:I have no intention of taking it anywhere, as I'm fully aware that there would be no point. GWH is what he is, and there seems to be some misguided support for his misguided application of policy. So be it. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:I have no intention of taking it anywhere, as I'm fully aware that there would be no point. GWH is what he is, and there seems to be some misguided support for his misguided application of policy. So be it. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
::As I suggested, we should take it to P&W's User Talk page. GWH has asked you to leave. P&W won't and, since it's P&W's User talk page, GWH and others will undoubtedly steer clear, or be on their best behavior. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/71.57.8.103|71.57.8.103]] ([[User talk:71.57.8.103|talk]]) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:52, 20 November 2009
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
What stuff do you have on the Gunpowder Plot, and Mr Fawkes? I saw a couple of cheap books on Amazon and bought them (The Gunpowder Plot by Alan Haynes, and The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser). I've realised that actually, I really enjoy working on these tales of intrigue, murder, ineptitude, and a bit of olde-worlde sillyness goes down well too, so I think I'll focus my efforts on things like this. If you have any material on one or the other, I'd be happy to work with you getting them to FA. Parrotof Doom20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've only got the Northcote Parkinson book, Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I'm thinking that it might be best start with the plot itself? And maybe let the seasonal silliness around Guy Fawkes die down a bit before tackling that? Should be easier to put him in context once the plot's cleared up anyway. --MalleusFatuorum20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'll depend upon the structure of the two books I've ordered (which should arrive in a day or two). Is Fawkes at all notable, other than for the Gunpowder Plot? I'm wondering if he needs his own article. Parrotof Doom20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His 1603 mission to Philip II would probably warrant a sub-stub if anyone could be bothered to write it, even had the Plot never happened, so probably yes. 92.11.55.195 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that we start with the Gunpowder Plot article then, and if by the end it looks as though there is too much detail about Fawkes to fit in there, we look at a separate article? The same question could also be asked of Robert Catesby, and most (I haven't looked at all the articles) of the other conspirators. They seem to all be saying much the same thing. Parrotof Doom21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can tell you the -true- story about the Gun Powder Plot and the martyrdom suffered by those glorious heroes at the hands of tyrants. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 17th century seems to have been a fascinating time, and certainly the present article doesn't do justice to the Catholicism background, and King James' apparently hardening attitude towards Catholics. --MalleusFatuorum20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think there's certainly enough interest to assume that improving this article is a good idea. I'm just reading the Fraser book (and the Haynes book when that arrives), and typing as I go, so it's all a little disordered right now. Parrotof Doom20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be too difficult with the three primary sources we [will] have between us. Right now I'm working through Fawke's motivations. Its an extraordinarily complex tale. I think this article will end up seeing as significant changes in structure as you made on Moors murders. I have to work through the conspirators as Fraser writes them though, as she has a particularly engaging way of switching back and forth through history. Parrotof Doom21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. It won't keep me from working on it, in fact it'll make less work for us both. Actually one thing that's a bit lacking is dates. If your source has more dates knocking around, feel free to supplement or replace anything I've written. Parrotof Doom21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on Catesby, but two things now strike me. The first is that the Earl of Essex's 1601 rebellion is key to understanding how events unfolded, so that needs to be mentioned, and the second is that we need to slightly rejig the conspirators section more towards the plot and less biographical. How they met and so on. Strikes me as well that we could usefully give the account a little more impact by including more personal descriptions of the conspirators, like their ages, for instance. --MalleusFatuorum05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm just about getting to the commencement of the plot in Fraser's book. I think you're correct, its probably easier to let the players fall into place as the plot builds strength. The short biog details can then be included at that point. There are still things which need resolving, like Wintour/Winter for one (Fraser has already said this name change was important but hasn't yet explained why). Parrotof