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. 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.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Supernatural copyedit

I apologize if you saw my previous message and just haven't gotten around to replying, but I thought it might have gotten buried in the other conversations occurring on the page. Anyways, per your request, just giving a friendly reminder about No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural). Thanks. :) Ωphois 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through and made a few changes. I either didn't notice or had forgotten that it it was at FAC. Anyway, a few comments:

• "As Bobby blesses a waterline running to the sprinklers of Lilith's house ...". Lilith doesn't have a house does she? Isn't this the family home of the young girl that she's possessed?

• Yeah, the family home. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• You need to say that then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Sam insists that he will be saved, but Dean feigns reassurance as he hallucinates a demonic-looking Sam." I can't quite make sense of that. For one thing, how can any feign reassurance? Dean could pretend to be reassured of course. It seems like a strange conjunction as well; he's pretending to be reassured at the same time as seeing a demonic-looking Sam? Quite an act I'd have thought.
• Here is a fan-made transcript of the scene:

SAM: Look, we're cutting it close, I know. But we're gonna get this done. I don't care what it takes Dean. You're not gonna go to hell. I'm not gonna let you. (DEAN looks over at him) I swear. Everything's gonna be ok.

(DEAN looks at him, taking it in. Before he says anything his facial expression changes as he looks at SAM, he suddenly looks very scared. The camere cuts to SAM and we see his face completely distorted, flinging to the sides at a rapid pace. Then he changes back to SAM again, showing that this was just a hallucination.)

DEAN: Yeah, ok. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to the ten-day process as the 'Hell Shot'." What 10-day process?

• The process of rendering the HD video and adding visual effects. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• That needs explaining then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would this work? "The visual effects department also found it quite a challenge, often referring to their portion of the sequence—a ten-day process—as the "Hell Shot"." Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... the episode was originally intended to feature the return of Samantha Ferris as recurring hunter Ellen Harvelle." What's a "recurring hunter"?

• I'll change to "recurring character". Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as the grandfather is killed appears to be shot from inside one of the houses ...". The plot section mentions nothing about a grandfather being killed.

• Oops. Think it would be okay to add in an explanation to the filming section?
• "Although the sequence of Sam and Dean looking across the street as Lilith kills her host's grandfather—he had tried to request help from his neighbors—appears to be shot from inside one of the houses, the actors were actually standing on a two-story scaffolding across the street, looking through fake windows." Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I instead added it in to the third plot paragraph. Ωphois 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive", and Ackles was asked to sing off-key ...". I've never seen this programme, much less this episode, but I'm assuming that Ackles wasn't asked to sing off-key as part of the scene itself, i.e., as in Sam says to Dean "Hey, why don't you sing off-key?"

• That is why it says Ackles, not Dean. Ωphois 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• What this currently says is that "On their drive to New Harmony ... Ackles was asked to sing off-key", which isn't right. He was asked to sing off-key for the scene in which Sam and Dean drive to New Harmony. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. Would this work? "On their drive to New Harmony, Sam and Dean sing along to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive". To mask Ackles' "very impressive singing voice", Kripke asked the actor to sing off-key." or "Kripke asked Ackles to sing off-key to mask his "very impressive singing voice". Ωphois 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Either works for me, but I'd probably prefer the first. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just checking if the copyedit was complete? If so, thanks for your help on the article. I really appreciate it. Ωphois 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said I think in a few places the language is a still a little too informal, but perhaps the subject matter justifies that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that since it's a television article rather than a historical one, the language tends to be a tad bit different. Also, if it's not too much to ask, would you mind looking over Taare Zameen Par within the next couple of weeks? You don't have to copyedit it or anything if you don't want to, but rather just to give your opinion on whether the prose can handle a FAC? Either way, thanks again. Ωphois 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is just my opinion of course, but I think that the prose would take some flak at FAC, if only because it seems strangely unidiomatic in places and a bit forced. Which is a shame really, because it appears to be a pretty comprehensive account of this film. Perhaps someone else will offer an opinion as well, as I'm by no means always right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean India-related idioms, or in general? From my previous experiences and comments received, I would think that it would seem informal/unencyclopedic? Also, what do you mean that it sometimes feels "a bit forced"? Ωphois 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean things like "tells the story of an eight-year old child (Darsheel Safary) who suffers greatly until a teacher (Aamir Khan) identifies him as dyslexic". There's something about "suffers greatly" that just doesn't work for me; I can't really imagine a native English speaker saying it in that context. "Eventual exemption from the entertainment tax by the Maharashtra government briefly strengthened ticket sales in Mumbai." What does that actully mean? That the Maharashtra government imposed the tax or that they exempted the film from it? "Taare Zameen Par garnered near-universal praise". Wouldn't you agree that the hyphen looks strange? "Though it was India's official entry for the 2009 Academy Awards Best Foreign Film, Taare Zameen Par failed to make the short list. This loss stirred debate in India ...". What loss? "... he perpetually fails his tests and exams". Perpetually is an awful long time. "He also lacks motor coordination skills, even finding it difficult to throw a ball in a straight line." It's exceedingly difficult not to throw a ball in a straight line unless you can Bend it Like Beckham. "Ishaan's internal world is rich with wonders that no one else seems to appreciate". How could anyone possibly appreciate another's internal world? "Ishaan's father ... is a successful, shrill and busy executive". What does "shrill" mean here? He's got a high-pitched voice? I could go on and on. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So is your problem mainly related to the plot section? Someone else wrote that section, and I haven't really analyzed it in detail. Ωphois 01:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I went through and tried to correct any of those instances in the plot section. Coincidentally, the other user working on the article just redid/trimmed a lot of the lead that contained the instances mentioned above. Ωphois 01:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the plot section was definitely the worst, but there are some problems in other areas as well. For instance "He discovers that Ishaan is dyslexic and helps him to excel". Excel at what? Everything? "Excel" seems a strange choice of word here. Also, "The film initially was to retain the short story's title due to Ishaan's inability to achieve the high jump in gym class"; we're told this too late, in the previous section we're told that the story was originally called "High Jump" without explanation. It would be best to put these two bits together. It should be "... because of Ishaan's inability" in any event, not "due to". "He decided that his primary cinematic technique for the film would rely upon relatively little camera movement because he believed that the audience should not be aware of the camera." This seems a bit muddled; what was this primary cinemtic technique that he relied on? Wasn't the "relatively little camera movement". the technique itself? Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed all those instances except the last. The cinematic technique phrasing is based on comments made by the director. Do you think it would sound better to say that "his primary cinematic technique for the film would involve relatively little camera movement"? Or "He decided to allow relatively little camera movement because he believed..."? Ωphois 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably try something like "his primary cinematic technique for the film was to allow relatively little camera movement". Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I relistened to the commentary, and he doesn't say "primary cinematic technique". With this in mind, would "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that would allow relatively little camera movement."? Ωphois 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Believing that the audience should not be aware of the camera, he chose a simple shooting style for the film that involved relatively little camera movement" might be slightly better. BTW, isn't there now a symbol for the Indian currency, like there is for the pound sterling and the dollar? Should the article be using that? Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the change regarding the cinematic technique. As for the rupee, there is now a symbol for it. Right now, though, I think Wikipedia just uses a small image of it rather than regular text. Ωphois 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the redemption line that you just changed... Another user and I were debating the wording of it with regards to the commentary. A discussion on that and a quote of the commentary can be found on the talk page. Ωphois 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just making a suggestion, feel free to change it to whatever you think is better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. But do you think the sentence makes sense as "Ishaan's 'strict, hard, dominating father' who does not accept failure in his children, but is ultimately redeemed for this behavior by his change in outlook."? Ωphois 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To be completely honest no, I don't. I'm not the final arbitrator on anything here though, so perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Railroading

