User talk:Eric Corbett

"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: [1] that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."
— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

Wish you well

		Wikipedia Gold Watch of Retirement
		!! Happy Retirement Malleus Fatuorum !! I would like to say that I am really sorry to hear that you are retiring from Wikipedia. However, I am also really glad you joined in the first place. Thank you for your contribution to making Wikipedia the best factual-based resource on the internet. In recognition of your service you are presented with the Wikipedia Gold Watch of Retirement. I hope to see you back here soon, either as a visitor or back with the odd edit or two. (If just to surprise some every few years!) Amadscientist

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Malleus! I trust your retirement is treating you well, or I expect to see you back here soon. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a corrupting project administered largely by teenage bully boys encouraged by the support of arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad with their "maturity" bollocks. I won't be back. Immature of me perhaps, but fuck it. Malleus Fatuorum 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to meet you your self - see my talk for "enlightenment" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. (If only it was intelligible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I stay out of the fray with my nose stuck in articles or, nowadays, the Signpost. :-) Good luck with whatever you decide, Malleus. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, don't leave: 1) the project is worthy, 2) you are a correcting influence. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project may once have been worthy, but it's now just a failed Internet "civility" experiment. There's a limit to the number of times an adult can be expected to tolerate being called immature by a bunch of fucking kids. Malleus Fatuorum 10:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An "editor" recently used three accounts to remove the phrase train station from Wikipedia at the rate of three or four edits a minute, carefully disguising their sockpuppetry by editing in different geographic areas and using slightly different vocabularies in their "charmingly polite" replies to anybody who challenged them. I certainly wouldn't want to meet that person in "real life"- rather have someone swearing at me than that kind of obsessive psychopathic behaviour. Ning-ning (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. (Kids.) But no further sanction will stick, since there's a semblance of intelligence rising (risen). (At least I think so. It's an important beginning of change/evolution/reformation/rectification toward intelligence that you've already pushed far along, and so, you shouldn't leave now.) The kids are like bugs that go 'crunch' when you squish'em. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but give me a shout if it ever happens. I see that KW's talk page access was blocked last night. Stuff like that doesn't seem to be a step in the right direction to me, just more of the same old same old. Things need to change here, but they hardly ever do, which is why Wikipedia is in its death spiral. Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for other reasons too. Merry Christmas Malleus.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratatoskr's malicious gossiping creates quite the appetite.

On the bright side, there was a lot of criticism of the removal of TPA by the administrator from military-history, who had almost as much trouble with the block logging as the block policy.

It might be useful for some administrators to end their tool-use notices with the punchline "The name of our act is 'The Aristocrats'".... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry to see you go - hope you are happy in whatever you do.

Just for you ....

Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth Pesky (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret legging