Doom15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to do quite a bit of reorganising at some point, as I think you said earlier, but as the article dvelops it should become easier to get a feel for that. --MalleusFatuorum15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its at all helpful, the ODNB entries on Robert Devereux, and those involved in the Plot, are pretty darn good, with a huge range of sources. I'm going to continue with the Fraser book before I look elsewhere. Parrotof Doom16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned at the minute to try and give a coherent account of how these thirteen conspirators got together; I'm beginning to think that there may well be enough information on at least most of them to warrant separate articles. While you're here, the article presently says that it was Winter's uncle who was the priest executed in 1586, but my book says it was the Wrights' uncle. What do your sources say? --MalleusFatuorum17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep adding information to those little biogs as I go, and we can sort it all out along the way. Catesby and Tresham were cousins, through their mothers, and had been raised together (Fraser p110). It was his uncle Thomas Tresham who helped bail Catesby out after the Essex crisis. Fraser postulates that the young Tresham was 'dominated' by Catesby, a hint at the latter's ability to command. Parrotof Doom20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fraser says that Catesby may have been educated at University of Douai, or that he might have spent time at Oxford University, Gloucester Hall (now Worcester College), and that if so, he left without taking his degree (presum. to avoid the oath of supremacy). She also says that in 1598 both his father and his wife died, and that the loss of the latter has been attributed to his 'return to Catholicism of his forefathers; to the Church in its fanatical form." Several sources are offered for these assertions, but she does say 'maybe', 'could have', etc. Parrotof Doom21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I just pointed it out because right now the article says "Robert was converted to Catholicism by Jesuits in about 1580", and the two sources used seem to be at odds about this. I mean, was Robert seriously converted to Catholicism aged seven? Parrotof Doom22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the art with these articles, just as with the Moors murders, is in trying to decide which of the sometimes contradictory claims are the most plausible. Thinking of the Samlesbury witches, I don't find the claim that Catesby was influenced by Jesuits when he was as young as seven all that implausible; Grace Sowerbutts was only 14 when she was persuaded by a Jesuit priest to perjure herself in an attempt to have three innocent women hanged, for instance. As for the phrase "converted to Catholicism", I'm less certain. I can't remember at what age a child is confirmed into the Catholic faith (perhaps Ottava can tell us that), but I'm pretty sure from personal experience that it wasn't as young as seven, although the memory does sometimes play tricks. I guess we have to go with what most accounts claim, and hedge it around as Fraser apparently does. --MalleusFatuorum01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think then that we could be a little less specific where the sources are in contention (perhaps explaining so in the footnotes).
I've been integrating some of the biogs into the prose, and think I've not done too badly. It might need your pruning shears, but I thought that we could spread the personal details of each plotter through the 'plot' - so perhaps, when it comes to Fawkes, we could expand on him when the decision is 'made' for Fawkes to be the one in charge of the gunpowder. And for Robert Wintour, when the conspirators flee to Huddington we could then explain that Wintour had inherited that pile and grown up there, etc. It would avoid having an A B C list of things, and would also make a more engaging read (rather than the reader having to wade through thirteen introductions all in one go). What do you think? BTW the Haynes book has arrived now. Parrotof Doom14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How good are your image hunting skills? If you can find a bigger copy of this, that's the one to use. Its also in the Fraser book but a higher res version must be knocking around somewhere. Parrotof Doom19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wintour's name is important, because his confession was signed Winter-and he had never done that before. Also, Wintour had been shot in the shoulder, but the signature was steady. Which, Fraser suggests, means that the confession was fiddled with, for the government's own purposes. Parrotof Doom15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't bothered reading any of it as I've been too busy with the gruesome stuff, but would you be able to tidy up the Bonfire and historical legacy bits, if you can? I'm about to go right through it all again, and fill in the blanks (and correct any assumptions by Fraser) with Haynes. After which, I think I'll get pissed—especially after writing that bit about what happens when you're H,D&Q. (I've seen it on the HBO Drama Elizabeth, but its still fooking scary to think about) Parrotof Doom23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and