Please say what you mean about me having railroaded the Pound FAC process. I opposed the nomination because it wasn't ready for FA, either in terms of MoS-compliance, which I care less about, or in terms of writing and substance, which matters a lot. I didn't only oppose; I've also been helping to fix it, and it's a lot better now than it was. Here's the version as nominated; and here's the current version. The nominator and I were in touch by e-mail, and I specifically asked whether the help was welcome, and was told it definitely was, and in no uncertain terms. Since then we've been exchanging e-mails about which sources to focus on, and which bits we should try to develop, so until your remark it seemed to me to be a constructive collaboration.

This isn't the first time you've made a comment about my FA reviews, so I'd like to know what you mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just weighing in here quickly before I go to work. Yes, I have told SlimVirgin that the help was welcome. The problem with this page, in my mind, has always been content. Requests have been made to editors to have a look at the article with little to no response. What response has been given has been along the lines of copy-editing, but I've always felt the content was problematic and I'm happy to have SlimVirgin step up and help. She's correct in that the article was nominated prematurely which is why I've twice requested delisting. I should have ignored any suggestions to list, but didn't. Perhaps I shouldn't have had an off-wiki discussion during a FAC but I had personal issues I didn't really want to share with the entire world. I guess that's impossible in this world of Wikipedia, so here's the problem: during the summer I lost vision in my right eye but continued working on the page because I became interested in Pound. A little over two weeks ago I had surgery to restore vision - all good - but resulted in almost daily migraines. So now everyone knows. I cannot work on this page alone, and if someone wants to step up and help I'm fine. If the result of the FAC is good feedback and a better article, I'm happy. Sometimes taking a difficult page to FAC is what it takes to get reviews and good feedback. At this point my feeling is that if the page is archived that's fine, if not I'll continue to work on it. Either way it will improve and progress will be made. As for any history that exists between SlimVirgin and Malleus - I'd prefer it not be brought to this FAC. But this is Wikipedia and it's hard sometimes to control these things. I'm going to work now and won't have access to a computer or any electronic device for the rest of the day. Carry on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean that there's a line between collaborating and taking over that you sometimes seem to overstep. It's your opinion that the FAC was premature, not a fact, and at least one other reviewer doesn't agree with you that it's not ready now. Your determination seems to me just to have the FAC withdrawn, perhaps so that you yourself can bring it back later? Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ABF is amazing, Malleus. You think I want to have the FAC withdrawn so I can submit it myself? I don't know who you think you are that you can speak to people like that.

I've put a ton of work into trying to help with this, because it clearly wasn't ready for FAC, but it's a subject that's worth doing well. I hate opposing at FAC and only do it when it would feel dishonest not to, and if there's clear potential I prefer to help fix things and not leave the nominee hanging with an oppose to sort it out themselves.

