect and should not be in the article. The IP removed it (correctly) and Mathsci readded it because the IP was a sockpuppet. But the addition was incorrect ... both names ARE used ... so the name is not spurious. See my link to the ODNB entry above ... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the original edit was based on a source (one not supplied in the edit) that makes an argument for 'Reginald of Coldingham' being spurious, but that may have been an argument that the ODNB author silently rejected. So you are left with a choice between looking for whatever prompted the orignal edit (assuming it wasn't speculation to begin with), or going with the ODNB. FWIW, if the DNB made a spurious claim, the ODNB might not always correct it - some of the updates I've looked at in the ODNB do get things wrong or fail to correct inaccuracies from the DNB. But until someone presents a source, the only option is to go with what the current sources in use say. The DNB entry by Mary Bateson can be viewed here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the addition had been uncited for five years. I really can't see why this is so difficult to understand. Anyone claiming that, for instance, the ODNB is unreliable really needs to provide a reliable source saying so. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite. We have surely reached the right conclusion for now. How we got here was less than edifying. Geometry guy 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

But sadly not atypical. Will lessons ever be learned? I doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you learned a lesson? I've learned a little for sure. Geometry guy 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I've simply seen yet more confirmation of the endemic bias here against ip and non-administrator editors. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Have you simply seen that and nothing more? That's a pretty shallow reading of this complicated thread!

Perhaps this is the flaw that is your main undoing. "Will lessons ever be learned? I doubt it - certainly not by me" is a message that reeks of hypocrisy, not radicalism or reform. Geometry guy 01:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're talking shit Geometry guy, and in an attempt to be part of the solution you've become part of the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll let you sleep on that remark. Geometry guy 02:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

... as I will let you sleep on yours. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I did, and in the interim, the story only became more complex. It is not my aim to be part of The Solution^TM, but simply to provide a voice of reason, to encourage dialogue, mutual understand, and solutions to problems. That does not mean I am always right (or the voice of reason). Far from it: a key aspect of reason is the ability to modify one's position in the light of new information (learn, recognise mistakes, however minor). Consequently, I am wary of dogmatism, entrenched views, and posturing. I think you are a fan of reason too, otherwise I wouldn't post here, and we would not agree on nearly as many things as we do. Reason welcomes challenges, even invalid ones, as they provide an opportunity to rethink, refine, clarify, improve.

As a small example, I tried in my comments above to distinguish "adminstration" from "administrators", but didn't realize how relevant the distinction is here, in that Mathsci is not an admin, but what you and others posters to this page would refer to as a fellow "peon". Meanwhile I am an admin, but haven't acted adminstratively for several years, and even then, not very much. The weight I value is weight of argument, not weight of status, rhetoric, popularity or position. Geometry guy 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no interest whatsoever in the accusations of sockpuppetry being hurled around. My sole objection to what was happening was what I perceived to be the slavish "this material must be deleted because it was posted by a banned/blocked user". Or more accurately in this particular case, that clearly incorrect material removed by a banned/blocked editor should be restored. That way lies madness. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been staying out of the 'revert on sight' debate part of this thread, but my views on this are long-standing and fairly settled. Firstly, some banned users are quite capable of editing productively, but some banned users are also capable of editing disruptively. Personally I think the tendency of some to assume banned users are editing disruptively is unwarranted, but the actions of some banned editors promote that attitude. So the question then arises of whether to let such edits be handled the normal way, or give them special attention? I favour a combination of the two approaches: spot-check the more subtle edits and trust the system to handle the rest.

But reverting without looking at the substance of the edits is unacceptable. The example I usually give is that the banned user who is suspected of disruptive editing might be removing vandalism, so a blind revert would restore the vandalism. So there is always a need to inspect what has been removed. When someone appears to be adding material, they may be restoring material that was removed by another vandal (or working in tandem - the classic cases of missed vandalism are those where two vandal edits occur in succession and only the second one gets reverted), so again there is always a need to inspect the actual edit. But then you have the matter of volume. If someone is making hundreds of edits in a relatively short space of time, mixing up good and bad edits, they can waste the time of hundreds of Wikipedians (others shrug and say you have to let recent changes patrolling handle that, or a team of people so no one person gives a possibly attention-seeking banned user too much attention and satisfaction - per WP:DENY).

Sometimes those trying to make sure no lasting damage was done don't have time to do more than a brief inspection before reverting and hope others can take more time to look at the edits. I agree in this case reverting was not the right course of action. In this case, it's not vandalism, but a point of contention on content. I would have not reverted the edit and would have instead noted the edit on the talk page (maybe with a null edit in the page history to flag it up) for review by anyone watching or looking later (both can be automated in cases where large numbers of edits are being checked very briefly).

I don't think anyone was arguing that the material should have been restored. Rather, some were speculating as to whether the claim made might have any basis or not. It should be acceptable to discuss such things without being accused unfairly of arguing to restore an unsourced claim. In other words, you can still discuss something while accepting that a source would be needed (at minimum) before anything like that got restored, though I can understand why that might seem like a frustrating waste of time to some. Anyway, I've created the redirect Reginald of Coldingham, which no-one had done yet. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The same ambiguity applies to Geoffrey of Durham/Geoffrey of Coldingham.[12] Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) The point I'm making is that it is not black-and-white. Both the ODNB and the DNB give a nuanced account of the Durham/Coldingham associations, a nuanced account that is not present in the Wikipedia article. So rather than continue here, I'm going to go and edit the article to try and make things more informative over there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just quite simply bollocks. The long-standing and uncited statement that "Note that the alternative name Reginald of Coldingham, while perpetuated in the Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, is spurious" was allowed to remain in place for five years is a disgrace really, and anyone who can't see that is wasting their time in posting here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators seem to find some policies more difficult to enforce than others. Why is that exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because the no original research policy is in fact primarily enforced by editors, not administrators? Editors find original research, remove it from articles, and then edit the articles to add correctly sourced material. That is what has been happening here (the five years bit is unfortunate, I agree). It's only if people add back in material that was removed, or persistently add original research, that administrators need to get involved (and even then, they only get involved if the evidence is clear-cut and laid out in an easy-to-understand format). Sometimes it is not easy to deal with, and it goes all the way to arbitration (that's what happened in the Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case). Anyway, I've done what I can. Feel free to continue copyediting the article. If Ealdgyth is reading this, I hope she will also consider helping out. It would be nice to do some collaborative editing on this or other topics. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Another response might be: why are court cases on divorce or murder more difficult to resolve than ones on speeding fines? Geometry guy 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Already in St Cuthbert's Well, there is better sourcing. Victoria Tudor is one of the experts on this period and wrote the ONDB article. The article there contains an extensive discussion of his role in promoting the northern saints, particularly the cult of Cuthbert, since Thomas a Beckett threatened to displace him. Bertram Colgrave is someone who wrote quite a bit about Reginald. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Laura Timmins (talk · contribs) has now been confirmed as a sock of Echigo mole by a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

From where do you get that? The checkuser comment on the SPI report says no such thing, only that this is identical to User:William Hickey, of which there's no evidence of a link to Echigo Mole other than your (unsubstantiated) allegation. 188.28.173.112 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

William Hickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Echigo mole, since the account went to checkuser and the SPI clerk tagged his page (checkusers always uses the most recent sock as a comparison). Alcamari indefinitely blocked Laura Timmins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole after the checkuser report. 188.28.173.112 seems to have difficulty understanding SPI reports. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this stuff that I really couldn't care less about clogging up my talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 08:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you became interested in it. On reviewing this, I see that your interest was from a very specific viewpoint: whether the edit was right or not. I also prefer to focus on the edit (another reason we often agree), but there is often other stuff going on. You can ignore that if you really want to and condemn editors as being "simply wrong" because you are not interested in the more complicated aspects of the situation. However, if you do so, you cannot then expect them to shut up and put up. Do you shut up and put up when others analyse your contributions from a one dimensional perspective? Geometry guy 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding last week

I shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, and I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody died, not even any serious injuries, so it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible FAC nomination

