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.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and all you gone daddies & all you pretty mommas,

Don't get a swelled head, but that was my first and only announcement on another user's talk page. :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these events, as they're really just an out of control vehicle for anyone you've ever upset to try and claim their pound of flesh; dishonest wouldn't even get close. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition is a discussion of the "insult"/"mocking" of miscapitalizing "DemiUrge". When did I get a choice between the blue pill and the red pill?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one purpose to RfC, and that's to humiliate you. Much like RfA really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RFarbcom is even worse though. The mind boggles at how much time and effort is spent on NYB's faux court martials.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been impressed by the functioning of ArbCom and particularly by NYB, whether there or as a commentator. We have interacted only about twice. First, somebody named NYB made a calm comment about a DYK that did not threaten or insult anybody, which led to consensus immediately. Second, when I made an erroneous assumption, he alerted me discretely, implicitly inviting me to draw my own conclusion (and correct my erroneous statements). Recently, he seems to have run out of patience with KeepsCases; however, having avoided the apocalyptic language of the snake handlers, NYB is still a mensch in my book. Another ArbCom member is in free fall.Small text

It seems to me that RfC serves to discredit attackers more than victims, but I may be guilty of wishful thinking.

I has been helpful to learn more about pathogenic yeast the last week. We ignore them despite their being present all the time, because they have no effect. If our immune system drops, following cancer or HIV etc., then they cause opportunistic infections. With rare exceptions, when treated they go away. Nothing to get worried about.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing time: Last call!

"Oh, you've been a lovely audience but the time does pass. Don't you all be lettin' the door hit you in the ass. You've been a lovely audience but enough is enough."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that Wikipedia's anthem? Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a closing song with a few naughty words, to amuse you and yours.

However, now that I think of it, the RfC does seem to have a bimodal distribution.

• The cluster of "Wikipedia users" may be singing "Bugg off! You bastard, bugger off!" to me.
• I appreciate the support from the Wikipedia editors/writers (no quotes).

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Malleus, could I prevail on you to do the GA review for my current candidate, Walking Liberty half dollar? It is the final entry (other than the overview article which I may not get to for a bit) in my series on the Great Recoinage of 1907–1921 and has at least one laugh out loud moment. You are free to make changes, I may modify for technical reasons but I won't throw anything at you. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll buy you a beer once you use up all the free ones!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough and competent review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to say, that American Silver Eagle at the end really is quite beautiful. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shows you what Weinman was trying to do in a way that the image of the circulation coin beautiful as it is just can't. This series has taught me quite a bit about art.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

I am getting sick and tired of seeing these essays in my watchlist now. It's clear he's not going to get bored. I hate to say so but something might need to be done about it. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also "Digging around for extra coins in the sofa to pay for takeout pizza"? 24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pissing me off as well. I made a suggestion at wife selling earlier this evening that he has pointedly ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me to avoid discussing politics and religion (:-( ) in company and I think she would have cheerfully added feminists attempting to rewrite history to a skewed 21st century point of view.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My mother told me "life's too short to bugger about". I see you're in the wars again, with Elizabeth. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back.:-) She didn't take her own advice though, and I've never done as I was told.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

I wouldn't go as far as the anon above, but thanks for the review and promotion. I'll throw it to FAC in the near future, interested to see how my first non-avian FA fares. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should do well if you integrate that "The town" section. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey Malleus, I hope you're well and that you enjoyed your weekend. One of the entries on WP:Requested moves is for Silver Jubilee Bridge to be renamed Runcorn Bridge--and I supposed that page (now a dab) should be renamed as a dab page. There is a bit of discussion on the talk page; please weigh in there if you have a moment and an opinion. This strikes me as one of those cases where local expertise as well as MOS expertise is appreciated. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey the Bastard

How's he looking? After this weekend, I should be back editing a bit more, hopefully... but I'm free enough to get him up at FAC if you think he looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he's good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

Thanks for your support, I thought you might like to see my hat (ROFL) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick peek at your bastard, look forward to seeing it at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Policy

Hi!

Having a deja vu experience all over again, I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Why not make Jante Law an official policy of Wikipedia?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Randy from Boise did not license that content.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To defy #9, I shall post that I fail #8 every damn day. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incentive, or something...