But the point is that I don't think you should comment on other people's opposes at FAC. The whole point of FAC is to get lots of different views, unlike GA which is just one opinion. That variety can be lost if one reviewer is going to second-guess the others, and you do it a fair bit, though I've not seen people do it to you. So please, offer your own opinion about the articles, but not about other reviewers. No one should have to justify themselves to you, and you have no right to turn other people's desire to muck in and be helpful into some ulterior motive and toxic experience. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked me and I told you. It's got nothing to do with good or bad faith, notions that I think are intended to encourage the credulous to suspend their analytical abilities and to fall in step the crowd. Anyway, you've had your way, the FAC has been archived, so there's nothing more to say. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Please don't try and teach me how to suck eggs; I'm perectly well aware of how FAC and GAN work in practice and in theory, certainly at least as well informed as you are SV, so back off. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try to have the last word here. I don't like conflict and am sorry this happened. As it happens, both of you have been very helpful and supportive, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

SV and I disagree about a great many things, this has just been another one of them. It's all over now anyway and I wish you well with Ezra at your next attempt at the north face of FAC, assuming that there's going to be one of course. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to fail and I don't like to quit, so I expect there'll be another attempt. I think a little time away from that page and some work on other articles is what I need at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Sale, Greater Manchester took about 5 goes to get to FA. I wouldn't worry about it. Parrot of Doom 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Six actually, not quite a record but it must be close. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember it well (I was on time, no you were late ...). Sale was a tough gig, and it was the start of my fall from grace here on wikipedia, and I've never looked like recovering since. The moral of the story is ... well work it out for yourselves. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• There's nowhere really where my fundamental objections to the approach of reviewers like SV can be discussed, as it's endemic, not confined to FAC. SV is however an administrator and therefore outranks me, so my only recourse is not do any more reviews. It's no big deal though, as I know what makes a decent article even if others don't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have two points to make about this and then I hope we can put it to rest. In my view your argument would hold greater weight if six of the seven reviewers / commenters on the FAC page supported and only one opposed. As it happens, one opposed, one supported and the others commented. So in this case I think consensus is clear - one reviewer felt the article was FA ready, one not, and the rest sat on the fence. My second point goes to the difficulty of core topic articles. As it happens, Ezra Pound is a core biography, but it's just really difficult for a single editor to take on a large topic like this. While I was working on the page, I followed the various threads about why editors avoid core topics, thinking that I'm quite the idiot to attempt to overwrite/rewrite a big subject. So, in essence it's basically true that the big articles are near-to-impossible to finish. As it happens I'd like to see more of them upgraded and improved because I have students who go to Wikipedia for information and they don't go to find out about single episode television shows (not that I'm putting down single episode television shows!). At any rate I've learned from this experience, I'm a little burned out and need to regroup before deciding how to go forward. I posted on SlimVirgin's page that I'd like to see the article gain Good Article status, and I might pursue that in the next few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually your argument would hold more weight if the FAC had been allowed to run its course. Consensus is established at the end of the process, not at arbitrary points within it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I asked for the process to be stopped. So I'm a petulant child. Shall we have a fight about it or just drop it? If we fight you'll beat me to a pulp - though I might find myself getting really angry and I don't want to do that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Is there any point in continuing with this? You claimed that there was a consensus and I simply pointed out that that wasn't true as the FAC wan't allowed to run to completion. No doubt you and SV will in the fullness of time be able to produce the version that SV wants to write, but to be honest I'm past caring. Malleus Fatuorum 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Okay, I made a mistake about consensus. I apologize. Yes, I think we should drop it. I'm past caring too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Really guys, it isn't worth getting worked up over. You've all done a tremendous amount of work to improve an important article, so who cares if it wouldn't currently pass as an FA? I've worked on a few articles where, at the end, I've thought "bloody hell that's a good article". Then a few months later I look at it and notice all kinds of issues I previously hadn't. What I tend to ask myself is, "can I find a better, more reliable online biography on Joe Bloggs than the one I've helped write here?" If your answer to that is no, then you can consider your efforts a success. And at the end, you've all probably learned a lot about someone whom, until recently, you knew little or nothing. Parrot of Doom 12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, much as I hate to reignite an old flame, I was gone for the last week, just catching up now. Since what I saw the last time, revitsing, I think were were dead right on this one. Railroading. I think the cmt, "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone", was intended to neutaralise youself and myself, and notice the irony of how SV has disregarded her own advice and been heavily editing since. To be straightforward and frank, TK is too nice for tactics like this, and my strong impression is that there is pressure happening in back channels. I get the strong sence TK is vey upset at the way she is being talked to, offline. She has gone cold on a page she was very heavily invested in just a week ago. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony of SV's "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone" and the reality of her effectively forcing her own view on the article hasn't escaped me. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I sure you can appreciate the fustration of investing so much in a page, months and months of reading, notes, adding, tweaking, more reading, more adding, and on such a massively difficult subject, and then well, railroading, and attack. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can indeed. I think it's a crying shame that FAC can so often end up being rather a negative experience. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand. I've had a fair few negative experiences at FAC, but I've never had the article wrestled from me. Thats a different thing to having the shit kicked out of you. A beating I can handel, loss of control I cant. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd unwatched this page so hadn't seen these comments until SlimVirgin's accusation that I criticised her off-wiki. Yes, Malleus she asked that I respond to the railroading comment. I did find it unhelpful when the FAC was still open. I find these speculation unhelpful as well. I want to be very clear that it's speculation - I haven't shared any e-mail with anyone. I thought I didn't do wiki-drama. Apparently I do. But I won't in the future, because I won't be here to. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any off-wiki discussion of this article, and nor do I want to. SlimVirgin asked me a question and I gave her an answer. That she doesn't like my answer is no concern of mine, I stand by what I said. Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How could you? Your email is disabled. Anyway, all water under the bridge now, as far as I'm concerned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My email is not disabled, although it was for a while a month or two ago. I will simply say that I think you made a mistake in discussing this article's "improvements" by email with one other editor, as that gave a clear sign that nobody else's input was either welcomed or valued. Nothing good can come from continuing with this discussion, as the facts are plain to see, but as you say, it's water under the bridge now. I will be on the lookout for similar bridges in the future, and I will be avoiding them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know, as I walk away, that yes the facts are plain. But having you turn your back hurt. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I turned my back on the article, not on you. I hope after a break you can come back reinvigorated, whether or not you ever go back to Mr Pound. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracing

I've fixed the review points; thanks a bundle for reviewing something even I find bloody boring. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're ploughing a pretty lonely furrow with these legal articles, so I'm just helping where I can in my small way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated :). The plan is to get a Good Topic out of English trusts law, with full and up-to-date good articles on every element. Should be fun if I can do it. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Law" and "fun" in the same paragraph, that's got to be a first. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're a long way from home for me, and I've been promising myself some time to work on the later Lancashire witch trials, as well as some of the Scottish ones, to say nothing of Matthew Hopkins. I wish you all luck though with what is a fascinating episode in American history. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR begging

Hi Malleus! There are a couple of FARs that could use your opinion, if you would like to give it:

• WP:Featured article review/World Science Festival/archive1
• WP:Featured article review/Selena/archive1 (this is a pop culture/music one, not your normal fare, so I don't know if you'll be interested)

Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest. If not, no worries! Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've commented on the World Science Festival, but I'll need to think about Selena. That looks like rather an ill-tempered review, and I've had about enough of those for a while. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the WSF review. The Selena one has gotten a little heated at times; I can see your point about not wanting to get involved :) Another one, though, that I came across if you're interested: Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Catlins/archive1. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Recent events surrounding this FAR and a couple of others have persuaded me that FAR has become too dispiriting to invest any effort in. I'm not even sure I'd bother if one of my own FAs was dragged off there, much less something that another editor probably wrote years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alsager

Hello. I am not spamming, I am simply adding a useful information to the page and adding the source of the information I contribute. Could you please let me know what makes you think I am spamming? I am simply following Wikipedia's rules to include the source of the information I enter into the system.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are spamming, please stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really not spamming. Seriously. A friend of mine added this info with her account and when it was removed, I added it with my account to see if this was an issue with her account being relatively new. Feel free to remove the links / brand names if you think I am spamming but I don't believe it is fair not to include the source of the information you enter into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Emrahomuris, the link you are adding is a commercial website, and as such can be considered spam. Also, extensive information on housing prices, such as you are adding, is not something that should be located on WP. Please see city articles listed at WP:GA and WP:FA - none of them have information like this included. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Big thank you!

Malleus, you are saving my ass over on the SWT page. Thank you for your help and generous support. I am really trying to improve the content of the page, but I'm not great at the code stuff--I am a writer, but not a computer person, and I get confused. Right this minute we're working together on the page, which is terrific. I just wanted to say a more personal thanks. And by the way, I agree with your banner message here at the top of your talk page. It's hard for me to edit on Wiki, and I don't feel very welcome often. But I'm going to try to hang in there and get done stuff that matters to me. I hope you'll do the same, because we need you--I need you. --TEHodson 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an important article, and it deserves some attention. Sadly though it looks like only you and I have stepped up to the plate so far. I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't get involved, but well, you know. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, had decided not to go back after all the fuss, but then I imagined school children reading the article and I just cringed. I will keep at it until I either burn out or get attacked again. Where are you? I'm on the west coast, USA. --TEHodson 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know where you are (I have excellent eyesight). You are in the North of England, Manchester area, I imagine. It's funny, but I ran into The Parrot of Doom once, when he dissed me (mildly) on another witch trial page. He made me laugh, actually, and when I went to his talk page to check him out, I saw you there. So you see, we must be related. --TEHodson 05:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your eyesight is indeed excellent. In fact, Parrot of Doom and I live only a few miles apart. Malleus Fatuorum 10:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I just came on and discovered that the user who has been driving us nuts on the SWT page has been blocked due to harrassment of others. This is my first taste of Wiki drama--I didn't report him, but I guess other users had had enough. Anyway, now maybe we can get some work done. Oh, and tell the Doom Parrot I said, Hi. You gotta love a guy whose talk page introductory note essentially says, "Don't fuck me about or I'll eat your children." --TEHodson 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

Interesting discussion on WP:TFAR about Grace Sherwood. It caused me to take a look at the above article which, unsurprisingly, is as shit as they come. Do you fancy taking it on at some point, as we did with Gunpowder Plot? If only to eliminate the largely irrelevant Trick or Treat section. Parrot of Doom 09:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We could have a go at it if you like, but probably best not to start until after this year's Halloween. Looks like it needs a lot of TLC though. Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I might start hunting around to see what I can find. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any reason ...