I am thinking of nominating this talkpage at FAC. The prose generally looks good, though a little informal at times, particularly with regard to the several anatomical references. The page is certainly comprehensive, and the images look OK, though there could be a few more of them. Some of the sources look distinctly unreliable, shifty even, and there is a lack of inline citations. The page view statistics show average daily viewing of 438, which easily passes the MOT test for worldwide significance. This figure indicates that the page is the 6,344th most visited page in the encyclopedia, just behind Monteverdi's Flying Circus and ahead of Secret limericks of Adolf Hitler. As you have the most edits on this talkpage (10,000+ as againsy my 8) I am notifying you of my intentions in advance, in accordance with WP:FAC policy requirements. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to put a lovely set of breasts in this section, to up the page views, but given how careful one must tread, I should probably settle for a picture of a dog. And one of a cat, for the dog haters. And a blank space for cat and dog haters. Is a chinchilla party acceptable? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a great fan of breasts, but bums slightly shade it for me. It's interesting that the artist clearly shared Desmond Morris's view that females developed breasts to encourage intercourse from the front, but maybe I'm just an incorrigible caveman. Malleus Fatuorum 08:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a great fan of palm leaves, under which bums recline in the shade. Sarah Baartman is the woman for you. Ning-ning (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, so he said that! I had a friend in high school who sort of let it be assumed that he came up with that hisself. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's probably something that's been said ever since human females began to develop breasts which were reminiscent of bums! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

Re:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

Please, remove this comment (maybe it is true - but remember about WP:NPA) Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No way is it a personal attack, Bulwersator. Which is why I reverted you. Read the policy. Doc talk 07:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfucking believable. The bollocks continues. And anyway, isn't it past your bedtime Bulwersator? Malleus Fatuorum 08:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny. Most of the scathingly rude behavior I've seen here has come from Admins. Of course I'm not a valued content creator, so my perception may be skewed a bit. I've done some content editing, and have a couple of ideas up in user pages, but the generally hostile and amateur tone here really keeps me from moving forward with them. I wonder how many people end up feeling the same way without saying anything about it? It's hard to take contributions seriously (and put serious work into them) when scholarly standards are routinely tossed aside for some Wiki-constructed "standard" that simply doesn't fly in the real world or when your work may be routinely attacked by agenda-monkeys who don't know anything about what they spout but continue to do so anyway. Hard to work up the energy to draft an article when you see that sort of thing.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MF's comment made me laugh, and even if it were aimed at me I would have had to say that he knocked that straight-line softball out of the park. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to another failure to comprehend Malleus's statement, by AnthonyCole, at AN or ANI. Calling others jackasses and trolls is a problem: Such statements should be rephrased as statements on behavior.

That the comment was cliched, and interchangeable with a 60 or so other comments on WP,

"Some people think that content contributions give them a license to be jackasses. I say 'Hell no!'. They should be banned! And I am so virtuous"

is another problem, if we wish to attract more writers to the project.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I always like to know when I'm on TV, even when it's a rerun. 28bytes (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PBS seems determined to have his pound of flesh. Elsewhere I've seen that there's a move to delete ANI, one of the best ideas I've seen here for ages. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I invoked your name on ANI---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be quite the game with some editors to squirrel away as many diffs as they can, waiting for the right moment to get their own back on whoever has upset them, no matter how long ago.

It seems from a report in the latest Signpost that ArbCom have delayed the publication of their proposed decision yet again, until the 13 February now, but it's beyond me why they're dragging their heels over what seems to be an open-and-shut case. About half a dozen of those who presented "evidence" ought to be blocked, John ought to be applauded for his integrity, I ought to be given a lifetime achievement award for fighting administrator corruption, and ArbCom ought to acknowledge that the civility policy has been subverted by those who use it as a justification to get rid of editors they don't like, and damn well do something about it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realise there isn't a Friday 13th this month don't you?J3Mrs (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 13th... does it say what year?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it might go on forever. J3Mrs (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Six weeks so far apparently, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration, but personally I'd far rather they did it right than did it promptly. Now if I (and I alone) had the judging of it, it would be oh-so-simple ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Acronym

The threshold for adminship is Consens-Us, Not Truth. --Surturz (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

.. surely, Completely Uncovering New Truths? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility policy is to Civility as Diversity training is to diversity

I wonder if this civility policy should just be scrapped, even if everybody agrees that civility is a good thing.

Civility policy seems to increase incivility, in the way that Diversity trainings are often blamed for increasing racial conflict, while doing nothing for working-class women or racial minorities (but benefiting middle-class white women).

(Sweden talks endlessly about gender equality but still lags far behind other the US in women in high positions, particularly at universities.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that diversity training adds to racial tension--we can do that well enough ourselves. It does, however, greatly increase sleepiness and a general disregard for authorities that impose such training. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've never heard of diversity training. Is it a peculiarly American thing?

If you care to look, you'll find Diversity Champions (or even whole departments) deeply embedded in the corporate stuctures of large organisations the length and breadth of the UK. Large Unions seem particularly keen to force their members to elect National Executive reps soley on the basis of their representation of "diverse groups", be they religious, ethnic or LGBT minorites. It's probably enshrined in company (and indeed union) law by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's like DARE: "Dare to keep kids off drugs". Useless, but good for elites who wish to demonstrate righteousness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, dare to vote for someone you've never heard of, for a policy that will never affect you, in an election that has too many candidates. sound familar? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• @Kiefer: the civility policy may have been fit for purpose when it was first drawn up (10 years ago?), but as I said above, it's long been subverted by those who use it as a weapon against those they've taken a dislike to and want to get rid of. That phrase "a tyranny of virtue" is very prescient and relevant to what's gone wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm being asked in too many words to apologize for telling an obvious truth. Someone's feelings get hurt and they want redress. I may need civility training. Yes, diversity training may be an American thing. It's obnoxious and never gets to the real problem. The scenario I was shown on video involved a white supervisor who incorrectly called a black employee into her office. "Did you call me in because I was black?" "Yes, I'm terribly sorry, and you did nothing wrong." "Well OK then--Kumbaya." The more interesting and more useful scenario is where the black employee did do something wrong and has to account for it without the blackness being made an issue, because those are the tricky situations. And in the scenario I summarized--the white woman realizing and apologizing, yeah, that's not likely to happen. She'll invent a complaint: after all, her supervisor is probably white also, statistically speaking, and they'll make it stick. As far as I can tell, the reverse scenario, in a mostly black organization, works the same way--at least at the university right up the street from me, if I believe anecdotal evidence and the occasional report in the paper. We prefer not to talk about that, or about the more likely scenario at the white-run place. That's real "civility"--don't want to offend the raci(ali)sts who still run the joint. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  We obviously have had, and to a degree still have, problems with racism here in the UK, but it's widely recognised as completely unacceptable, and nothing even conceivably on the scale of racism in the US; just look at the current furore over the captain of the England football team. I'm reminded of a comment a young nephew made after one of my brothers got engaged to a coloured girl from the West Indies, who was frankly gorgeous. Someone raised the issue of whether their children might be disadvantaged because of their colour, and he was absolutely stunned: "Why didn't someone tell me she was coloured?" He just saw the person, not the colour. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the saying? Race is America's obsession, class is Britain's? Actually class is America's obsession, too. Ours just comes with colors. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be some truth to that. I think very few British people could understand segregation in the 1960's US, or apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps one of the things the British Empire can feel proud of is the efforts of the Royal Navy to eliminate the trade in slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which an entire class of American Lit students knew nothing about. They had never even considered the trade, only the peculiar institution--and thought it only got abolished (even in the North) with the Emancipation Proclamation. As for class, well, "I'm not worried about the poor." Drmies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I blame the teachers. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We actually have rather a nice article on the distinction between abolishing slavery and eliminating the trade in slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see a nice Methodist boy like Wilberforce mentioned. :)

