User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:03, 24 December 2008

I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators has been taken to MFD It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes being displayed by some administrators leave a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away from the project in the face of unchecked administrator abuse.

Archives

2007

April • May • June •July • August • September • October • November • December

2008

January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

More for you

It looks like the brownies might be working. Have some more...they put life in much better perspective :) Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ebb and Flow

I hope the lunar (not lunatic) influences of intellectual interest and creativity will exert their gravitational forces upon you so that the tidal forces turn from ebb to flow and you find yourself wanting to make contributions of some gravitas as a result. DDStretch (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Hi Malleus. I don't know if you are still reading this page or not, but I very much hope so. It was just to let you know that Sunderland Echo has been scheduled as TFA for Dec 22 - and I wanted to thank you very much indeed, once again, for all your help with it. It is my first TFA, so I'm pretty nervous, but I know that, without your help, it definitely wouldn't have ever reached the front. You are too valuable to go. Please come back soon.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open reviews update

I've now posted the working group proposal to WT:GAN - your eyes (and input) on its progress would be most welcome. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Just seen the note at the top of the page :P Apologies for the spam, and I hope to see you back here soon. All the best for Christmas and the New Year ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reality at my request - the double standard at work

The gratuitous attempt to harm another editor's RFA by Sandy! All this because I do not use email, and made an open post on a page that was no more sinister than Sandy's quid pro quo. [1], [2], [3]RFA - Wehwalt Of course, when Sandy uses her power to harm, that is O.K. A very double standard. Convince me otherwise. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty bizarre asking me for my opinion on any particular RfA, or even RfA itself. Just look at my own two failed RfAs to see why I hold the process in such low regard. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was no a request for your opinion on the RFA, but on Sandy's gratuitous attempt to derail it and harm another editor just to try to put me in a bad light. I openly posted a question on a talk page, and refuse to deal in the plethora of underhanded emails others do, so they can remain seeminly saintly. My post was perfectly legitimate and innocent. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I misunderstood. My view in general is that the RfA process is so broken that a single well-timed oppose will more often than not sink it, particularly if that oppose comes from a well-respected editor. I have no opinion on this particular RfA though, other than to say that it is not in SandyG's power to derail any RfA, unless others choose to give her that power. Speaking even more generally, I very much doubt that SandyG's intention was to portray you in "a bad light". I don't always agree with SandyG myself, and she doesn't always agree with me, but I do still feel that she tries to act with the very best of intentions, often in the face of provocation that I may not be so able as she is to ignore.