Ferret legging, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you have retired, your contributions to the Good article project have been immense. I wouldn't worry about the reassessment, if the nominator does delist it using their current evidence I will be personally taking it through the community route. Was just letting you know as they forgot that step. Hope you are having a good holiday. AIRcorn (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aircorn. All I will say is that that GAR is entirely without merit. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Good to see you've ended your retirement :) PS- don't forget to delete your Retirement template. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply had a few words to say about what's going wrong here, and I didn't add that ugly retirement template. Why do people feel emboldened to mess with other people's user/talk pages? Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was added, then removed (just before I got round to doing so), and then the inserter insisted that you had given them permission. I thought that unlikely but couldn't possibly contest their reinstatement without being uncivil ;) - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is still on your user page, btw. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To quote Malleus, "You may do as you please with my userspace, as it's no longer of any interest to me." I interpreted that as permission to add the retirement banners.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, you'll shoot him if he contributes to another article before the new year? Honestly, it would have been less dramatic just to leave well alone. I don't even understand why you'd want to ask that question when someone was clearly very annoyed. Still, what is done is done. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other news, I bought a silly amount of beer today (I'm organizing a Xmas beer tasting event extravaganza tomorrow) and, thinking of you two, bought an English ale for maybe the first time in my life. Let me check--it's Manchester Star. I hope it's good. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glad to see that you're back, Malleus. ceranthor 03:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not had that one, Drmies, although I've sample much of their range. John Willie Lees beers tend to be quite hoppy. Don't chill it as cold as you would a lager. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not back in any real sense, just commenting because I've seen the back-stabbing evilness of those who see a retirement as an opportunity to advance their vendettas. I'll reconsider my position in the New Year, but until then if you see me write or contribute to another article then you have my permission to shoot me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to pass up an opportunity to have you shot, I shall wave the temptation of Priestley 1979, p. 48 in front of you. It matches up with what John Elsom (Elsom 1976, p. 154) says about Ken Campbell's Road Show (a "pub music-hall team") and the World Ferret-Down-Trousers Record, one of the acts in the show. Yes, this is the "JE" who wrote the Cambridge encyclopaedia entry on Campbell that you used (and who, incidentally, gave himself a nice little namecheck in the article on "criticism", that he also wrote, in the same encyclopaedia).
If you want a less controversial subject than ferrets to work on, then of course there are always dead composers. After all, how could writing about something that's in umpteen other encyclopaedias turn out to be so amazingly difficult that we actually have less of an article now than we had a year ago? I'd mention the very dead surgeons as well, but those are a New Year's present for someone else.
- Priestley, Harold Edford (1979). "The Ferret-Packers". Truly bizarre. Sterling Pub. Co. ISBN 9780806901343. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Elsom, John (1976). PostWar British Theater. Routledge. ISBN 9780710083500. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great Uncle--I can't wait. I still have two fossils on my talk page, as you well know. Now ferrets, that's fun. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you ease yourself back into the groove, though, I'd seriously advise moving away from controversial topics like ferret-based sports and towards a subset of articles that are calmer and a little less politicised on the wiki - pieces on the Arab-Israel conflicts, perhaps, or something like that. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - DAMN! I knew I should have started a betting pool! The dramah was just not the same without you! Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would have lost...:-) Intothat darkness 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't jump the gun - he's only removed the banner. "I'll reconsider my position in the New Year" means he hasn't decided anything yet. Richerman (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone, Dr mi estas is talking about the fossils at User talk:Drmies#What's in a name? it appears. Dr mi estas, it isn't me that you are waiting for. Now I have to go and make a pointed comment about Talk:Lough Neagh and petrified wood. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Earlier on this subject someone suggested beatification as a possibility. Today would seem to be an appropriate saints day to choose. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As further temptation, I wave AP 1981 in front of you, so that you know that you can source the fact that Guinness Superlatives refused to accede to Mellor's request for recognition, fearing the RSPCA.
- "71-Year-Old Man Is Squirming To Be Recognized". The Times-News. Hendersonville, N.C. Associated Press. 1981-09-07. p. 15.
Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request