Steven Spielberg's Amistad deserves more attention in the U.S. and U.K. The British Navy is portrayed admirably (not admirally) , much more so than in parliamentary debates---there was no hint of "the only traditions of the British Navy"! ;) One doesn't have to tell anybody that Matthew McConaughey remains fully shirted throughout the movie.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Growing up in the 50s and 60s in America certainly gives one a certain perspective of many of the "isms" in the world. Times have and are changing though. — Ched :  ?  02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[ec with Ched: age before beauty.] An article that's about to get slapped with a serial motherfucking comma in the first sentence. Interesting! I am somewhat reminded of W. R. van Hoëvell. And there's Pitt the Younger again, who I got to add to Palinurus the other day. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think a serial comma is appropriate in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? For me that's automatic, for you it's an editorial decision. Why? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Put simply, because Americans are comma crazy. I get really fed up with seeing all the "In 1892, XYZ did PQR" rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what I meant--my question was, why stick it in here? (I like the looks of it, but I'm trained to like that. As for "In 1982,...", I use and teach that as an editorial decision, with a general guideline: if that prepositional phrase is short the comma is optional.) Drmies (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For me it's about sensitivity to the language rather than slavishly following any rules. I think the text reads better now than it did before, regardless of any technical discussions about subordinate clauses or whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"he managed to pass his examinations"--nicely put. It's a joy to read, that article. Oh, I have a student in a junior-level Business Writing class who didn't understand one of the exercises, in which one had to "translate" some horrible bureaucratese into "plain English", which he seemed to think was some kind of template for a business letter. Apparently "plain English" also needs to be translated into plain English. Go ahead, MF, and blame the teachers! God forbid that parents ought to get their kids to read...(tonight we read Madeline and Happy Pig Day!.) Drmies (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I blame the parents as well, obviously. I have no children, by choice, but in moments of reverie I sometimes think how lucky those unborn kids were. I take no prisoners, and I'd have insisted on them achieving, in the nicest and most supportive way of course, but failure wouldn't have been an option. My parents encouraged me to read, which I did voraciously. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I have two by no choice. Keep your fingers crossed for me that number 3, also by no choice, turns out as nice and inquisitive as the first two. Parents...here, parents are the people complaining to the teachers (not me, but Mrs. Drmies) about bad grades (usually, not As) for their children. It's part and parcel of the whole "get the parents involved" movement--and in general, people have a low opinion of public schools and take that out on the easy target, the teacher. I'm stopping before I go into a lengthy diatribe about making five-year olds take exams to get into decent schools, giving them grades that may already decide their future (and their parents' financial position twenty years hence), etc. Happy days Malleus--some summer I'm dropping my kids off with you and Mrs. Malleus while I go hiking in Wales and Scotland. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you're thinking of coming over and I'll make sure I'm out. Nothing personal, kids in short doses are fine, but it's always a relief to be able to give them back undamaged. BTW, Sitush tells me I have something to thank you for, or at least will have in a few weeks time. Malleus Fatuorum 06:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The civility policy needs a total overhaul, I like serial commas, and kids should love to read! (My younger daughter taught herself to read at age 3, and voraciously read absolutely everything that had text of any kind on it. She must be one of the few pre-schoolers who could not only pronounce "riboflavin", but wanted to learn more about it ...) My grandchildren all got books for Christmas (much Winnie-the-Pooh for those old enough to appreciate him). I found with mine that being lavish with the praise for any sign of wanting to learn more about something produced quite incredible results. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember ever not being able to read, but I vividly recall my first year or so at school being groaningly tedious, and being held back by those for whom a book was a rather mysterious block of paper and cardboard. In fact I remember that even at the age of eleven there was one person in my class we all knew couldn't read, but the teachers seemed oblivious. God knows what happened to James McNulty. Malleus Fatuorum 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For gosh's sakes, Malleus, don't you know anything? He has been The Bunk's partner on The Wire!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of my favourite memories is of the time when said younger daughter had one of her standard kiddie-development check-ups; she was rather obviously scathingly contemptuous of the checker-upper, and disinclined to co-operate with the pathetic requests. Checker-upper gave her a pencil and paper, and asked her if she could draw a circle and a straight line. Younger daughter gave checker-upper The Look (yes, she was precocious, and had mastered The Look by age 3, too!). Checker-upper whispered, "If we just let her play with the pencil and paper, and see what she does on her own...". Sprog took pencil and paper over to the table, came back a couple of minutes later and presented it to checker-upper, wordlessly. On it, she had written "cat dog look book". Checker-upper went slightly pale, and said, "I think we can safely say that she can draw circles and straight lines."

Another favourite was younger son's check up (at a slightly earlier age). Checker upper handed him a wooden block, and asked him to throw it. He gave her a blank look. She encouraged, several times, and then ill-advisedly said, "Come on, throw it at me!" Evil grin appeared on son's face, and I semi-shrieked "No! TO her, not AT her!", his chucking-things style at that age being both accurate and powerful! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting story about your daughter. People go on and on about physical features like tits, bums, legs ... but I've always been attracted to intelligent women. My first real girlfriend was a real fox; good fun, but no way would I have considered spending the rest of my life with her. I've been very encouraged by the number of female presenters of history programmes on BBC4 for instance. My only complaint would be that it's rather difficult to concentrate on what they're saying when you have an erection to attend to ... have I gone too far? Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC4 is great ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Gessler's youthful band released a song about the weather women on TV2. (Swedish lyrics)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! It's not only men that get these problems, y'know! There are a few situations where I've had trouble concentrating on what someone is saying because my jaw has dropped and I'm almost drooling with lustadmiration for a particularly nice set of shoulders, or a really good bum/legs! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

LMFAO .. oh my. All I know is that I'm certainly going to "attend to" any of mine that I can muster in the few remaining years. — Ched :  ?  13:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sexual innuendo" as uncivil

Pesky, you have read the section of the civility policy about sexual innuendo, haven't you. If you and Malleus were more elliptic about your innuendo, rather than direct, would you be in violation of civility?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Banter between colleagues (of sorts) isn't uncivil in and of itself. And user talk pages are very different kettles of fish than article talk pages. And besides, I'm just a wikkid ole wumman ;P ... and not actually harassing anyone. Yet. Pesky (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your statement here, of course. However, common sense then suggests that the Civility Policy should then be changed, so that such innuendo or explicit banter is not prohibited.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps editors can help each other with their editing inhibitions. I want the entire project to put its high quality encyclopaedic content into our encyclopaedia, with courtesy, with erudition, with prosody and with gusto. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

in regards to reviewing articles, what does the term "source spot-check" mean? — Ched :  ?  12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It means that a selection of sources has been looked at to see if they support what the article claims they do, have been copied from, actually exist, and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think MF meant "have not been copied from" (i.e., a spot check also provides a check for plagiarism). Geometry guy 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I did. Damn your eyes Geometry guy! Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec My eyes are quick but my fingers are slow!) Yes, I figured it was a typo or similar oversight, but thought this was worth spelling out anyway: if, in a spot check of a selection of sources, the article succeeds in the (sometimes delicate) task of being faithful to those sources without copying them, then the check provides some confidence that article editors have been reasonably careful in sourcing the article in general. Geometry guy 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And in my limited review of past FACs, Nikkimaria seems to be a specialist in that sphere. Obviously, someone has to do it but I have recently self-nominated an article at FAC and they were the first to respond, with exactly that message. I have still got the willies about it, well over a week afterwards. Not helped by the recent DYK palaver regarding "copying" structure and involving SandyGeorgia (hello!) and Khazar. Straight copyvio and close paraphrasing are things that I can understand, but the concept of copying a structure I find to be much more difficult: there are only so many ways that a biography can be presented, for example. And those are, basically, chronological or thematic. If both have been done before then wtf? - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about Sitush? I'm not entirely convinced by the "structure" argument, especially where biographies are concerned; there's sometimes only one good way to tell the story. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