There are battles that need to be fought, and there are battles that it's not worth fighting. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference, and I'm no better at doing that than anyone else. All I would urge you to consider is whether it may not be better for you to channel your undoubted talents where they will offer even greater benefit to the project while at the same time minimising your own stress. Short of a time machine, the past cannot be altered, and so there's little point in replaying the same old scripts. You've got much to offer, don't let what's happened affect what can happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she would really stop watching my page and entering to things I am involved with, just to make negative remarks, I would be fine. (The same goes for her minions.) The example above is a typical one. She had no interest in that editor and whether he became an admin, until she saw a chance to put me in a bad light. It failed. Just like when she rummaged around in my archives, and sent links to an admin after you recent departure, suggesting that admin find something to get me on. I will sign of with her typical "comment and dewatch" or whatever she says, which really means she is going to watch more than ever! HOW ABOUT THIS? I drop any mention of her; you drop all your stuff badmouthing admins. To me, what you object to in admins is exactly what she is. So the trade off will be equal. (And it would probably be best for both of us.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many editors I have fallen out with, very likely far more than you. Truth to be told, I've always believed that fault can never be allocated 100% to one side or the other in any case, so I'm prepared to take my share of the blame for those misunderstandings. What I'm not prepared to do though is to turn them into some kind of witchhunt. It's a curious anomaly that some of those I now consider to be amongst my best wikifriends I first encounterd through disagreement. Disagreement is fine and healthy, it's how we deal with it that sometimes isn't. You're focusing on individuals; I'm focusing on the corporate body; I think that's a significant difference. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ONE individual. That is my only enemy. (Her minions can make my life unpleasant, but they don't seem to have the heart to go in for the kill.) I've had dust ups with others, but none (barring the now banned sockpuppets) are still my "enemies" and none have had such lazer-like tenacity and a memory like an elephant, and some sort of huge diff collection as Sandy. There is no other userpage I am not allowed to post on! She never forgets! I don't even know what originally ticked her off. One diff she recently put on your page went back to the Zeraph-Slim Virgin-SandyGeorgia Arbcom so I think it has something to do with that - even though I defended her at the time in the Arbcom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have much to learn Grasshopper. ;-) If this ever went live I know exactly who would be leading the oppose charge, but I just try to forget that editor exists. We got off on the wrong foot, he bears grudges, I don't. C'est la vie. Let it go. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have much to learn, like how to store huge diff collections in safety so that others don't delete them! But still, why don't you give up on your obsession? If you do, I'll give up on mine. Blank-blank (no names now as someone will come along and delete--as they just did minutes ago to my talk page), but Blank-blank equals your one editor. It is harder to forget Blank-blank exists, as Blank-blank watches my talkpage, your talkpage, like a hawk. If one of the "comment and dewatch" edit summaries is actually true for a millisecond, then a minnon with do the watching for Blank-blank. So, it is the same situation as you, except Blank-blank insists on intruding and I have decided, after a year, not to be intimidated any more. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the same editor come and delete the links from your talkpage? Strange that they remain here but were deleted from mine. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you've lost me again. I have no obsession, and I take every care to avoid my nemesis, as he does to avoid me. No big deal really, wikpedia is big enough for both of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky that your nemesis leaves you alone and does not get others to do his dirty work. Oh well. Given my situation, the time I spent as a "victim" and not being obnoxious and fighting back was a very much worse time than now. My nemesis and friends remind me of gaggles of gossiping teenage girls. I never would have made a very good teenage girl. All that, poor me, I have the sniffles stuff. "Oh, no! I pray you get better!" That's why I'm on an oil rig. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to keep replaying old scripts, but it doesn't help you or anyone else. The past won't change, only you can change. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you don't understand. I was nice in the beginning and that did not work at all. Get that person to stop watching my talkpage and following my contributions, would you? And interjecting anytime damage can be done? Would you do that? That way I could be left alone. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things I don't understand. But one thing I do understand is that only you can stop replaying this script. Why not try engaging your nemesis in a polite, adult, conversation, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your nemesis a monster? Just make the first move and see where it goes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made moves previously and been rejected. Have received hostility in return. What do you suggest? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I suggest forgetting about what happened in the past, concentrate instead on what could happen in the future. This is a collaborative venture, so let's collaborate, not keep replaying old grudge matches that nobody else really cares about. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see you are seeing the version you need to see. And you did get a lift from joining in the joyful group condemnation of me without bothering to look at her behavior. You really have no useful advice to offer me, except as you say so often, bend over and pucker up. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe whatever makes you happy, just don't pretend that it's also "the truth". Sure, I have no useful advice to offer to you, I'm all out of "useful advice". I nevertheless wish you well with your endeavours here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input at the current RFA for an editor with some 50 edits would be interesting. Not soliciting comments either way, but I'd be interested in your view point. As an aside, I'm likely to be very inactive for the next couple of weeks (kids+Christmas = no free time!) so I'll take this opportunity to wish you a "happy holiday" as our American cousins would say, and our family's best wishes to you and yours for a prosperous, happy and fulfilling New Year. Very Best. Pedro : Chat 21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very thought of RfA starts me slavering and howling at the moon. If I can muster up the courage I may take a look later. In the meantime, Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family Pedro. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it's apparently popular somewhere. Enjoy. :) لenna vecia 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like schnapps to me ... brings back memories of an exceedingly drunken tour around Vienna. Happy days! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... or was it Munich? ... think it was Munich ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, either way, sounds like fun. In about 36 minutes, it will be my two year anniversary here on this project we love to hate, or is it hate to love? Whatevs... let's get toasty. XD لenna vecia 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I'm a big believer in not feeding the fire at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my last comment.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just for anyone who thinks I might be going soft, although the time stamps show that I made my RfA comment 3 minutes after SandyG's posting here, at the time I hadn't read her message, and I didn't make the reply that I did because of it; I just happened to independently agree with her assessment. I'm still just as much of a bad-assed sob as I ever was. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. XD That is all. لenna vecia 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children in content review processes