have a look at them. My favourite section in any article is Popular culture, as you may know. I'm still a bit tied with RL wrting though—nothing so interesting as the Gunpowder Plot though, sadly. On the subject of scary, I was looking at Rack (torture) yesterday. I think if the choice was between the rack and H,D&Q I might elect for the latter. At least, as Guy Fawkes demonstrated, you had a chance with that to end it quickly. --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Apologise as much as you like, but I'm not interested in apologies. For two or three days, just as a matter of interest, I looked at the New Page Patrol, and was appalled at the rubbish that passes for encyclopedia articles in far too many new editors' eyes; that's the problem you ought to be addressing. I don't know how many articles I tagged for speedy deletion during that period, maybe 50 or so I suppose, but you can be sure that after this deceit I won't be tagging any more. I stand by every single one of those taggings, including that of your beloved James Chatters. I'm beginning to wonder if there's no end to the childishness around here. --MalleusFatuorum02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO.. it's these very types of foolish and childish games which continue to lower the credibility of our project. We're here to build an online encyclopedia, not play little "what if" games. — Ched : ? 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Plot aka An Almost Victory
I've been watching you work on the various pages related to the day of Our Almost Miraculous Victory but Still a True Martyrdom and I am dying to just put some wonderful additions to Saint Fawkes and the rest, but I believe my CoI may cause me some problems. I wonder if there can be some way to get a group of people willing to watch me and keep me from changing every other line to: "we almost got those Anglican bastards". ;/
Hahaha. I wrote an article that I haven't gotten around to submitting on Milton's religion as it is similar to Hobbes's. I wonder what poor Milton would think about -me- writing on -that- topic. He is probably crying somewhere (which is funny, because he believed in soul sleeping and he was wrong :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW there's plenty of Ainsworth in Dick Turpin now, have a look and see what you think. I've ordered a book from the library to pad the sources out a bit but it may take months, else I'd have nominated it at FAC by now. Parrotof Doom15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept two of the sources that I was going to use from the Ainsworth novel page. If I have a chance I'll go through them and add information. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Favor from you and your TPS
I have just rewritten an article that I have no business doing (but you should see what it was like before...). I need as many critical eyes from all sides of all oceans on it. I would appreciate any commentary on Amazing Grace. It has a peer review here. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus, I've opened a peer review here and would welcome any comments. I've added some prose since your copyedit, so you might encounter more of my typical, decidedly un-brilliant prose if you decide to have a look. Эlcobbolatalk14:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object to you listing the one page at CSD and not at AfD. :P But yeah, Malleus, wtf, why even bother with NPP? I ditched that area long ago because of the problems. You have better things to do than deal with crazy newbiews/people pretending to be crazy newbies. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes any difference, one of the things that inspired WereSpielChequers to start the NEWT project was this article and in particular its creation. There was nothing intentionally deceptive about it. About a year ago WikiVoices did its first article creation episode, which was pretty well organized (a DYK and a featured sound came out of it), but we stumbled on the first edit. I was editing under my real name and expected to get tagged or, at worst, prodded. Instead the article was deleted in under two minutes despite a hangon tag.
Our intention had been to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of ragtime; we weren't setting out to test new pages patrol. At first it felt quite embarrassing to get speedied (although the article didn't actually qualify for speedy, not even in the state it was in when it got deleted). Then a set of people who were worried about the declining rates of new article creations and new account creations pointed to our recording as a case in point of a problem that they believed existed: overzealous speedy deletion.
I was a bit slow to get on board with Newt, partly for the same reasons as your misgivings. It seemed to be an accepted project though and it did appear to be looking for solutions to a real problem. Am curious why it's my experiment you chose to express unease with, since the username was readily Google-able to me and I would have disclosed immediately to anyone who asked. After it was over I informed everyone promptly and (I hope) politely, handed out five barnstars, and didn't call anyone out on the carpet in the report. In the aftermath I've begun coaching one of the speedy taggers in the use of GIMP software. She hasn't been offended by it.