James Tod. It is particularly awkward because there has only ever been one biographer of note (ie: book length, cf. half-a-dozen pages). I had previously checked out some more general concerns with Moonriddengirl with regard to situations where there really is no other way to say things, but they were not related to this article and when the "structure" thing blew up, well, so did my brain. I have mixed and matched but, inevitably, the earlier section that details his birth --> death follows a timeline. D'uh?- Sitush (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea .. that whole "structure" thing wasn't one I understood either. I know Sandy has a good handle on it - but I didn't want to add any more stress to an obviously troubled time. — Ched :  ?  01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, Ched, et al! Please don't be intimidated, I'm not really that scary. For a large-scale article built on multiple sources (like those that appear at FAC), structure paraphrase is most often a concern only at the sentence/paragraph level, though some reviewers (I think Carcharoth? may be misremembering) do take a broader approach. If you're interested, I've written a guide to spotchecking based on my views on how to approach the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimria. Yea, to some extent I do feel an intimidation factor to much of wiki - but I have a real life that I cherish, so in many ways I couldn't care less. If I learn something along the way before I'm roasted and hung out to dry - it's all good. — Ched :  ?  11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. What Nikkimaria says at a guide to spotchecking seems to be reasonable. However, as a first-timer, I still find the FAC process to be scary! I really do believe in this particular nomination and will live with the consequences. They may well turn out not to favour me, but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Long Time... No Chat

Greetings Malleus. How are you? How have things been going on lately for you? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure really, time will tell I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope everything gets fine for you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tee shirt wars

I have no dog in this fight, but you may be interested (wrong verb, perhaps) in this discussion.[13] I'll let them know I alerted you. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely the wrong verb. "Couldn't give a fuck" would be much nearer the mark. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Copula (linguistics) I assume is the reference point. OK, so I have a really bad sense of humor. — Ched :  ?  11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Malleus, thank you for commenting at the Franco-Mongol alliance FA nom. I believe I've taken care of everything that you brought up. Did you have any other specific concerns that you'd like me to address? --Elonka 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the article again later and post at the FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

Wow. You sure know how to shut up a crowd. :) Franamax (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Stud

I meant stud as a bit of humor, don't get me wrong here! Honestly, I didn't expect him to succeed, but I thought to give him moral support for having the guts and being 'bad-ass' enough to try at RfA :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive cycle

I have to take issue with your claim in an FAC review that cycles are by definition repetitive. An underdamped exponential decay is cyclic but not repetitive. There are numerous examples of systems that are simultaneously cyclic and chaotic (including the solar system). One talks of the business cycle, but if you think that you can see a predictable repetition in that then you ought to sell your house, wife and dog and invest it all in the stock exchange. SpinningSpark 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Repetition doesn't have to be predictable to be repetitive. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is interesting. However, real systems are not cyclic-repetitive because of the second law of thermodynamics; see the heat death of the universe. Outside of pure mathematics and the false cosmologies, there are no repetitive cycles. ("Business cycle" is rather old fashioned; economists talk more about "fluctuations" now.) In your mathematical example, the signs of the deviations oscillate, right?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Which all begs the question of what the Hell "repetitive cycle" is supposed to mean, which was the point. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive cycle is the 23-mile route I've been doing for the last 12 months, and for pleasure not commuting. 6,000 miles or so in the last year, although 23 miles is usually the minimum daily ride :) I have this dream that one day I'll circumnavigate Iceland on a recumbent bicycle :) Parrot of Doom 00:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dream? Sounds like more of a nightmare to me. But aren't you in training for some ridiculously long bike ride? Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The century? Nah I did that, quite easy I might add. But riding a century a day for 2-3 weeks, now that's a challenge. LE to Jo'G also calls. Parrot of Doom 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have the patience for that. Now, doing it in a fast jet ... that would be something! Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@KF. What about the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction? That certainly seems to cycle repetitively does it not? Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It succumbs to the second law of thermodynamics eventually, as will much more stable cycles such as days (rotation of the earth, cf. leap seconds) lunar months (orbit of the moon around the earth, cf. tidal forces and tidal acceleration) and years (orbit of the earth around the sun). Geometry guy 02:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I defer to a "real" mathematician.... :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Repetitive" is actually an imprecise term as is being used here. What you guys are talking about is Ergodicity.VolunteerMarek 04:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It does, but the key word is "eventually". Malleus Fatuorum 06:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a sneaky suspicion that the only true repetitive cycle will be something awesomely long-term like the destruction and re-formation of universes, or something. And this on the basis that neither energy nor matter can ultimately be destroyed, simply changed about and moved about. Pesky (talk…stalk!) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck!

Time to take refuge in a bomb shelter

Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that hiding in bomb-shelters shit ... time to tell it like it is. I'm so fucking tired of this sneaky game playing bullshit here. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed a hyphen there; it should of course be "game-playing bullshit". Malleus Fatuorum 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

lol .. you old son of bitch ... I'll get ya one of these days. — Ched :  ?  06:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You will eventually, Ched, but only by paying very close attention: Malleus ranks among the most careful editors onwiki, most of the time at least... :) Geometry guy 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're so sharp that you'll cut yourself one of these days. I've been quite astonished by the claims that I'm incapable of being civil, or that some extraordinary percentage of my contributions have been uncivil, but I put that down to either vindictiveness or ignorance, probably both. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be either or both of these things, but the most relevant issue, IMO, is selection bias (alas our article on it isn't particularly great, but KW surely knows this stuff well): in other words, editors base their views on what they know, which is material that is not necessarily representative. Geometry guy 01:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vindictiveness remains my favoured explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's another problem: fitting new information to preconceptions. That can be vindictive, but I've seen you do the same - without of course being vindictive about it :) Geometry guy 01:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't forget, but I'm not a vindictive person, even though Elonka recently accused me of vindictiveness by opposing her FAC nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I consider you to be an admirable editor in this respect. We have disagreed on several occasions, but that has not prevented us from agreeing on many others (on the contrary, we have a remarkable history of agreement and have noted it in the past). In my view, that is one of the hallmarks of good editing: one disagreement does not (and should not) create a grudge. I sometimes wonder whether what Wikipedia really needs is not so much "Drama-out" as "Grudge-out". Geometry guy 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Senior editors such as Elonka ought to be setting a good example, not a bad one. Wikipedia needs many more editors like me, but where to find them, when the intention seems to be to chase them away? Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "senior editor" mean? What matters is the edit, not the editor. When I first commented at Ched's talk page, I was (ironically, given mixed metaphors) disarmed that he regarded me as a "big gun". We don't need a caste system here, any more than we need admin tools to be regarded or abused as status symbols: what we need is respect, admiration and encouragement for good editing. Geometry guy 03:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors with more baubles than I have, who feel that allows them to throw their weight around? Malleus Fatuorum

Until tomorrow, Malleus. To quote a splendid Shakespeare parody, "I most royally shall now to bed, To sleep off all the nonsense I've just said." :) Geometry guy 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow will indeed be interesting, assuming there isn't yet another delay. You're maybe not a football fan, so perhaps you missed today's shenanigans at the Manchester United vs. Liverpool match when Suarez refused to shake Evra's hand before the match. Despicable and entirely typical of the attitude that has become endemic here at Wikipedia. "You pissed me off once, and this is my opportunity to pay you back." Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And allow me to share something with you Geometry guy. I don't entirely trust anyone until I've disagreed with them; you can tell so much from how people react to differences of opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

hey .. wait .. I haz shiney stuff too ... see my home page ., there's a link to all my barnstars and great articles ... awww crap .. it's a red link... sigh ... I failed. — Ched :  ?  05:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no shiney stuff, not even the lowly rollbacker. And I wouldn't accept it even if offered. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I was really tempted to just go click all the "he has this pretty stuff" ... but in the end, it wouldn't mean squat. So much bullshit here .. do you think I care? Oh wait .. I've seen what you do. So in the final view ... hey .. thank you for all content, and thank you for being an example of what an adult, and real person should be. — Ched :  ?  06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You demonstrate very well why I would never accept such baubles; they can be just as easily taken away as they can be given. Did I ever tell you about the time that an administrator took back a barnstar he'd given me? Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS .. nope .. I missed that one. Let me ask you something straight up Malleus - do you think I should give up the admin buttons? Not saying I would on your say so alone, but your opinion is one I value highly. ... was logged out — Ched :  ?  15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not, don't be silly. Wikipedia needs more good guys with the extra buttons, not fewer. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus here, Ched. Geometry guy 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Scooting back up to your comment addressed at me, MF, you are not in fact sharing something I didn't already know about you to some extent. Funnily enough, I was only recently commenting to a Wiki-friend a similar view of mine: the true test of an editor is having a serious disagreement, yet remaining collegial, not necessarily in the heat of the moment (although that's a good thing too), but in the longer term, not bearing grudges. The wiki version of your shameful footballer would be an editor who, having disagreed once with another, avoids agreeing with that editor ever again, and looks for further opportunities to disagree. Geometry guy 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ty guys .. nice to get an outside objective opinion sometimes. cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe

It's about time I did something useful, so I've been working on this article for a while, and am thinking of going for GA, and maybe in time, exposing myself again to FAC. What do you think of it? It is worth trying to take it further? If you think it is, I should welcome your copy editing skills again. As you probably know, Sharpe was the creator of the Lancaster firm of architects (later Paley and Austin, etc.) who were responsible for designing a large proportion of the churches in the northwest of England (and elsewhere) for over a century. The man himself was something of a polymath; as well as an architect he was a railway engineer, a sanitary reformer, and a nationally-regarded architectural historian.