I shouldn't co-nom you with Jersey Act? Not your usual "I didn't do much" but any plans for other articles to go up at FAC of yours? (I just ignore your modesty ... you do a lot and I wish there was more I could do to praise/support/etc you). And if you want to wordsmith a bit more and remove more "act"s, I'm good with that. We can't get away from titling the article that (It's pretty much the "common name" but there is no reason to not make it clear in the text that it was not a "real" act. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason I can think of; I've got nothing in the pipeline for FAC. I think the "Acts" are pretty much OK now as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Malleus, I see you have done a lot of work on Simon Byrne today. Thanks for that - I appreciate it. I won't be joining in the FARC fun myself - the instigator is already spoiling for a fight and I've been there too many times and have too many T shirts to prove it. I see my goal at Wikipedia these days as raising dull old stubs to half decent pages - rather than spending ages arguing ascendingly pedantic points over already half decent pages with those too lazy or too stupid to insert the latest requirement and whim themselves. It's always a complete mystery to me that with so many truly dreadful pages to chose from, people who consider themselves intelligent choose to spend years of their lives trawling Wikipedia' finest in order to nit-pick rather than doing something useful and constructive. Very sad.  Giacomo  18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have got myself involved in a few of these FAR/GARs recently, partly because I think it's often lazy to nominate an article for review instead of making an effort to fix it up to meet whatever the current requirements are. I feel much the same about the disfiguring tags too often inserted into articles, when a few moment's work could resolve the issue. I've been battling with the Salem witch trials today as well though, so I haven't spent as much time on Simon as I might otherwise have done. I've yet to do a proper search of what sources are available to fill in the citation gaps being complained about, but I'm not one to give up without a fight. A bit like Simon himself really I suppose. I know where you're coming from in raising stubs to something better, and I often do the same myself; it's a lot less hassle, but the grey goo still needs to be kept at bay as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, there are worse ways of keeping the grey goo at bay than taking a beautiful Autumn day off work to take clandestine interior shots with mobile phone concealed in a guide book [1] - and feel one has scored a victory over the retired and sensible looking establishment figures who patrol such places - it's just far more rewarding than banging one's head aganst a brick wall here in order to score a short-lived victory over an unworthy opponent.  Giacomo  19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Simon Byrne's FAR isn't a fight with the nominator for me, it's a fight to do enough to the article so as to avoid the next phase, which surely can't be all that hard? Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are right because in my experience, once de-listed these people forget all about a page as they scurry off to seek out the next victim. Leaving the old former FA a muddled mess of half fixes and views and if the original authors whose work and integrity has been rubbished don't fix it up then it declines further. Quite how that is supposed to help the project, I have never understood.  Giacomo  20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Once the spotlight is switched off the article tends to abandoned to its fate, and that doesn't really help anything. Hence it's worth fighting for at FAR/GAR. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent (well not so recent anymore, since it's been going on for quite a while now) trend to use FAR to bludgeon certain editors is a concern. With so many truly troubled old FAs out there, I fail to understand Cirt's noms, and wish s/he would find another place to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand Cirt's nominations perfectly well, as does Giano judging by his comment below. What I take great objection to is Cirt's failure to raise any issues on an article's talk page before waltzing straight off to FAR and putting everyone's back up with his mean-spirited behaviour. I suppose that's another block on its way now, but I'm well past caring about that. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In my capacity as an admin I have reviewed this and recent comments, and find them not worthy of block or censure. I saw the ANI thread about MF. I don't plan to comment further. Carry on. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Whose recent comments are you talking about? Because if it's Cirt's then I'm afraid that I can't agree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments. i was directly responding to your sentence: "I suppose that's another block on its way..." Gimmetoo (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. And how long before Cirt's behaviour is similarly examined? Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Category add

Hello, could you add a category to Cement lorry rammed into Leinster House. I haven't found anything suitable to add. Thanks. (I asked Ceoil, but he seems to be away) Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already got three categories, isn't that enough? Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies...must've not refreshed the page 0.o .Smallman12q (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy call

Yes, really, a courtesy call from me to you. I don't know that you will necessarily want to wade into this conversation, but I was reviewing open unblock requests and found that at User talk:Protector of Wiki our relationship or lack thereof has somehow become at least the partial focus of PoW's unblock request and nobody bothered to tell either of us. It seems he wishes to paint himself as your disciple. I'll just leave it that, you can see it for yourself . Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. What an extraordinary discussion; how on Earth did I get dragged into that unblock request? I'm not particularly happy to see so many familiar faces trotting out their distaste for me over a matter that's got absolutely nothing to do with me, but I'm sure you'll understand that I've got no intention of taking part in that discussion, and probably neither should you. On balance though I'd probably be inclined to endorse your "I would feel compelled to oppose unblocking someone who adopted Malleus as their role model". Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale Observer needs panel-beating

Could you possibly softly swing your hammer into this little stub?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't do "softly". ;-) What is it you want help with? Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Last time I saddled up my kangaroo and rode down to the University of Woop-Woop Library, there was something of a dearth of information about this particular newspaper. GNews and Gscholar aren't much use to me, as my computer is powered by a trio of trained bandicoots running around a treadmill, and my modem is an out-of-date surly wombat. Just wondering if you could improve on it a little?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Last time I added a message on User:Reginald Scot's talkpage, he said, "Me and MF? Sound. We're mates, just tell him Reggie said to call."

Ah! I'll see if I can maybe dig something up before the vultures descend again. Just out of interest, why is someone on the other side of the planet interested in the Rochdale Observer? Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC question

Malleus, could I ask a favour? I've opposed the FAC of Old St. Paul's Cathedral, here, and I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether my oppose is reasonable. Some of the points I raise are marginal or subject to interpretation; my main concern is finding so much to say so near the top of the article. If someone were to oppose a FAC of yours with the comments I've made, would you feel that was fair? Mike Christie (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's always going to be "miffing" to get an oppose, but I don't see anything unfair in your comments. There does seem to have been a subtle change in the sense of what some of the sources say and the interpretation in the article– your very valid comment about the "series of storms" caught my eye in particular. It also struck me that nothing you raised seemed to be particularly difficult to fix, so if it was my nomination I'd just fix it, look for other places where the same issues may have been introduced, and fix them as well. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the second opinion; I thought I was being fair but it's always helpful to hear someone else's take. I agree that it doesn't seem that hard to fix. I was tempted to go and edit the article myself and fix some of the issues, but I don't want to treat FAC as a place to find articles to work on -- I think FAC works better if the conveyor belt moves reasonably quickly. Thanks again -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...And speaking of Manchester...

Who ever thought that the Manchester Police twitter feed would make headlines on this side of the pond? Seems there is at least one thing that Canada and Britain have in common...terrible use of emergency services... Risker (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the British probably have more in common with the Canadians than with the Americans. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

¡La lucha de las galletas continúa!