Is there something that could be changed to make it less objectionable to you? Or is your misgiving inherent to doing this at all? Durova36316:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well Malleus does have a point. That's why I also do new pages patrol. The really hard stuff is the back end where remaining unpatrolled pages risk falling into the general pool after 30 days. Those are the articles nobody wanted to make a decision on. That's where I patrol. And yes, a lot of dross does get created. Yet it's usually effective to prod or AFD instead of speedy. I rarely speedy unless something is copyright infringement or a BLP attack page. Sometimes a few days' opportunity at improvement turns a dubious-looking page into a real article. Durova36317:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting that too many articles are speedy delete tagged then I'd probably be inclined to agree with you. I've seen it argued somewhere (WR perhaps?) that the NEWT project is analogous to the mystery shopper programmes employed by retailers, and I guess there's some sense in that idea. Your moss articles were a clear case of underdeveloped content, and obviously not candidates for speedy deletion. I recall that during the same period another editor was creating sub-stubs on Chinese railway stations, a similar situation. What I refute entirely though, and what really pissed me off about this exercise, is the automatic assumption that those editors creating the articles were in the right, and those tagging them were in the wrong. The James Chatters article referred to above, about a rather unremarkable archaeologist, is a case in point. If I cared enough I'd be inclined to AfD it, but I don't. Keeping rubbish content is more important than scaring off newcomers apparently. The effort wasted on NEWT ought to be focused instead on making it easier for new editors to create articles that will not be tagged for speedy deletion, not on chastising those who do the hard work of patrolling new pages for not being welcoming enough. The priorities are completely arse about face, like so much else here. --MalleusFatuorum18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough balance. AFD and PROD usually work better if there's any room for doubt. As in This article about an improv theater group has a promotional tone but it isn't a copy/paste from their website. Maybe they've been written up in regional magazines but we've got a four hour window on the back end of NPP and there really isn't time to run Google searches right now. That leaves a reasonable window in case genuine evidence of notability exists, and gets rid of it otherwise. Of course it's usually those kind of borderline things that reach to the back of NPP without anyone deciding to patrol it. Durova36419:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited experience of NPP I'd say that its most obvious problem is that those patrolling tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit, and to ignore anything that requires much in the way of thought. Another objection I have to the NEWT project is its emphasis on new articles. I'd have thought that most new editors start out by editing existing articles, not by creating new ones, so if anything's worth a mystery-shopper style investigation then it's how new editors who're actually editing are treated. That may admittedly be a function of my own bias though; I've been here for ages, but I've probably created fewer than 30 articles. I don't see article creation as the goal, but improving the quality of the crap that's already here. --MalleusFatuorum20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. There have been studies on the rate of reversions of unregistered users, and perhaps of new users too. Would be interesting (if people are okay with the idea) to create a new account and do encyclopedic article building with a completely redlinked userspace. Durova36422:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no article was attached to that, it'd be kinda funny. Course, I'd be pretty pissed off if it were an article I wrote ... --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find this rather ironic given the discussion immediately above this one. The prevailing culture at wikipedia seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of not upsetting new editors, while at the same time deliberately discouraging established editors. I guess that makes sense though, given the constant need to replenish those editors who finally get so pissed off with the stupidity, incompetence, and dishonesty here that they leave in disgust. --MalleusFatuorum18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for another begging pleading request for help. Blame this one on the Featured Topic folks, who are upping the reqs, so that Mellitus (and Justus later) need to be dragged up to FA status. I need to add alt text to Mellitus, but I think I've managed to pull out everything I possibly can. Luckily, we have Gregorian mission to give us most of the background, so I can avoid long background sections. Help??? I've got Johnbod looking for any missing art history bits. Ealdgyth - Talk03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a comparison of FAC edits to Gimmebot isn't valid, since GimmeBot came into existence relatively recently (nor can this comparison measure the helpfulness of responses). MF, you lazy bastard :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to search it other ways and nothing really seemed to help. I just found the number interesting. :) You never realize how many of those pages you actually work on until you bother to look. I'm surprised I had over 50, haha. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some assistance