A problem that may case trouble with the reviewers is that the major source is a self-published CD. I have tried to establish the credentials of the author and his work in the Bibliography section. If printed, the work would exceed 600 pages of text plus pictures, and pages of references, bibliography, etc. There is no doubt to me that it is a work of the highest scholarship. I have been working directly with the author, who has been correcting and copy editing what I have written; it seems that the book is too scholarly to be commercial as it stands, and publishers would prefer it to be about one-third the length! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've had some top-class help there Peter. I've not looked at the article yet, but if it's what I expect it to be I'd suggest a peer review and then on to FAC. GAN isn't really the best place for getting feedback on high-quality articles. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Butting in, after a quick look, it would help if you added supplementary refs where there are other sources (those already cited, ODNB etc), which must be a lot of the time. A little note on talk as to his credentials (like inside a book's back flap) would help too. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your advice and copyediting. As MF knows, I am not an expert (on anything) and certainly have never been a professional writer; so all help is gratefully received. I thought about supplementary refs, and in fact went through the article with the ODNB article before me. The trouble is that, compared with Hughes, it is very scrappy, and I felt that more refs would not be helpful; but as a tactical idea, I will implement it. I like the idea of a blurb on the credentials of Hughes on the talk page, and will get in touch with him and ask what he would like it to say. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Submitted for peer review. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Me and my big mouth, but I have now filed an ANI on Justlettersandnumbers, due to his ongoing harassment of Dana boomer. Please take note of the discussion here: Wikipedia:ANI#Justlettersandnumbers. He's a bully, your special touch is called for here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing good ever comes from that place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with you there. It's become a cesspool of people who jump onto any bandwagon they can find and swap between said wagons frequently with a strongly evident Mob Mentality. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But Hell, like Dungeons and Dragons and Wikipedia, has levels, some more challenging than others. At its best, ANI can be like the circle of Hell for the virtuous pagans....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Where you at, Kiefer? Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  After having been tormented by the Minions of Lucifer for months, I may be nearing Purgatory.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but now JLAN wants to ban me from all the horse articles for a year. And though the mob seems mostly with me, it could turn. I've already been accused of canvassing for posting here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. The canvassing thing has always puzzled me though; it's as if Wikipedia wants everything to be done in secret; you have to stumble across something to be able to contribute to it. And Pesky seems to be batting for you, so it's all good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing the best I can over there, though it's not easy. Fing is, though, fing is, that there's an awful lot of potential usefulness in JLAN, but he's incredibly hard for people to work with. If he could just volunteer to steer clear of Equine, and WP:EQUINE's primary editors and their articles wherever possible, and keep an eye out for escalations and back down faster, then he / we'd have cracked it. I wish I could do more; I'd be happy to try and act as go-between / helper / assistant as and when real life issues (too many!) allow me to. I have an awful lot of sympathy both for JLAN and for the people who've come into conflict with him; partly because I can see there something very similar to a mirror-image of me, but with a few little differences that end up making big differences. I could have gone that-a-way ... but I didn't. But it's very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" thing. I've tried to steer clear of areas where JLAN's been very active, to duck away from conflicts (too much shite going on IRL to want more); I'm not sure whether he and I trying to work on some issues together would result in harmony or Global Thermonuclear War, but I'm willing to give it a go, for everyone's sakes, if he can meet me half way. Pesky (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

With regarding to canvassing, I do think in some ways that there's a faction (or mindset) that wants to control such discussions. The person making canvassing accusations is also one of those who's been defending JLAN. It's one of those cards that can be played to diminish or restrict outside support or comment, while still appearing to be on the "high ground" when it comes to rules or standards. "See...they must be wrong because they're CANVASSING! Oh the humanity!" Or something like that. I tend to see it as one of the many passive/aggressive behaviors that appear to be the norm when it comes to some Wiki social behaviors. JLAN seems to have a reasonable grasp of how that works: ignore any comments about your behavior; come up with a plan or proposal that might appear reasonable on the surface but is in fact not negotiable in any sense; hunker down and ignore all other comment while repeating your own plan until everyone else walks away and lets you win.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. You guys nailed it. And my own personality is such that I just dig in and refuse to let the bullies win, I won't walk away, though what often happens is that I try to be actually reasonable instead of superficially reasonable, with the result that I wind up dogpiled and scapegoated. The only way I can win these is with backup, and most good-intentioned folks only have so much energy to devote to a spat they didn't start and were unwittingly dragged into -- that's why I posted here -- Malleus is, like me, kind of a stubborn bastard (previous two words said with approval affection for those who miss the nuance of that sort of thing) who doesn't like to back down, and why I came here to alert folks, get advice, and seek support. That and he's Dana's friend, and how can ANYONE (but JLAN) be mean to Dana? Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MTBW, you and Dana and Kim were all so incredibly nice to me, despite Vane and Vince and all those other possible white-ass-flag waving candidates (remember those?!;P) when I was obsessing about That Roan Question (and I'm still waiting for some freshly published research or commentary pertaining to possible sampling errors .... hehehe.... mwahahahahahaha ...) I don't see how anybody who knows anything at all about how WP:EQUINE works could possibly describe it as a closed shop. But then, they don't know. They don't know you, they don't know Dana (I want Kim back!) and they've probably never got on the wrong side of JLAN. But ... is it worth me offering any kind of help, over at AN/I? Or will I just get fried alive? Pesky (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So far it's only been one public JLAN defender and a couple of "why can't we all just get along" folks who seem more interested in accommodating disruption (which is most likely being done with the best intentions). In terms of "closed shop," I'd say that's more because you didn't accept the JLAN solution as the one true way immediately. Obviously that means you're a close shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The worst problem with JLAN is that he can be quite incredibly confrontational (he started getting "in yer face" confrontational when he's only been editing for about a fortnight, and has got progressively worse; akin to this is that he just doesn't seem to know when to drop the stick, even after consensus has been overwhelmingly against him – such as on the issue of using "hands" for horse measurement – he goes for another try, somewhere else, with people who don't yet know him and have no idea that he's basically forum-shopping until someone agrees with him. It's a real shame; I wish I knew how to change him. But, as they say, "change must come from within." I think he needs to consider moving his focus to a different WikiProject area, and see if he might get on better with a different group of editors. Provided he doesn't start trying to bully people elsewhere, that might work for him. Pesky (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

He could be very valuable as a contributor if he'd only acknowledge that he's part of the problem and take some real steps to change that behavior. Instead his approach seems to be "give me everything you have and maybe I'll turn down the volume on my stereo." His proposed solution was almost humorous, except that he's serious about it. "Rework an entire WikiProject the way I say it should be done, ban productive editors, I might step away for a time, and that's my final offer." What is really starting to disgust me is how this thing is rapidly turning into an attack on MBW. It doesn't really surprise me, but it does disgust me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed a stubborn bastard MBW, and you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm just about the editor least likely to take exception to such straight talking. I haven't chipped in at the ANI because I don't really have anything to contribute. I was a bit saddened to see that you and SandyG seem to be on opposite sides, but Pesky seems to have a good head on her shoulders. A rubbish neck, but a good head. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