Every time I think this country's history couldn't get any weirder, it manages to surprise me. I can't imagine any other place having a thousand-year tradition of congenital disability-themed baked goods. This in particular has surely got to be the second most disturbing biscuit-related image on Wikipedia. – iridescent 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice article, could perhaps even make a good April 1 contender. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a bit reluctant for the same reason I was reluctant when Tarrare was suggested; although these people are all long-dead (and quite possibly apocryphal) there are plenty of real people with similar conditions. While I'm sure every real-life conjoined twin has long since got over the fact that people stare and point, there seems something a bit mean-spirited about playing what are effectively articles about disabilities for laughs. If it were suggested for TFA, I'd want to run it by the WP:DISABILITY people first to gauge their opinion on how offensive people are likely to consider it. (If it runs anywhere, I'd rather it be Easter. I can guarantee it would get vandalised to hell and back, though.) – iridescent 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, but there's always somebody ready to be offended by anything. While you're here can you tell me why I can't move London Prize Ring rules to London Prize Ring Rules? Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because London Prize Ring Rules had a history, so needed to be deleted to make way for the other version. Now done. – iridescent 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Sometimes not having that delete button can be a bit of a PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Could I trouble you to do the same with the Marquess of Queensberry rules? Malleus Fatuorum

✓ Done. While I'm here, can you see a DYK in Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst? It feels like it ought to be brimming with them, but I can't see anything particularly catchy. That image really deserves a turn on the main page. – iridescent 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One jumps out at me: "... that conjoined twins Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst argued frequently and often came to blows?" What a nightmare that scenario conjures up! Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to go with anything that treats them as definitely genuine; the story reeks of bullshit to me. When Bondeson talks about it being impossible to dismiss, he's talking about the medical possibility; it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that any woman in 12th-century Kent would own 20 acres of land, let alone non-Norman conjoined twins. (I'd have thought they'd be more likely either to be killed and exorcised as demons—an 1100 birth would have had them born at around the time William II died, and after all that "comet of 1066" business the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't welcome anything that looked like a portent of doom—or else they'd have been shipped off to be exhibited in Normandy.) – iridescent 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that the story is bullshit, but then so is DYK most of the time. :-) Whether they were real or not is impossible to know, and doesn't seem all that important to me now, nearly a thousand years later. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit or not, I've nominated the article at DYK, staying away from issues raised above. My personal opinion is that the evidence points towards 1500-34 being their lifespan, which nicely removes them away from Billy the Frog and superstitions about comets. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Knock yourself out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hrs

The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end. It doesn't cover blatantly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT denial that someone else saw it as a personal attack and continuing to insist that they couldn't reasonably have done so.

Good faith and your sincere belief that the civility rules are way too harsh covers the original comment. But when you reject anyone else's having taken offense as illegitimate, you're disavowing responsibility for the effects that you have on others. And that is abusive. You are responsible for those effects, even if you feel that you're within your rights to make biting commentary and use naughty words. When they offend people, their taking offense is as legitimate a reaction as your sincere belief that the civility rules are too harsh. When you belittle them or ridicule them for complaining, it delegitimizes your original stance.

I believe you that you had no intent to abuse Cirt originally; you did so in responding as you did. You don't have to agree with people who complain about your comments, nor do you have to meekly abide by every "Oh, he used a naughty word!" complaint.

Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend. "I didn't mean that as a personal attack" and not questioning their motives would be a perfectly neutral and non-escalating position to take that doesn't delegitimize your feelings about the civility policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You really have gone too far this time George, but I bet you're being cheered in the gutters of wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked—the comment did not merit a block, and I can't see how disagreeing over whether Cirt saw it as a personal attack is blockworthy behavior. Ucucha 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then obviously you're not a colonel in the civility police. GWH is on a mission, and it's about time that he was blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend raises an interesting point wrt Cirt's approach to FAR-- an apt description. I do wish s/he would find another place to work, as FAR has become so demoralized, no longer a fun place to work to restore articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end." Can somebody explain what that means? Is it English? Richerman (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't help you -- I read it four times and still haven't figured it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Malleus is "hanging himself" with the rope of making incivil comments; if he reaches the end of the rope, he will merit a block by Georgewilliamherbert. His comment to Cirt did not take him to the end of the rope, but his later comments at ANI did. Ucucha 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be, but personally I don't have a fucking clue what he's talking about :-) Richerman (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Uchucha correctly interpreted it. My apologies for it not being sufficiently clear and self-evident. Obtuse language in warnings or blocks is certainly not helpful, which I will keep in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's unhelpful George, and that's you. Now go away and try pulling someone else's chain. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you blocked Malleus. This is exactly why I refused to have anything to do with Cirt and his FARC. As far as I'm concerned he is trolling troublemaker and should not be alowed with tem kilometres of anything written by Bishonen or myself. It's a disruptive waste of time trying to bring the page up to scratch as no matter what you do he will keep going on and on. Thanks for trying with the page anyway. Just leave it alone and I hope all others follow my advice also. Allow Cirt "improve" the encyclopedia as he and his friends see fit.  Giacomo  09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration, this is my view [2] Let those so determined and worried, fix the pages up themselves or shut up. At the end of the day, if the "writing editors" refuse to have anything to do with their pages, they begin to look rather silly and pointless don't they?  Giacomo  10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up, Malleus. Just ignore the small-minded peope and their slavishly biased admin corps. Go about your business and remember you do have a lot of supporters; don't let the small number of biased civility police and their howling slavish mob get to you. You're one of the few editors that improves Wikipedia, and frankly I admire your bluntness. It's rather refreshing. Skinny87 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My Little Chickadee

1940 movie, W.C. Fields and Mae West. At one point West's character, Flora Belle Lee, is on trial. Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?" Flora Belle: "I'm trying to hide it." Consider the net effects of hiding it every so often. PhGustaf (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice quote, I'll bear it in mind. I've always been a fan of W. C. Fields. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox monastery