Hey M, I don't know if this is your thing or not, but I know you're good with prose so if you get a spare moment, I'd appreciate if you'd take a look. I'd like to take it to FAC, with the plan on nominating it for the front page either on its release date, or on Christmas day itself. Thanks, Majorlytalk21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's going to run to a straight choice between a freak, miserable, soul destroying and life degrading occurence ....... or a cyclone. :) Pedro : Chat 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have more look with this as an 'on this day' nomination, unless you can pad things out. There's only half a kb or prose, and that's pretty small for FAC (Gropecunt Lane was just under 1kb) Parrotof Doom22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think I covered the important things. I could try and find out which albums it has appeared on, but really, is that worth noting? There must be hundreds... Majorlytalk22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got more than enough for covers. I think you need to expand more on where the single was recorded, what technology was used, perhaps also a section on the musical construction, keys used, timing, etc (a songbook would be more than adequate for that). You should also add a music sample, for illustrative purposes - see The Dark Side of the Moon for an example of a template to use. Parrotof Doom22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have some connection to Manchester I believe. Should you not be, I dunno, asleep at this time of day? Thank you for your work at the above article, and my apologies for the occasionally second third rate prose. I feel I may be slipping from a standard that wasn't that high in the first place :-) Given that, amongst other things, my day job involves writing, editing and supervise other researchers, it ain't a good sign. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atherton
Just to let you know Pyrotec is reviewing the Atherton article, he has advised me to get in the cake and wine, already done that one :)cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, another GA! This is entirely thanks to you, I didn't even have to change or add anything! Thank you so much, you really are the most generous person I've come across on Wikipedia.
Atherton's on the map. Wigan looks quite healthy now, with five GAs, three of them yours. You're obviously getting the hang of this GA lark. :-) --MalleusFatuorum17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never even touched the cake! I think I might try my hand at Wakefield :( I have contacts there who have a few books, and the article is, well, poor. I'm also looking for a book on Bolton.... Anyway thanks again. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>:o We don't want any improvement of the Yorkshire articles, thanks (speaking as a Lancastrian, and not trying to inflame the Leeds thing) Parrotof Doom18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry PoD :(, well it is pretty dire! Anyway aren't you a "Greater Mancunian"? (trying not to inflame the red rose brigade)
[2]. I am tired of it. This is the fourth FAC in which people have changed things to what is improper and someone else claims that the page is bad because of those changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on any but this most recent FAC, I think you were wrong to blame Karanacs for closing it early. Whoever was responsible, the prose clearly wasn't up to the FA standard, and hadn't been right from the start. I'm not saying I agree with every one of F&f's points—I think some of his suggested improvements were nothing of the sort—but he did make some valid points nevertheless that you ought not to have rejected out of hand just because of where they came from. --MalleusFatuorum22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod just stated that he would support it. That makes three people so far. Tony's only concern was about use of "the play". That is far from a major concern. SlimVirgin's was about the nature of the section on the history, which isn't a major concern. I already pointed out why Fowler's points were invalid, and Noir did the same. Having someone post on a FAC while simultaneously posting it as evidence, and having disrupted multiple FACs again is clearly inappropriate. If you cannot see that, then I don't really have much else to say. Even Iridescent saw a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Fowler's points were "invalid", but by no means all of them; you opted to throw the baby out with the bathwater in a fit of pique. I too have been concerned at some of Fowler's comments at FAC, but the way to deal with them is to, well deal with them, not ignore them. Even after the FAC was closed I quickly came across several obvious problems with the prose, some of which were mentioned by Fowler, which ought to have been dealt with but weren't. --MalleusFatuorum22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I "opted" to do was say that I would ignore his statement of "oppose". Anything valid was addressed by NocturneNoir or myself. Noir makes his thoughts known about the type of Fowler's oppose here. With statements like "What is a more serious concern for me (and for Wikipedia) is that in his relentless drive to add "content," he has taken unacceptable liberties with paraphrasing, and has introduced unacceptable errors in