<g> ... the neck's due to be fixed, soon! Still no firm date yet, but "soon". They promised! Pesky (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that goes well for you. My brother has had four operations on one of his knees, including an artificial joint that had to be replaced because it wasn't fitted properly. His other knee is now giving him trouble, but he's refusing any further operations as the knee that was treated is worse now than it was before ... I know you probably didn't want to hear that, but I thought I'd share. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it will go well; thanks for your thoughts, anyway :o). My neurosurgeon is ace, and an incredibly nice guy too; we get on like a house on fire and always have a laugh together. I've almost lost count of the number of operations I've had; it's got to the stage where my local orthopaedic surgery team have started calling me their "ongoing carpentry project." I know I've had 13 or so ops within the past three years, including both knees, both achilles tendons, one thumb, one elbow, one shoulder, the neck, and various bits of internal needlework and embroidery (and more to come on that front, too). The hospital staff always know when it's time to kick me out again; it's when I start obsessive-compulsively tidying the ward. As for atmosphere, I;ve always felt very much at home in hospitals; once the staff "know who you are", as it were, you can joke with them about all sorts of stuff. Black humour, frequently, but fun nonetheless. And they almost all love AmTrans. And every time I have a new anaesthetist, I get to do the anaesthetist joke all over again ... timing is they key on that one! And enough experience to know how fast the knockout juice is going to kick in. "How do you keep an anaesthetist in suspense?" Pesky (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes is in V for Vendetta

He is played by Clive Ashborn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhT4B4-OITs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think it's curious that he looks nothing like the mask? And that Fawkes didn't die like that? To say nothing of the cowboy noose knot, which was never used in England. You need to explain how V has altered the public perception of Fawkes, or reveals new insights about him. Can you do that? Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right in saying that he did not die like that. Fortunately the section I am proposing a change to is the Legacy section. This section is for his portrayal within cultural works. The section already cites two fictional works. His fictionalization in 'Bentley's Miscellany' as "essentially an action hero" also shows him in situations which are not accurate. I am not sure why the masks keep getting brought up. I have not proposed a change which mention masks or anonymous. I will agree with consensus that neither should be mentioned in the article past the link to masks. So you would like me to "explain how V has altered the public perception of Fawkes." Well since I am only allowed to cite reliable sources and not conduct original research, I will refer back to the article I cited. "When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton. While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as." "Catholic revolutionary visage and his incongruously Puritan apparel are perhaps a reminder that unjust institutions may always be haunted by volatile 17th century spectres, even if today's uprisings are fuelled more by social networks than by gunpowder. Some ghosts never go away." He is represented as a martyr and hero who stood up against the unjust and died fighting for his cause. V for Vendetta furthers the perception that he is a hero not a villain. Furthermore, the movie has exposed more people to the character than any other work. If nothing more it made him a household name outside the UK. The fact is, a historical character inspired a story about a masked vigilante, and it is worth mentioning briefly.

If you would prefer the legacy section be split into a separate article, that would be ok. But the fact remains that even in the popular culture article it only talks about his mask. The character itself was portrayed in the movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_George_Armstrong_Custer mentions Custer's Revenge which I personally find to be EXTREMELY historically inaccurate.

Or legacy could be split and a new section added titled 'modern view'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard#Legacy "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" is mentioned in the Blackbeard article. 24.118.168.217 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not suggest a sentence or two along those lines that you'd like to see added to the article? Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did. I wrote, "His legacy and the masks used to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night were partial inspiration for a graphic novel by Alan Moore titled V for Vendetta. It was later turned into a movie by Warner Brothers." It was removed for being "nonsense." I can add a sentence that says, V for Vendetta furthered the cultural transformation which saw Guy Fawkes rise from villain to vigilante hero. The latter sentence does not make sense without first stating that his legend is inspiration for the hero in the novel. The sentiment (but not exact wording) of what I wrote is clear in the source I cite.

If the overall story is Fawkes's transformation from villain to vigilante hero then I could probably be persuaded. I don't agree with your assertion that the first sentence is necessary to make sense of the second though, and overall I think that three sentences puts too much emphasis on a recent film that frankly doesn't depict Fawkes at all, except briefly and inaccurately in its opening. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How would you form the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"V for Vendetta furthered the cultural transformation which saw Guy Fawkes rise from villain to vigilante hero" is an extremely dubious claim. Variations on "Guy Fawkes was the last man to enter Parliament with decent intentions" have been in regular use for decades if not centuries. 78.149.152.251 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And? "Guy Fawkes' status as a potential revolutionary hero." "While that era's children perhaps didn't see Fawkes as a hero, they certainly didn't see him as the villainous scapegoat he'd originally been intended as." "When parents explained to their offspring about Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up Parliament, there always seemed to be an undertone of admiration in their voices, or at least there did in Northampton." This is the author of V for Vendetta speaking not me. I am not addressing the last man to enter Parliament line. "Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason, portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light, and transformed him in the public perception into an 'acceptable fictional character'. Fawkes subsequently appeared as 'essentially an action hero' in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London." How did the beginning of V for Vendetta illustrate anything other that his turn to a heroic character?24.118.168.217 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, you're pretty much admitting that you want to give undue weight to V for Vendetta, since it just happens to (currently) be the most recent of a long tradition of sympathetic depictions of Fawkes and if it's going to be covered, would be better placed as just one entry in a list. Alan Moore's recollections may well be interesting, but are of no relevance other than as a source for his personal motivations and opinions. Wikipedia holds rigidly to the principle that anything we mention must be citable to reliable sources, and Moore isn't a cultural or literary historian of any kind. In my opinion there are grounds for a slightly expanded "changing public perceptions" section in the parent article, but one needs to be very careful not to overemphasise V4V just because it happens to be the work with which the Randys in Boise are most familiar. 92.24.48.66 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Never seen it- who's this Fowkes guy anyway? Randy from Boise (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility Squad

A "Civility Squad" for "improving the culture at wikipedia". We've already got a de facto civility squad, but I can't criticise the guy for coming up with a new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.151.251 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is more civility nutcases, it just doesn't realise that yet. Malleus Fatuorum

I don't know if you read the Guardian, Malleus, but there was an interesting article about civility in the Staurday mag, "Is it always bad to be rude?" The writer, Oliver Burkeman, defines rudeness as the deliberate violation of an accepted social convention. But, he says, conventions change, and perceived rudeness may be simply the rejection of an outdated propriety. As an example he refers to the lost convention whereby children called their fathers "sir"; the abandonment of this practice was once widely perceived as "rudeness". As was using a mobile phone in a public place. Now I am sure that your children still call you sir, as of course mine do – but they also call me other things in which words such as "stupid", "old" and "git" sometimes feature. In fact we spend a fair amount of time in cheerful verbal abuse. I thoroughly endorse this change in social etiquette. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's entirely healthy as well. I don't have children, but loads of neices and nephews, and they've always called me by my first name, none of the "uncle" crap. But as for using a mobile phone in a public place, one of the things that really gets on my tits is the planks in the supermarket on the phone to their other half: "They haven't got the marrowfat processed peas, but they do have plain processed peas. Should I get them instead?" I stopped reading daily newspapers many, many years ago, when I discovered that I could get a free copy of The Observer from a newsagent in Hale after they'd closed on Sunday evening. I guess in those days maybe publishers weren't so willing to take back their unsold stock? In general I see no purpose in daily newspapers anyway, as their existence seems to depend on the creation of news rather than the reporting of it. Why do so few readers wonder why there's always the same number of pages in their favourite daily? Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"No one says, 'yes sir', anymore and it is all down hill from there."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice...