May I please request you to write an essay on having respect as a more important virtue on wiki than friendliness? That way, other editors shall also benefit from your POV and we will be able to make the community understand why it also hold relevance. With luck, I hope that it becomes one of the policies too someday. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that this whole issue isn't as simple as "respect versus friendliness." In fact, the whole thing is far more complex than that. Malleus is, as always, quite capable of speaking for himself, and I'd be interested in seeing his thoughts on your question actually compiled in one place. But when you mix the number of things that are active in this mess together (various cultures, backgrounds, educations, differing behavior patterns of 'generations' of internet users, grudges new and old held by longer-term users, a governance structure that is broken in far too many ways) you may find that there is no such thing as a simple solution. Civility is a handy stick with which to beat people, but it's not really an answer. Intothat darkness 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is friendly enough to those who show respect. Malleus, a bad guy in this soap opera has taught me all I know about editing Wikipedia and I have never known him to be anything but friendly. Wikipedia cannot afford to lose good editors. Editors come and go, many become "established" but not necessarily good. Good editors have to put up with trivia and worse being added to articles they have researched and largely written under the banner of "improvement" by new or incompetent editors and are denigrated and accused of ownership when they object putting them at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps protecting good and featured articles so that "improvements" could be discussed might be a first step. But at the end of the day insistent and poor editors should be put in their place. Those who rate "friendliness" and "civility" above content are using the wrong website. Most people accessing wikipedia are not editors but readers wanting information, they aren't interested in the politics or how friendly the writers are, they want information. There is so much badly written rubbish here and it won't improve without good editors. Good editors aren't just parachuted in when the best are forced out. Editing requires persistence, the desire to improve and writing skills which some editors just don't have. It requires a thick skin and the ability to take on board constructive criticism. There are too many fragile egos and jealous souls out there and oh so many with poor comprehension skills. How anybody can say content is not the most important thing is completely beyond me. And please don't say professional, where I worked it was a means of silencing dissent. Those who put civility above content have no respect for the encyclopedia or the writers who contribute good and better content. Editors drop in with few edits expecting respect. Respect needs to be earned, not by visiting the dramaboards and interfering but by minding your own business, doing some writing or article improvement, showing you can take advice and showing respect for those who can. J3Mrs (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Sockpuppet Comment removed boldly by TheOriginalSoni (talk)

So the IP has created an(other) account to troll from, what a surprise! Still not checking for errors though and no overlinking, that really is a surprise.J3Mrs (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular troll account is now blocked. You all can help by starting an SPI and gathering all the information you have--I am not partial to as much knowledge as you all are. An SPI with CU information can help control this, maybe. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this one is also a SP, maybe we should ask for an SPI? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrsBettyGoebbels TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

It seems you weren't properly notified about this ANI thread originally. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 07:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to say at ANI, "Scottywong should find other interests than gunning after Malleus and other editors whom he attacked before becoming an administrator and playing Eddie Haskell. "Just trying to figure out", sheesh!"

C.f. Black Kite's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think to inform about a "going nowhere" thread is kind of amusing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gerda, ironic indeed, glad you have a sense of humour unlike certain others here who mistake good light hearted humour and banter as childish nonsense.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may not have noticed, but you were blocked and then unblocked. See this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Malleus_Fatorum. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked again? Who gives a fuck. I once thought that Ironholds was sane, but I guess the WMF has corrupted him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess. ceranthor 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of idiots who'd rather walk around whistling, while swinging a truncheon, than write articles. The more of this nonsense I read, the less inclined I am to do any more work here. Parrot of Doom 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I try and avoid those pages. The writing is fun... it's dealing with the people that drains you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope Malleus comes out of this ordeal intact. It seems some people are utterly determined to drive you away, which is just senselessness imo. ceranthor 00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you said something sometime about busybodies. Man you were right. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look above for "ironic". I stopped taking anything seriously here, it helps, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some folks this 'going after Malleus' thing has become an unhealthy obsession. Unhealthy obsessions are bad enough when they concern the person who's doing the obsessing but here this also impacts another person (Malleus), as well as the rest of us who have to watch this idiotic drama and take away the intended message (which seems to be "people who create content better not get uppity and respect mah authoriteh!") Volunteer Marek 01:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting essay

I just found this essay which is very insightful, and timely, considering many current discussions. The essays content is only eclipsed by discovering the surreal irony of its creator. While I could easily have been duped to believe the range of negative aspersions freely cast against this editors clue, the reality of his perception and strong writing abilities completely rebut the clever fabrications which might otherwise prevail. I think you will be equally surprised to realize the self evident truth this essay exudes and perhaps inclined to admit he has been unreasonably besmirched by unfounded claims. Cheers, --My76Strat (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at AN

This is to notify you that I have made a proposal at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#A serious proposal to defuse the Malleus problem which I hope may save a lot of unnecessary conflict and waste motion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you really