Is there any way to turn off the link to Dissolution of the Monasteries when the disestablished field is used. See reason at Template talk:Infobox monastery. Also, does this template support the pushpin map, as {{infobox church}} does. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Morn has today added a nodislink parameter that will do what you want.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is working fine. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for this attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, MF, it's just a three-ring circus, so we may as well have a good block party. Here's some random fodder for discussion: 11 out of 20 for me, anyone else want to weigh in? Oh, but this one scores 10 out of 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The Frisky

Can someone provide a diff to the alleged infraction please. Wasn't the immediate prior block due to the "lazy" comment? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The diff is in the block above-- I've translated at ANI. Now, do you have anything important to add on my 11 out of 20? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Rlevse: I never called anyone lazy, that what was your colleague Cirt called me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... and you're welcome to go screw yourself right now SarekOfVulcan. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And nothing from you either on my 11 out of 20? This block party is no fun; I shall have to ping Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm in rather a dark mood Sandy, and more than a little fed-up with the evident and on-going corruption on display here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes all you can do is laugh, Malleus. Unfortunately, I'm not as effective at producing that effect as Moni is, and although she seems to have telepathic abilities (I didn't ping her), our resident comic is under the weather. I'm sorry about your dark mood-- the whole situation is just pathetic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just one incident too many for me. Unless I see someone swinging from a tree because of the events over the last day or so I don't think I'll be helping out here again. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh dear, we seem to be having a "lets put Malleus's edits under the microscope and kick him day" because that is always far easier than looking for the wisdom and unsettling truth in what he actually says in his greater message. Only a fool would think it serves any purpose to block for this [4] and only a school of seals applaud it. So why is this the case - that's the important question and no, it's not rhetorical and furthemore, English is not my first language so must allowancies be made for that?  Giacomo  18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's a day that's been just around the corner for some time now, but the hyenas have finally gathered their courage for what they think could be the final attack. Who knows, maybe there are enough dishonest editors here on wikipedia to let them get away with it; I suspect that there, as most of the decent ones steer well clear of the drama boards where these gangs of admins congegrate. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a sinus infection and I've been sleeping all day after coughing all night. Now my voice is gone, but not Bonnie Tyler or Demi Moore stripped, just...aw, she's really gross stay away from her kind of gone. I'm way out of it and everything seems surreal to me. I can't make any sense out of the block or that list Sandy just linked to. All of you seem to be wearing purple elephant costumes. Is that what I'm supposed to do too? I don't want to. I don't understand why Malleus was blocked the first time nor the second. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, screw it, I have no desire to wait and see who reverses this block while I listen to people complain about how corrupt I am. Reversed myself. Have fun. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were corrupt, just that I don't understand what's going on. Why did you block him in the first place? Or the second place, as it were? --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake - cut the self pity. (not you Moni). Hopefully Malleus has learnt a valuable lesson (I told him so) leave FAR and FARC, in fact all Wikipedia pages to those who enjoy such antics - just write and let the non-writing administrative staff have it entirely their own way.  Giacomo  18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What you say is true, but there's a deeper issue, which is that I will not be treated like a child, to be stuck in the naughty corner. That is, at least to me, completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But Malleus, all of Wikipedia's finest editors are forced to live in the naughty corner. Would you know anyone elsewhere. Rather like going to Heaven, it's all very well, but would one like the people.  Giacomo  18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that over the last day or so, since this storm in a teacup erupted. Despite what some have embedded in their wooden skulls I actually have a great deal of respect for quite a few administrators, although admittedly not into the high hundreds, and almost without exception they're the ones who actually write stuff. There's something rotten in the State of Denmark. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners are much more fun..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish that you'd go away and play somewhere else Sarek. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was on Glee the other day. Even though I woke up like 45 minutes ago, it's slow going for things making sense. That makes none and surely I would be mocked mercilessly for providing song lyrics (preferably ABBA or something similarly sublime) as a reason for making a block. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ABBA????? eeewwww.....Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Silence, mortal. ABBA are gods. You have no taste. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Take that. Now get back to work-- with Karanacs offline, FAC needs all hands on deck, and there is no rest for the weary, Malleus. I keep going, so can you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... I've also been wondering whether this is some kind of a record. An editor blocked twice during an FAC for which they are a co-nominator/nominator? Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If we told you that it wasn't, it would just encourage you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

.. whereas you on the other hand need no encouragement at all to keep prodding and poking. Please go away and try to pick on someone your own size next time, another admin let's say. Let's see how brave you are then; I'm just easy meat. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool it, Malleus, that was tongue in cheek. I'm sorry you took offense where none was intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell what you intend; all I can see is a gang of admins determined to drive me away. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not part of any gang here. I don't even join Wikiprojects. I'd be happy to work with you on absinthe whenever you like, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That time has passed; there are still no heads on spikes, and I'm no longer prepared to work in an environment where I'm treated like a naughty child. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As an attorney who works juvenile court, I don't even treat naughty children like naughty children, so let your heart be at peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Malleus' point is valid. Content editors are often treated like children and admonished for not following such and such rule or policy. This was the case here. Malleus was correct about where to place a citation, and he was actually improving an article - for that he gets blocked. I think we should organize a content editor strike and just hang around talk pages and chat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Lord-- you're the second person to suggest that today. I secretly love the idea, but I'd be shooting myself in the foot at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly cut down on the FAC nominations, which would mean you would have more time to—have more time to—OK, it's a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