the content. And this is his FA work. Part of the reason for this is that the FAC process, driven in part, in my view, by people with an surfeit of ambition and a deficit of application and effort, tends to create cabals.", or the statement he made at during The Lucy poems FAC where he would prove that every one of the pages I edit show major grammatical errors and that I don't know how to write English show that his statements are not in good faith and are ignored. I will not give him the pleasure of acknowledging that his harassment affects my judgment in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly poor judgement on Fowler's part, given his comments elsewhere, to offer the criticism that he did on an article you'd nominated, some of which were indeed excessively pedantic and even plain wrong. --MalleusFatuorum00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now do you understand why we turned to Tony1 to get his opinion on the page and why I may be frustrated when I didn't have an actual chance to see if his concerns were addressed? I waited a month for someone like him to give a review. I don't beg for reviews. I just sit patiently to see if someone will bother. I review other articles, I help out, etc. I am not happy that the article say there for an extended period of time with nothing. Yes, pages can -always- be improved. However, they can't be if no one bothers to talk. I just want comments and the ability to address comments. Why do people act so surprised? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I understand Ottava is that nobody can fight every battle that needs to be fought, and that a project like wikipedia needs to have neutral zones. The various review processes are those neutral zones, and personal feelings ought to be left at the door. Whatever your view of the merits or otherwise of Fowler's comments you ought not to have responded by pointedly stating that you intended to ignore them. Things spiralled from then towards their inevitable conclusion.
I'd point out as well that you've given me a grilling at FAC not unlike that offered by Fowler, and a good deal more extensive. We none of us need to agree on everything, or indeed on anything except that it's best if we can reach a productive working relationship, and if we can't, then it's best that we avoid each other. --MalleusFatuorum01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sandy and Karanacs have told me before to simply leave a statement that says I will be ignoring the concerns. And at Samlesbury witches, I did not oppose nor would I have opposed on the matter. I did not assume I was correct about them, and allowed your rationale to dominate. [3] - "As I said, you can take or leave my comments as you will. :) Now, after my eyes stop bleeding I will attempt to review the rest of the page or do something constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, Ottava, you're a grown man. Do you always do what women tell you to do? I listen to what they have to say, and then I generally do what I was going to do anyway. Your response clearly soured the FAC, and you ought to have considered that instead of diverting the blame onto two poor defenceless women. (I was laughing as I wrote "two poor defenceless women", just so there's no misunderstanding here. I've yet to meet a "defenceless woman".) --MalleusFatuorum02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a diversion from Ottava's woes, my comment about "defenceless women" reminds me of a story in our local paper a few years ago. Two 14-year-old girls were walking down a street when they they saw a younger girl, about 9 or so, shouting and screaming as a man was pulling her into his car. They ran up to the girl and asked her if she knew the man. When she said no, one of them thumped him and the other grabbed the youngster and ran off with her. Not exactly "defenceless". --MalleusFatuorum02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, the story of my life. One side attacking me for not doing what others say. Another group attacking me for doing what others say. I just need to find a way for them to attack each other and leave me be. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise to find you a supporter of secret balloting. Yikes! I do hope you'll come to your senses soon. :) Transparency, accountability, and community are important dontcha know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand I notice there are already way too many questions, many of them ridiculous. And on the other hand the window of opportunity for asking "general" question ended Nov. 10 before the nomination process was even complete? Unless I am misreading. And sadly, the "are you smart enough to be an Arb" type question (the reverse is also a good question!) was removed by a wikicop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all practical purposes arbitrators have to be administrators, so they're quite used to ridiculous questions, having been asked enough of them at RfA. --MalleusFatuorum21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of taking it anywhere, as I'm fully aware that there would be no point. GWH is what he is, and there seems to be some misguided support for his misguided application of policy. So be it. --MalleusFatuorum03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested, we should take it to P&W's User Talk page. GWH has asked you to leave. P&W won't and, since it's P&W's User talk page, GWH and others will undoubtedly steer clear, or be on their best behavior. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