Malleus, sorry to bother you, but... as a person wise in the ways of the English language, if I was writing about Louis owning an object, should I write "Louis's crown" (for example), or "Louis' crown"? I ask in the context of Henry II of England, where Louis gets lots of possessions to use an apostrophe on.... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, Louis's. Best advice is to read it aloud, and use what sounds best. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Louis is neither Jesus nor Moses, and so gets an apostrophe-s. (Strunk & White)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I read Strunk and White, it depends on whether Louis is Joe Sixpack or Joe Bourbon. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When a singular noun ends in an "s", both "s'" and "s's" are options for the possessive, but the latter is generally preferred, perhaps because "s'" is always used for the possessive of plural nouns ending in "s". However, different guides may provide different advice (which means whatever you do, some guide is likely to agree with you!). In this case, though, the "s" in "Louis" is silent, and my reference prefers "s's" for that reason – unless (perhaps) you need to refer to the silver, stamina, statesmanship or sewing of this Louis bloke, for Louis's sake (or Louis' sake?). :) Geometry guy 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Setting @Drmies' "aging [sic] zombie of a book ..." aside, as only ~57% of the world population speaks American English (1997 figures). Consider the scholar and visionary vagrant ALFRED HYMAN LOUIS's ODNB entry which suggests that "Louis's personality, rather than his attainments, made him memorable" ("Louis, Alfred Hyman". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/38878. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)). Apostrophe "s" is also supported by "French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced as z, e.g. Dumas's (=Dumah's) ..." from Chalker, S; Weiner, E (1993). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (2nd ed.). OUP. pp. 170–1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Also "Extract of a letter from Paris, Aug. 25. (St. Louis's Day.)". The Times. No. 227. 16 September 1785. p. 2. Retrieved 14 February 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |col= ignored (help) --Senra (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Once I've translated that to my six-year old, I'll get back to you, haha. And I'm not the world's biggest fan of S&W, though I have nothing more solid to offer. I'm a little bird, and I write on instinct. But thank you for those examples, Senra! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old money

Hey Malleus, I was wondering whether you (or a TPS) may be able to help me. I believe there's a template/agreed format for when we aim to covert old money into newer dominations- do you know where I can find it? I couldn't see anything in the MoS. The article in question is North Pier, Blackpool, which currently sports "for the price of 2d (approximately £5 – £10 today)". J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

{{inflation}} is what you're thinking of. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think figures in pence and shillings need to be converted to decimal form for the template to work. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They do indeed, but I rarely use this template now. I prefer to get the figures from Measuring Worth, which gives a value of £4.70 using average earnings, which I think is probably the most appropriate comparison in this case. And then I'd add a note to explain the basis of the calculation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts- I'll point the article author to this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

After having had to tackle this conversion issue a few times at FAC, this article is a good example of what I usually do now; see notes 5 and 6. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've had a quick look at the article, and it seems to me that it seriously needs the tender attentions of a good copyeditor. Stuff like "The decor inside lead it to be known as the 'Indian Pavilion'" (which I've fixed) isn't good enough for GA in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As the key maintainer of Template:Inflation (ha!), and chief occasional money-over-time reviewer at FAC, I recommend using a real time-money comparator written by real economists like Measuring Worth too. The inflation templates are shitty CPI templates with poor data-sets and at best duplicate Measuring Worth's superior data. At worst, using a CPI inflation is wildly inappropriate. While there are partial alphas for non-CPI inflations (ha) they too suffer from dodgy wikipedia template syndrome. Remember to cite measuring worth! I recommend thinking deeply about "what kind of money was this in the past: consumption, profit, national accounts?" and "what comparison will accurately represent the function of the past money, in a manner appreciable to a modern audience?" Malleus' choice of purchasing power parity is a reasonable one for the time for £3–5000. Personally I strongly recommend treating capital as %GDP. Finally, ask yourself, "Does money function in the same way as it did then?" 300 sesterces are not money as we know it, the function of money in Roman society was so radically different to the function of money today that I would strongly frown on any attempt to convert money. Rather noting the time of labour or cost of slaves in the society would be better then to allow readers to make their own understanding. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Fifelfoo. I must admit I'm terribly nervous about providing conversions for the pre-Industrial Revolution period, but in this case it's 1866, and we're talking about the entrance fee to the pier, so I think average earnings is a reasonable stab. If we were talking about the capital cost of building the pier then I'd agree wholeheartedly with your GDP conversion. Your opposition at one FAC or other had the useful effect of making me think a little more deeply about this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(I think about the time value of money far far too much. I'm a tragic for the "periods of crisis" analysis of the declining rate of profit. You should hear me when I get going on such stuff as wage, profit, capital, growth). 1866 is solidly industry and the data series that Measuring Worth have are perfectly good data for the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Money today has two storeys"- Solzhenitsyn quoting a popular saying of the Kruschev era. Fifelfoo can probably explain it much better than me (I'm struggling!) Ning-ning (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Within capitalism, a relatively stable system, the idea of what consumption is tolerable, how much of the wage that covers, how many hours a wage takes to earn, how many non-employee members of a household and for how long, the average and maximum productivity rates for machinery and labour, the expansion of labour categories (I can provide you religion on a wage now...) these all change. Long run series of monetary values have to emphasise money acting in one way (a wage, consumption bundle, productivity unit, or portion of the national account) instead of acting in others. But at each moment wages become national accounts become consumption bundles become productivity units. The Accountants debate this at the level of theory, and the conclusion an accounting standards system draws matters for the issue of market capitalisation and depreciation of capital stock—ie a lot. It is all fun and games until someone backwards calculates the price of a Play Station 3 in 1812. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some British tribe circa 100 BC buried a large number of silver coins, all of the same type. Re-discovered in 2009, they were given a contemporary (i.e. 100BC) value by archaeologists of £1,000,000. Value today, according to completed auctions on eBay for the same kind of coin, £800,000. Don't know what the melt value would be, but I suspect probably about a thousand or two, just enough to stop the tribe receiving income support. Ning-ning (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

<--For a different observation on inflation, see Beowulf, ll. 3163-68:

Hī on beorg dydon   bēg ond siglu,
eall swylce hyrsta,   swylce on horde ǣr
nīðhēdige men   genumen hæfdon;
forlēton eorla gestrēon   eorðan healdan,
gold on grēote,   þær hit nū gēn lifað
eldum swā unnyt,   swā hit ǣror wæs.

Francis B. Gummere translates as (my italics):

They placed in the barrow that precious booty,
the rounds and the rings they had reft erewhile,
hardy heroes, from hoard in cave, --
trusting the ground with treasure of earls,
gold in the earth, where ever it lies
useless to men as of yore it was.[1]

Drmies (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackpool North Pier

Thanks for the copyedit. I'm not exactly the best writer in the world and appreciate the hand! Worm^TT · (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bentworth for GA again

Long time no see, Malleus. I retired from Wikipedia a couple of months ago and I'm not going to stay on here for that long either - but if you're not busy at the moment, please could you take a look at something you reviewed last year? User:Ukiws has just nominated Bentworth for GA. If you look at the article now, you might see that it would be a little bit hard for it too pass! It's a copy editing nightmare - but I will get it done. Which revision of Bentworth do you prefer? My version or Ukiw's version? Not asking you to copy edit it, I'll do it later. :-D Jaguar (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see Ukiwi's version, has it been deleted? Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The link should work now, there was one too many digits in it. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It works now, thanks for that. Jaguar (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A copy editing nightmare you say. I believe I've worked a small miracle..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So you have doctor - the article looks better than ever now! It really is; I can't believe it. If you want I can go through any information in the article and add more. Also I noticed that you asked Ericoides for some pictures - I would be able to take pictures of Bentworth and its houses instantly, but I dropped my camera in the sea last month. Shame. Jaguar (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question for you

Malleus, I have a question. It's nothing to do with the to-do, which may be a nice change of pace. There's an article been nominated for speedy deletion due to notability issues, and it's for a Chinese TV show. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuanyuan Jian: Tian Zhi Hen. The only "sources" are entirely in Chinese. What is the policy for inclusion on the English Wikipedia for sources that are not in English? Google Chrome translates the pages into nonsense for me (thank you), and I don't see how they can be entirely relied upon if we can't read them at all. As you can see (if you go to the article) I was told that sources needn't be in English on the English WP, but no one has provided me with any link to policy and I can't quite see how one can do without any English sources on the English WP. Please inform. Thank you.--TEHodson 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: it's covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. If there are questions, a translation can be requested. One problem I see is that Baike Baidu really doesn't look like a reliable source (user-generated content). Sina.com is the other reference, described in our article as "the largest Chinese-language infotainment web portal"; not sure how that fits, RS-wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; that did help. It seems to say that the person generating the article must make English-language notes so that the rest of us can understand the source to some degree. The Sina.com article cited looks to me like an advertisement for the show, but I can't really tell. The person pushing the article isn't helping much (which is business-as-usual for him). If you want to weigh in, please do.--TEHodson 02:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

:)

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I've done to deserve that, but it's very welcome. Despite the koala bear reference (falling out the tree because they're perpetually pissed) tea is my favourite drink, and especially so with a digestive biscuit (or two). Malleus Fatuorum 07:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Meermin (VOC ship) anyone…?