11 out of 20, Wehwalt !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm already on strike; let's see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Malleus was just caught up in a bad faith nomination by Cirt; Malleus's "crime" was that he failed to appreciate that no matter what he did to the page, Cirt would continue criticising and demanding. It was supposed to be me that lost my cool and be banned - there the trap failed but caught Malleus instead, but no Admin was bright enough/wanted to see that. GWH should loose his tools for causing all this trouble.  Giacomo  22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was too stupid/trusting to believe what you were telling me. I feel rather foolish now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well I am a very wise person. I have not been blocked for ages - I'm either aging or slipping.  Giacomo  22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they aren't going to succeed unless you let them, so stop wearing your heart on your sleeve. John's misread of your intent, motivations and post is apparent to anyone who can read. Try to consider this hopefully a good heads up for admins to stop their childish squabbling at AN/I and start paying attention, and maybe even a chance for FAR to begin to turn around, because the trend there needs to be reversed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It won't happen. You know that, I know that. I've probably done all that I can here in the current environment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• A block for pointing out that John was twisting Malleus's words so much that he was effectively lying? Idiocy. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • just the way it works here. I'd say dishonest as well as idiotic. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Hey Martian sex worker

Are you saying that you are prostituting yourself by labouring in the WP salt mine?
So you are probably paid in some Wikipedia-only currency, like kobo or stotinki?
How do the rest of us get paid for enduring the physical and mental abuse?
Varlaam (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (on Phobos)

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I make this section heading appear by dreaming it? --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have dreams about this sort of thing? John Carter (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was limited to teenage boys?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just great. I try to launch a Newlywed-type game to see who knows me best (guess the 11 out of 20), and I'm pre-empted by Martian sex workers. I guess I'll go badger Moni's TPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, let's see, Sandy or Martian sex workers ... Sandy or Martian sex workers ... how are you on those leather harness things?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are no cows on Mars, so I win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone calling out "Hey, Martian sex worker" is something I would totally dream. Or maybe it was me calling that out in the dream. Because the rest of that 8-hour mystery is trying to figure out why I would want to know who the Martian is and how hookers on Mars might be able to stay financially afloat. What kind of clientele do they have? Or maybe I want to know why someone is mistaking me either for a Martian or a hooker. In any case, it's a dream I would wake from completely exhausted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the categories at the bottom of my user page. Someone (I forget who) thought it would be amusing to add some after I made a comment to the effect that if X was true then I was a Chinese whore from Mars. Which I'm not btw, well, not Chinese anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good, another way for the Riggr family to have fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Riggrs? They're mortis. He said stiffly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ave, Malleus

Malleus, I have been an anonymous admirer of your work for some time, and thought now would be a good time to express my gratitude and admiration for what you do. I have been chewing on the "Andrew Sledd" biography for some time, and have spent considerable time and effort finding good sources for the content. It is currently rated as a GA, and I would be grateful for your suggestions to improve it in whatever wiki forum you think is most appropriate. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wikipedia and I, or at least wikipedia's police force and I, do not at the moment see eye to eye, so I can't help. Why not ask one of the administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because most of them are not very good at it, and you are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not my problem, that's wikipedia's problem. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My final thoughts

A project written by educated adults policed by school kids cannot possibly succeed. Something fundamental needs to change to here, and until it does you can count me out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, it is not news that this place isn't run properly. You've known that for ages. Hang with Ealdgyth for a while or something, she will keep you out of trouble! ;) Anyway, these guys don't have that much power. While you don't need to do things that produce tension with those guys, even if you do ... well ... the blocks aren't even sticking these days. You'd essentially be giving them victory when they are nowhere near it. Stick with it! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Agree. Malleus, there are massive problems on Wiki, but you are one of the editors who puts highly visible content on the mainpage. The remaining 99% of the Wiki isn't something any of us should lose sleep over, and you certainly shouldn't let that remaining 99% influence your decisions! It has always been true that 1% of Wiki articles are worth reading-- why worry yourself about the rest out there? If other editors who put up Wiki's best work had a problem with you, I might see it differently. You are known by the company you keep, and you keep company with the editors who are putting forward Wiki's best work. Avoid the lowest common denominator effect! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Malleus. He was improving an article - he made many edits, but his efforts were denigrated. When he - OMG! - used a bad word he was blocked! Either this project is about writing and writers are allowed to write, or it's not about writing and instead about pushing personal agendas. I think it's become about pushing personal agendas and has ceased to be about writing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that John should start the RfC that he's obviously so determined to have. Who knows, it may even teach him a lesson that he otherwise seems to be incapable of learning. On the other hand it may expose wikipedia's governance as the dishonest sham that it is. Who can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

MF, I think you got a bum rap on this one. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I have only the vaguest of vague notions what the heck is going on here, but I beg you not to desert the ship. In my brief time here, I've seen some extraordinary rudeness and a great deal of smug superiority, all in users who seem to get away with it no matter how insulting, and ultimately discouraging to others, their behavior becomes. I am surprised you got blocked and chastistied; I hadn't realized sarcasm was a criminal offense here. I confess to having been both exasperated and sarcastic on occasion. Should I be worried? The admins seem to be a bit, shall we say, humorless? I do hope you will come by the Salem Witch Trials page next week (how apropos) to see the progress I'm hoping to have made by then, and tell me what you think (including criticising as necessary). You have been only kind and helpful to me (I hope this doesn't shock the Administrators too much), and I am grateful for the support you've shown. Take care. --TEHodson 02:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Malleus Fatuorum, I wanted to express my apologies to you, if you thought that my use of the word "lazy" in this comment at FAR [5] was meant to be applied to you. It was not. That was not my intention. I have stricken that part of my comment [6]. I am sorry. I will try not to use the word "lazy" in comments on Wikipedia discussion-pages in the future - as you are correct that such a word could be taken the wrong way. Once again, I am sorry that my comment was misconstrued in such a fashion. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)