Look at Geoffrey then in 2007, before I started work on him, and compare that to now. And it's YOUR copyediting/prose tweaking that makes my research readable. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What an extraordinary transformation! I'll get on to those two clunky sentences when I've finished my tea; "Everything stops for tea" don't cha know. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, I did really like England for it's in hotel room teapots. And the general civilized approach to tea... us teadrinkers in the states are very much third-class citizens. If you don't want an "herbal" tea while dining out, you're in deep trouble. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't drink coffee and I take my own tea to the US. My Louisiana friend can now make a great cup of Yorkshire tea. I doubt if my coffee will come up to scatch when they visit next year. Tea is not good everywhere, especially with little cartons of UHT milk. I'm not sure Malleus is referring to a cuppa though, tea time in Greater Manchester involves eating.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire tea is my favourite as well. PoD and I disagree over things like lunchtime, teatime and so on. For me lunch is what you have at midday, teatime you have about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps with a light snack, to tide you over to dinner at about 8 in the evening. PoD on the other hand, uncouth fellow that he is, thinks that dinnertime is at lunchtime and that teatime is at dinnertime. Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a southern softie masquerading as a northerner. People up here eat dinner and then tea, followed by pudding (not supper). And we drink pop, not Coke. BTW I haven't been around much for Workhouse I know, I'm just letting you fidget with it for a bit more before I look at it again. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've spent much of my life in the soft south, that's true. And until my wife and I moved up to Manchester in the '90s she'd never been further north than Birmingham. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Workhouse, I'm still struggling with the religious aspects that some seem so keen on and I completely fail to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well I'll have to sit with PoD and the uncouth yobs :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

An issue with which you've been involved is under discussion at Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil#Italics. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'm afraid that my experiences with User:Lecen have led me to believe that he is impervious to all reason. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for editing my article on the Quoll Our teacher consistently talks about what a great asset you are to the AP Biology project. Thanks!

Savetheoceans (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your teacher is very wise Grasshopper. ;-) I'm generally quite happy to shuffle commas around for anyone, so don't be afraid to call on me again if you feel you need help, particularly as you get closer to GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content and the research will always be yours, not mine; my only role is to help you to write it better, mainly by example I hope. Your teacher is helping you with the science, and I'll help with the English. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Science/Outline

Dear Malleus, I'd appreciate your eyes on Talk:Science/Outline which is attempting to scope appropriate coverage of Science. As this is a mixture of summary, following high quality sources at the field review level (across 4+ fields), and meeting encyclopaedic needs; it would benefit from editor eyes who've previously conducted some study at this level even if they're not presently reading out of a hqrs at field review level. I'm having particular trouble with structuring the presentation of the day-to-day practice of science without it becoming a discipline soup. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that this recent push is going to lead to anything other than a horrible article. As I've said on the talk page, it seems to me that pretty much all science articles have the same fundamental problem: reliance on primary sources rather than reviews, and this one seems little different. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I value your opinion. I will be trying to concentrate largely on the history subsection where I can gain access to, and comprehend, the field review literature—and so potentially ensure one section is less than sucky. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of trying to tackle it bottom up, starting with something like Occam's razor, but that would take an eternity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Thanks for doing the GA review of Golden Domes and for the copy editing. I'll work through your list and ask for a peer review before relisting it. However I disagree with your final remark. While the article reports some remarkable claims, it does so using the neutral point of view. It does not, I believe, endorse any of them.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In many ways I think it's a nice article, and I enjoyed reading it, but I just don't think it's a neutral account of the Golden Domes. Of course I may well be wrong, so a peer review might be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Granted, in my effort to be neutral I may have made it too sympathetic. Adding more attribution and critical material might make it more balanced. Thanks again for your time and help.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

[1] Why are you edit-warring to restore a relative link? And failing to provide an edit summary when doing so? It should be an absolute link. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you are completely mistaken. The link should be a relative link, as the article may be renamed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility warning - watch your edit summaries. It is precisely because the article may be renamed that it must be an absolute link. You cannot trust that subpages will be renamed. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is of course impeccably flawed. An absolute link won't work if what should be done is done, i.e., the talk page and its subpages are moved with the article page. Anyway, don't you have anything better to do than come here bothering me about this kind of trivial nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that for whatever reasons, subpages are often not moved, which causes relative links like /GA1 to become redlinks. If an absolute link is used, even If the subpage is moved, a redirect is left by default. It's true that someone could delete the redirect, but I don't recall ever seeing an absolute link redlink because of a move. I have seen plenty of /GAx redlinks following moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do it your way and I'll do it my way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We should both do what's best for maintenance. Are you going to revert any changes I make to talk pages of articles you have GA-reviewed? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That slum of an article was nominated for GA? Ning-ning (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time, apparently without any notice having been taken of what the first three reviewers said. I notice you've been copyediting it a bit this evening though, so that's good. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to thank you for taking time to review The Time of Angels. Doctor Who is a British show after all, so I thought I might give you a virtual cup of tea. Glimmer721 talk 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a Doctor Who fan (and British) myself, and I well remember the episode. I think you've done a pretty decent job with it, just a few rough edges to knock off before GA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm a new fan and thought the episode articles especially needed improvement. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an old fan, right from the very first series with William Hartnell, perhaps the scariest Doctor of them all. If you've got any more episode articles in the pipeline don't be afraid to give me a call if you need a review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