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#NYC meet-up video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it earlier, but I've been accused enough of being "ageist", for this year at least. I completely agree with what you've already said, and I don't think I could add anything constructive. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, chicken eh? I'll be right along. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, I'd have to just kick ass at that meeting. I sooo would not fit in! Haha --Jza84 | Talk 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty I could say, but on the principle that there are things which can be thought but which should probably not be spoken, I think I should keep schtumm. I entirely agree with what Sandy has written, though, with a few "extra bits" informed by my own professional experience which involved working very closely with child psychologists and child psychiatrists for over 20 years. DDStretch (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spoke 'em. (But I never plan on a run at RfA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe Americans have a different spin on this. Have you ever seen one of those American child beauty contests for instance? Makes my flesh creep, but each to their own I suppose. That a kid looks like an adult, dresses like an adult, or speaks like an adult, does not make that kid an adult. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. In fact, my clinical colleagues, if faced with such an articulate staged performance as that of the child would want to find out the degree and type of "coaching" for the talk that had happened, as otherwise, there would be little basis to know just what the child's capabilities were... DDStretch (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those of us who have an understanding of these issues are sadly in a minority. One staged performance is enough to satisfy the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Roll over Clever Hans as well! I think the various debunkers of parapsychology might have views on seating arrangements at the talk if they were of a certain type. DDStretch (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed out loud when I saw this. Absolutely right. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specializing in the bases of good research methodology in the psychological sciences does have some use in these discussions, it seems, though most of it is really the result of common sense and critical thinking (though judging from some reactions, it may well have to be called "uncommon sense".) DDStretch (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		Season's Greetings
		To many more vigorous good debates in the new year and a safe holiday season. Best. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's far too rare here on wikipedia to find editors who can distinguish between disagreements and "personal attacks". I thank you for being one of those who can. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Shows your approach to the big wigs definitely works! (Not that I am surprised as I see the familiar pattern.) You got an FA undeservedly. Have you the term "[deleted]" (fear of being honest here, as the lurkers are always lurking on your page) in the country in which you live? All the best. (Have lost all respect.) Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three supports, no opposes at all, and only a few comments means that it shouldn't be promoted? Odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be truthful, I'm not quite sure what you mean Mattisse. I'd guess the FA you're referring to is Scout Moor Wind Farm? I really had nothing to do with that before I was stupid enough to nominate it at User:Richerman's request. Following that, as a fellow member of the GM Project, I felt it only right to do what I could to try and help it through FAC.

I'm a little surprised at your reference to my attitude towards the "big wigs". I doubt that there's a single "big wig" I haven't expresssed my disagreement with, including SandyG, and even the God-like Raul. Lighten up. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently FAC determined that the article meets the FA criterion, so your claim of the article being promoted "undeservedly" leaves me slightly confused. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I may not watch your page anymore but I do watch the big wig's, out of self protection. So I see what you post there. It pays off to toe the line. I looked at the record of the FAC, and the way my comments were disregarded (not even considered) as you can see by looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm, The lack of following the standards seems very blatant. I would think you, given all your high standards, would be feeling at little creepy now. (Ugh!) Well, I will use this example in future FAC denials, should any occur with any more signs of support than this article received. I am no longer afraid of you people. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "Apparently FAC determined that the article meets the FA criterion"? Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm! Even Tony had problems that were not addressed. So who decided to pass it? "FAC determined"? And how did that happen? What is wrong with this picture? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say Mattisse is that I feel comfortable in my skin. I hope that one day you will also be able to come to terms with what you are, and what you want to to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No credibility, I'm afraid. Otherwise, you would not still be bewailing the the admin thing. Sorry, I don't buy it. And don't bother to answer, as this page is no longer on my watchlist. Just checked back this time, as I knew you have nothing else to do but respond. Sorry, but I have lost respect. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to know that you've lost respect? Please, keep it to yourself and try to avoid incivility. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse is entitled to state his/her opinion, which I don't consider to be uncivil in any case. I'd very likely be the last person waving the nonsensical incivility flag anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Looks like you made the shit list, Malleus. Sorry to see it. لenna vecia 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm gutted. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've got those block-happy admins still patrolling your page, I see. Where is your usual rant? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Father Christmas sent me...

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 :::::::::Yeah, I'm gutted. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
+*Well, you've got those block-happy admins still patrolling your page, I see. Where is your usual rant? Cheers, &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 == Father Christmas sent me... ==