File:Wiki mafia boss.jpg

I iz serious mafia boss

Do all of this[2] Shit, I thought you were just rude. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do any of that shit, so I'll be interested to see if Matthew finds himself blocked for that very obvious personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat surprising to see those accusations levelled at you when it is quite often a point of dispute against those who detract Malleus.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, now come on Malleus, surely you don't expect us to believe you are just an innocent victim in all this. I realize that some of the other editors are acting provocatively and you do a lot of great work around here but your tendency to bite newby's, visciously attack other editors you don't agree with and drop the F-bomb is near legend. Now I have mostly supported you in the past and given that my own status on this site is about equal to zero but this attacking other editors and insults really needs to stop. Good editing aside I have never seen an editor with so many blocks be allowed to continue to edit. Whether you have the support of the greater community or not this sort of conduct drives away editors and gives this site a bad reputation. Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two cents is more trouble than it's worth. Sweden eliminated the 50 ore piece. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it does seem that Malleus is brought up for this behavior an awful lot for it not to be considered a pattern. Obviously if this were a newby they would have been blocked and nothing more would have been said about it. The only reason there is any argument at all is because he is such a longtime, respected and productive user. Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop. You are not helping anybody. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Malleus is brought up for this behavior an awful lot for it not to be considered a pattern." Kumioko, does the earth go around the sun, or the sun go around the earth? (Because hey! - it sure as darn looks like the sun goes around the earth, to anyone who bothers to look, don't ya think!?) You're right, there's a pattern ... a pattern of filers filing ANI and Arbcom camplaints. You have the shoe on the wrong foot. Maybe it would help you to view the situation from a different perspective, here's an alternate perspective for you to consider: consider that Malleus may be a bit ... ahead of his time. (When you do that, it might explain to you why he "doesn't fit in", and even why he is despised so much.) And I offer this piece of logic to you also: Malleus writes well, yes? Yes. Gosh, that means he pays attention to words, right? Right. His own words? Of course. So he is aware what he says? Or he is "out of control" what he says? The former. So what about the complaints then? You mean like the one he was accused of calling someone a "fool" many times, when he never did? Like that? Gosh, what's wrong here. Could it be, the massive majority don't pay as much attention to words themselves? Or find it convenient or choose not to, for their own agendas? And that others know the irresponsible things they say will be quickly obscured and forgotten? And meanwhile everything Malleus has ever written can be analyzed and scrutinized, and no matter how long ago it was written, holds up solid as a nickel? Gosh, I see a different "pattern" than you. People are generally weak and let their emotions cloud their thinking, reading, writing. Malleus is more disciplined. It comes with being a great writer, me thinks. (Or, vice-versa, who knows.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I have already acknowledged that Malleus is a great editor and I have supported him in the past. I am also not going to keep posting here. What I am saying is that Malleus is not innocent here and that he has made plenty of comments to other editors that are rude, mean, unnecessary and inappropriate. I myself have been embroiled in drama and have retired from editing a couple times. I rarely edit articles these days, partially because some editors like Malleus seem to be allowed to do and say whatever they want to whomever they want with no repercussions while others of us are blocked or banned for much less. My point was that Malleus needs to look at things from the point of view of those he is commenting too and about. Also, although Wikipedia isn't censored, limiting the use of the terms F*** off and F*** you need to be included in that. I realize its hard sometimes to deal with those you don't agree with but this just isn't needed and isn't helpful. Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, the problem with your reasoning is that you throw out any consideration of context. Context is king. (Take for instance, the litany of abusive personal attacks Malleus recently received at Dennis's Talk, that is the kind of context I mean, that you are dismissing. And even tho Malleus was warranted to be abusive back, he wasn't, he was entirely professional about it. You also give him no credit for stuff like that. You seem to see only a selected perspective, void of context, and draw your conclusions from it. That's a mistake.) Happy 2013 New Year to you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no context that justifies telling another editor to F off, F you, your an F'ing idiot or the various other things I have seen Malleus tell other users he doesn't like or doesn't agree with. That also includes Dennis, but I have only seen Dennis do this once, this occassion, whereas I have seen Malleus do it several times. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(No, I was speaking about the PAs on Dennis's Talk made by MathewTownsend, not by Dennis.) I'll agree with you that saying F off, and so on, is always unnecessary. But that doesn't mean there's a context present that makes it unjustified, unethical, or even unprofessional. (It depends.) The context needs to be gone over carefully, and maybe even in some depth, to know or understand it. (And it's especially hard to not take personally, if one is involved, but doing so just clouds thinking. I do not believe Malleus ever intends injury using words, that his criticisms are most fairly interpreted as calls for others to do better, and, Malleus has high expectations of himself and of others, thus he is a "harsh task-master". But like a New Yorker, the fact he'd take the effort & time to give a criticism also means he sees potential in someone for improvement, so from that perspective it is a indirect sort of compliment, really. [Else, he wouldn't waste his breath, why would he? He doesn't need to "make [himself] feel better" thru insulting others, only weak people do that, and that isn't Malleus, for sure.] When Malleus bitches, there's always a reason for it.) Keep an open mind, and endeavor to improve always. I am convinced you will find Malleus the warmest of souls then. (Ask Pesky.) Happy 2013. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think MT is still upset over your dispute at GAN some six months ago. Perhaps there may have been some negative interactions afterwards, but I didn't see those — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility that MT isn't who she pretends to be? Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard suspicions, yes, but if MT is a clean start account... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a clean start if she continues to pursue those she regards as her enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I am not aware of any history between the two of you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're looking at the wrong username? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I have the feeling not. Starts with an M and has a double S — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate this conversation. If you've got something to say, just say it. And if you're going to, provide evidence of such. And this talk of a "she"? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't appreciate the conversation, feel free not to participate in it. From your comments over the past little while across a few pages it sounds like you need a break anyway. Crisco, I suspect you're right, but there's a history to find beyond here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite astonishing to see administrators acting like this. But in reality, it's really not that surprising as of late. I haven't participated this conversation in the least. One is allowed to read and a conversation and be outraged at its premise. It's nice to see you worrisome over me, but don't worry, I'm not the one with the problem. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of your concerns regarding administrators, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, in your case), I'm not quick to block. One is certainly allowed to read what they please, but if one is unappreciative of what one is reading, one would do well to simply walk away. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, (if you were someone who was quick to block) you would block a user for speaking their mind about concerns with administrators (without inserting any attacks into the mix, might I add), but not a user who has been constantly being uncivil to pretty much everybody for years? That seems to make a lot of sense. I am allowed to leave my disapprovement of a conversation, certainly also without being told that I should just ignore it. I would be interested in discussing this with someone actually in the conversation, and not by someone who is just monitoring this talk page. I'm not being uncivil about it, I want to have a conversation. You're not one to say whether or not I should. I don't even know who you are. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't block a user for speaking their mind about admins, that's practically a habit around here. I might block them for baiting or trolling, but am not inclined to do so (though I really question your assertion that you're "not being uncivil about it"). I can't force you to either follow policy or basic niceties, but I'm certainly "allowed to leave my disapprovement of a conversation" too. You express a desire to have a conversation; do you really think your approach is likely to result in one that is productive? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "baiting or trolling", I left an observation. Yes, I suppose it could be deemed as "harsh", but all I did was speak of how it came across in my eyes, as civil as such a thing could possibly be. You must certainly are allowed to disprove a conversation as well. Well, I did say "If you've got something to say, just say it", implying that if the conversation was to continue, that it be done in a non-shady way and done openly. Surely you can understand someone's discomfort in seeing such shady comments directed at another user based on speculation. Especially a user who is (semi) retired and cannot stick up for themselves. That's all I'm saying. Whether or not it's productive is out of my hands. It doesn't appear as if any productive conversation is happening here anyways. Emoticons are running on here, I personally think that everyone should take a wikibreak for a day. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that wasn't how you meant your comment, then I apologize for saying so - mininterpretation can be a problem of text-only communication, as I'm sure you're aware. You might check the diff that began this section: whether or not you agree with the user's sentiments, I think it's fairly clear why it might provoke some displeasure, and indeed the user can clearly stick up for him/herself when he/she chooses. A good reminder for all: context is important. With that, I'm to bed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of such problems in text communication. I do also have a problem with explaining things fully and properly, so it's probably my fault I made it sound like something it wasn't meant to be. Goodnight! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next Malleus