Hello Malleus, yes I'm after a favour again! If I may: do you think that you (or any of your stalkers!) might feel like running a comb through Meermin (VOC ship)? I forked it out of Meermin slave mutiny, after another editor's suggestion, and already it's been rated B-Class– the rating editor thinks it's ready for GA (if anyone's inclined to review it, let me know!), but makes the entirely reasonable suggestion that someone else might look at the writing first. No problem if not. Enjoy your tea! :o) Nortonius (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow--such a great looking article, such a beautiful name, and it's a slave ship. Now, who would ever have easy access to this kind of information without Wikipedia? Sorry for the propaganda, Malleus, but it never ceases to amaze me how much there still is to learn about the world and our history. Which reminds me: I plugged Sebald's The Emigrants earlier; I'm reading his Austerlitz right now and it's amazing. I think you might like it too. Plus, it has pictures! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

lol– did you see who's been contributing to the mutiny article in recent weeks? Not that I'm being paranoid or anything! ;op Nortonius (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Give me the nod when you're ready, Malleus, and I'll put up a GAN for Meermin (VOC ship), I expect under Wikipedia:GAN#Transport…? :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally different subject...

But you up to looking at Pain fitzJohn? Peer review was helpful but I'm ready to take it to FAC soon, I think. Although I'm in the wikicup, this one will not be a wikicup nomination as I did most of the work long before this year, so it won't be a problem with your desire to stick away from Wikicup work. I'm finally sorta kinda feeling human. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get onto it later; it'll take my mind off the proposed ArbCom decisions. To be honest I'm not bothered whether it's a cup nomination or not, my views on that have mellowed a little ... must be getting old. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think John de Gray will be my first FAC that'll count for the cup... he's up after Pain. I'm also about halfway through the initial run of Billy Boy, but I'm too sick to concentrate on that level of research at the moment. I think the ArbCom is going better than I had hopes of. RfA isn't really a loss to you (although your input there is usually good, to my mind. There are times however when you get just a mite bit stubborn.... but who doesn't sometimes?) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I do, you're quite right. A topic ban from RfA does indeed seem likely now, but as you say, no great loss. Although I think it's unhealthy to stifle criticism, I can understand that in a way the proposed decision is perhaps intended to protect me from further indiscretions as much as to prevent any so-called disruption at that venue. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly view it in that way. Revisiting all this a month later also led me to reflect upon John's unblock and the problems associated with undoing a bad block while discussion is ongoing. I sincerely hope he will simply be "reminded" and not "warned" or "admonished" for this: I find the expression of regret in his evidence very genuine, and similar to the way I would think about it (in my experience, we do have a similar approach). In his position, I would not only regret that the unblock did not reduce drama, but also that whereas the unblock may have seemed in your best interests at the time (by righting an injustice), it was not in your "enlightened" best interests to do so prematurely, as it allowed you to contribute to an ongoing discussion where escalation and intemperate comments would be inevitable.

Hindsight is 20-20, but sometimes there are general insights to be gained from specific incidents. Geometry guy 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care what happens to me, but I'm encouraged that John seems not to be in line for any serious sanctions. He and I have had our moments, but I think he's one of the good guys. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Incidentally, I do think the RfArb is heading for a better outcome than it would have done had you declined to contribute. Geometry guy 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All thanks to SandyG. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite: I hope she does not doubt the wisdom of her advice, as I think it was very good advice. Geometry guy 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember offering the same advice (that Malleus should take part in the case), but it was a bit earlier and the timing was not as good. Given the speed of voting (rather astonishing, really) the case may close soon. If Malleus will take advice from me, one of the things to do after a case closes is to try not to get involved in anything in the days and weeks immediately afterwards (regardless of provocation), or at least be very clear in your mind how to deal with anything that happens. You'd be surprised how often things can blow up again immediately after a case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's good advice Carcharoth, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of purification rituals

Hi Malleus!

The New York Times had an interesting essay on exorcisms today.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. The difficulty that people who believe in God have is that they're forced by logic to also believe in an anti-God, and so few of them are equipped to deal with that dichotomy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Every Satan worshiper was a Christian to begin with. But an anti-God is not the same as a non-God, nessecelery. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realise you're debating with an anti-theist? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article on this is antitheism, which gives three possibly meanings for the term. A related perspective (besides the obvious "atheist" and "agnostic" ones), which I consider to be an interesting viewpoint, is ignosticism. Geometry guy 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My own belief is that the belief in the existence of any kind of god is a throwback back to our Stone Age ancestors ... I guess that means I'll never be a president of the US though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Very astute. Will the Americans elect a black man to president? Yes; they have. A woman? Quite likely. A homosexual? Possible. An atheist? Not in my life time, and likely a good deal of time after that. I read the other week that Santorum had stated that Europe's problems were because of the European belief in rationalism. Dear me. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Believers in a God do not have to believe in an anti-God. How does logic make one think that, Malleus? Metsfreak2121 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How much time do you have? How can there be good without bad? Or black without white? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There very well can be good without bad. That is why the world that we live in is so incredible. When you take a step and look past crime and our negative parts, you can see the beauty of the planet in which we live. If for each good force there was an equally bad force, we'd be living in some sort of hell and mediocre place. I think that my life is more than mediocre. I would hope the same for everyone else. Metsfreak2121 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Any concept only makes sense in the context of its opposite. You need to define "good" and "bad". Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Malleus (and no, I don't belong here so if you tell me to buzz off I will) you're trying to apply human logic to an omnipotent god....which by definition is rather counter-productive. Assuming there is a god means assuming that he is not bound by our rules. That there is no opposite to god, IMO, is part of the reason why no one can fully understand the concept without blind faith. Heck, we can't wrap our head around big numbers, why should the infinite be any different? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really belong here either, but yeah I noticed that too. I was surprised because Mallius is clearly a very wise man - that's why I've been reading his talk page for the last few weeks. I don't really believe in God, but I do believe in what I call "some sort of god-like thing". Sometimes I tell my teenage grandchildren that I can remember when I was a teen and thought I knew everything, but with maturity I began to realize that I thought I knew everything because I was still too dumb to know how much there actually was to know that I'd never even heard of. I've never lost that feeling of humbleness and have tried to Look for Truth - No Matter Where It Takes You. Yes, we can't even understand "spooky" physics, so it's best we not get too puffed up thinking how smart we are. It has been said that "The opposite of a great truth is another great truth". That's beyond my understanding, just like spooky physics is, but I'm guessing that we are hardly more than teenagers in our understanding of the universe and how it works. Here is a good discussion by David Peat [14]. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of religion and exorcism, Malleus, I saw you made some edits to George Went Hensley a couple days ago. (Thanks for doing that, feel free to weigh in at the FAC.) He would have an interesting take on this, to say the least, believing that one should wrap the anti-God around oneself in a show of dominance. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

arbcom, wqa, and you

I've made a statement regarding you and WQA which I believe is accurate [15] however please feel free to edit that portion of my comment if I have misspoke. Nobody Ent 16:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Magic cure for you to consider

Laugh much, much more often. And try to resist the temptation of the fast-response thing. If it helps you to laugh about the Arbs, consider the ArbCom Secret Ballet with extra accessories of fishnet tights, whips, and handcuffs. Pesky (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Only someone who'd never seen an Arbcom member in the flesh could say such a thing, even in jest. I don't think any of the current batch is on it, but this page should give you some idea what to expect. 188.29.218.248 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the wrong page ... I expect I can find the right one, though! And I'm an absolute Wiz (or witch) with Photoshop, I could make them look ... kinda appealing ... in the dance gear! Pesky (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that someone's unilaterally redirected it - this is the correct link. Making this lot look appealing won't take Photoshop, it'll take voodoo. 188.29.218.248 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My first photoshop job was taking the tubes out of a dead baby's nose. Ning-ning (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)