Noting here what I said on that article talk page about your comments here, here, here, and here. The reason I'm coming here to raise it as well is that even if I and others are wrong about such things, it is important to be able to raise the possibility of such matters, and to engage in discussion, without making a personal issue of it. Otherwise people will just ignore the issues. I realise that you don't think my concerns were valid, but can I ask if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them? It is possible for people to disagree on such matters. There is a current example at WT:DYK right now - see here (please look at the actual substance of the arguments there, rather than making generalisations about DYK). The point there is not who is "right", but that it needs to be possible to discuss such matters by focusing on the actual concerns raised (as Ealdgyth did) without making personal comments (like you did). Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think it is, the ONDB author has built a story using lapidary and powerful language. It's difficult to know how far they've twisted whatever actuality is recoverable; secondly, like the old pork-pie muncher says, the language forms a pair of spectacles which we find difficult to remove. For example, the ONDB's "undignified fracas during vespers" is, in the article, a "dispute". What was it- a heated argument or a brandishing of the bollock daggers? How could anyone feasibly rewrite ONDB's description of such a scene to avoid plagiarism? "Whilst the priest was giving it large, several homeys had at it in a well messy scene, which did no credit to the cool of the occasion". Ning-ning (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What has happened to standard written English while Wehwalt slept?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are rather confused Carcharoth. Which is worse in your opinion, "You are a plagiarist" or "You are taking the piss" (which you were and still are)? I'm simply not interested in your wrong-headed playground notions of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a very subtle point here that I'm obviously missing. It would appear from the example of good practice given above that it is ok to say that SandyG is disrupting wikipedia to make a point and pissing in the wind but it's not ok for you to suggest that someone is behaving like an ass and taking the piss. Richerman (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is not so subtle, but is just yet another demonstration of how those who perceive themselves to be in positions of authority believe that the rules they apply to others do not apply to themselves. It's reached epidemic proportions here at Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> My point was that it is OK to disagree about paraphrasing from sources. It is not a black-and-white issue, and it's not a yes/no situation. It should be possible to say "this paraphrasing looks borderline to me, can we discuss it" without the aggravation that often results. For the record, I disagree with the approach Sandy took in that DYK discussion, but is not forbidden to raise issues of that nature. But typically, Malleus, instead of responding to what I said, has gone off on one again about authority figures on Wikipedia and civility - two perennial obsessions of his (see, I can be forthright as well). I see Malleus also failed to respond to the "if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them?" point. Probably because he realised he couldn't answer without conceding the point (which is that there has to be a way to raise such concerns without the discussion becoming an argument). Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Still here? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange question. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange as your continuing harassment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if I reply to that, you will cry harrassment? My responses to what you have said is not harassment. If you tell me that I'm taking the piss, or that I'm talking shit, or that I'm behaving like an ass, then I'm perfectly entitled to post to your talk page and object to that. Though I think in future I won't bother as you are clearly just trying to wind me up (maybe I'm learning something after all). Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you just went away. If you want to see how I've dealt with suspected plagiarism in articles that I've reviewed then why not look at some articles I've reviewed in which I've dealt with it, sans all the fancy footwork and Nancy-boy words that you habitually deploy? Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you are behaving like an arse. Geometry guy 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My fake dick collection is bigger than all of yours combined. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I will behave as I please. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotted Eagle Ray

Thank you for your contributions on my spotted eagle ray article! Your help is appreciated! --Marissa927 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

How the hell was that construed as a consensus to keep, if "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements"? This seems to have been a mere vote count, since those voting to keep (10, by my count)) couldn't offer even one clear example or one solid source in support of their vote, while those voting to convert to dab (6) actually had grounds. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter the empty rhetoric, the much vaunted "consensus" is simply a vote, as you have just seen. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the closer has some prior history with contentious closures. See User talk:Sandstein. Sandstein considered the Wife selling closure correct, but undid another by the same non-admin editor. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with the feeling that "junk SYNT article but it's there so cannot be deleted" is a problem. Fully qualified, LOL. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)