Wikipedia needs a highly able editor of iconic status who can be targeted by beady eyed, resentful users with little real talent to offer Wikipedia, but obsessed with the idea that they are in every sense the editor's equal. It's a bonus if the editor speaks his mind, so judgmental puritans and people who like to use a civility pillar as a battering ram can also have their day in the sun. You fill both roles to perfection Malleus. You have been encircled by these types lately, and I can't imagine how horrible that must be. These people believe you are the problem. They will momentarily realize if you leave that it is them that is the problem. They will be milling around looking for the new target. It's a tremendous service you have done, deflected that revolting energy away from other editors, and you should be awarded something major. If you do leave, some other poor fellow is going to have to fill your boots. Until that person is found, the next Malleus, the next community martyr, many other content builders will suffer. If you decide to edit from another account, you should have no trouble purchasing an admin account from a former schoolboy. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. But just so you know, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

There's no way to know what it is until MF tells us. --My76Strat (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My position is quite simple Epipelagic. I think that 99.99% of Wikipedia's content is crap, and wasting time arguing about me just proves how broken Wikipedia is. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the content is so crap, then why the hell are you still here? Clearly you just enjoy being disruptive for the fun of it. And you put some magic spell to make sure you're never "defeated". I've seen people saying you haven't been blocked because you're an "asset" to the project, when you, yourself, stated that 99.99% of the content here is crap. What gives? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fuck off? Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~See, right there, that's not very nice! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Whoever fights with [his/her perceived] monsters should see to it that in the process he[/she] does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you" (a paraphrase, with a small clarification to make it more apt in this case, from Frederick Neitzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil". It seems to me that some people could benefit from reading it, and should probably have read it a long time ago regarding this particular "diversion" from the main purpose of being a wikipedia editor.)

I'm an asset to the project, so is Drmies, Sitush, and many others here. Pretty sure most of us agree that at least 95% of wikipedia articles are in desperate need of expanding or wiping clean and restarting from scratch. That's not the point. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is inherently flawed, much like the way it is run, but people like us can make the difference in making articles decent or half decent and venturing into poorly covered parts of the project. We're never going to be able to cover as much as we want and it gets very frustrating at times knowing where to start because the task is so tremendous. But until something better comes along we're stuck with it, so let's try to produce a good resource and stop wasting so much time.. I believe that even if a new encyclopedia emerges which is far better than what wikipedia is currently and in the way it is run, I believe that the content being produced now will remain on the internet and continue to be developed over time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humble request for recommendation

Hi Malleus. Are you able to recommend a trusted copy-editor well versed in {{British English}} to apply their skills to Ely and Littleport riots 1816 during its peer-review ahead of its second GAN? Given the recent, and seemingly still continuing, attempts at baiting you, I can see why you might be frustrated and thus might refuse this humble request. I am more than reluctant to add to your troubles but nevertheless I trust your judgement so completely that I find myself with no real alternative. In any case my mother, bless her, always told me that "you get nothing if you don't ask" --Senra (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that you're calling for Malleus to be hanged by requesting him to edit?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

Dr. Blofeld: I am so sorry. Whilst I admit that British English is my first language, I do accept that I may not always use it correctly. Where in my request have I asked Malleus to edit? --Senra (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread it, "recommend". I'll take a look at it shortly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not ask Sandy, who just retired, with a complaint about administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]