User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Archives

2007 April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2010 January • February • March • April • May • June • July  • August • September • October • November • December 2011 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

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

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Can we break it down?

I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's ever going to to be a general solution to this problem, but I do like the suggestion made by Ruhrfisch on Shackleton's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though whilst it seems better to say "X was born in such-n-such a place, County Y, Ireland, and descended from an Anglo-Irish family who settled in 17xx" it is quite a mouthful. I believe that Anglo-Irish is quite an old socio-economic term, class, and rarely used in modern BLPs, if has its place in many articles regarding people from the 17-19th C. and that heritage is as important an identity as nationality. I wonder if the Americans have as many problems with the subsequent generations who derived from the English settlers who formed the colonies pre-revolution, or use of Anglo-American as we have with the Irish, assuming some American's weren't too proud to use that term. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MarcusBritish – history repeats itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so tired of all these charges of incivility against all and sundry, as if that trumps everything. So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of attitude that led to several centuries of suffering under the English in Ireland.Hohenloh ⁺ 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd thought that the Internet was a relatively recent invention. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input in the AN/I and WQA. Don't think I'd go so far as to ban the Irish.. that courtesy should be extended only to extremists and fanatics of any political/religious group. And devoted fans of modern "music". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that saying go? "When the shit hits the fan.." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Re: Sheodred — Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the banner ad to take part in a survey organised by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and just made $21.60, far more rewarding than another fucking barn star! Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! More of that kind of banner adds please!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, first time I've been paid for doing anything via WP. Though, I made $21.00, and gave half to the Red Cross - does that make me a wikisaint? Or is it all a wikicon? Nortonius (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how I hate Game theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$15 - it randomly chose my lowest earning section, unless it was assessing the relative contributions Malleus and I make to the 'pedia (then tripling mine so I felt better). Hardly seemed worth keeping... I would have ignored that ad, Malleus, but for seeing this on my watchlist, so thanks for highlighting it. Bencherlite^Talk 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm the winner then! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I'm going to block you until you pay me your winnings. Stick 'em up, this is a robbery! Hah! Now we're talking admin abuse! Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pay you a very great compliment, which is that I'd forgotten that you are an administrator. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, I have $28 coming. Bielle (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you must have been allocated rational partners. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got $35! Winnah! ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you owe me half of that, because you probably wouldn't have followed the link if I hadn't mentioned it here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So true, I'd actually closed that banner without a second thought until I saw money mentioned...I agree you have earned a reward. Have a hug. It's more valuable anyway. *cough* ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wanna link it? I closed it back a while ago... on reflex (from all the Jimbo begging ads...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the link to the survey since closing it, but maybe someone else does? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post a link, I don't think, because it requires a token. But I logged in on a different browser and the banner magically reappeared for me. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. $15, and I was not nice and didn't donate any, mainly because I don't like the International Red Cross (I do donate to local chapters, just not big multinational organizations that aren't very accountable) and I donate quite enough to Wikipedia, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be on commission. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a girl, right? I find hugs from blokes quite scary. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edito conflicto I am, yes. Why are hugs from blokes scary? You get to do that man thing where you gruffly hit each other in the back in an affectionate way. At least I assume that's affection. Hmm. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm English; we don't go in for displays of affection, especially between gentlemen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Scottish; all those hugging men I saw were probably trying to fight each other only they were too drunk to stand up without support. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$29.60, nice. I was very generous/altruistic on one test & got $1 when B got $29, but made it up by being super-mean on another. Yes, more of these please. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was altruistic on all and still made 27 bucks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the link to the survey Bielle (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues are being raised about this survey. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean here presumably? Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppressed my banner-suppression preference too late, too late! The quota for the sample had already been met. But thanks for the heads up! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got 100,000,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars. Did I do the right survey? Ning-ning (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My £12.98 came through today. My first ever earnings from Wikipedia. I'm impressed. Give me more. He he --Senra (Talk) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My $28.00 (country unspecified in the original promise) arrived in my PayPal account today as 20 Euros 44, which then became $US 25.44. So, did they follow through on their commitment, or have I been short-changed? Enquiring minds are enquiring. Bielle (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the top of the thread leads me to wonder: so how much is a barnstar worth? Suppose you have received a really nice barnstar, with kind words about your contributions and your general positive effect on Wikipedia. How much cash would you accept for it to be deleted, oversighted, gone without trace, so that it remains only a lingering memory?

That has to be a good question for the festive season :) Geometry guy 23:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it: I would readily pay a small monthly amount for the privilege of editing an otherwise identical version of Wikipedia with no 'barnstars' and no 'talkback' templates. Hans Adler 02:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans I bet your house is spartan, white and serious-looking....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My house is like a building site ... actually it is pretty much a building site right now. But to echo Hans, I'd be prepared to pay for a site that wasn't run by children with an inflated sense of their own importance and a surreal idea of incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the value of barn stars is coloured by having one given and taken away within a few weeks, after having upset a (now) administrator. I generally ignore them, so the answer to your question is that I'd be quite content for them to be deleted without any payment whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus edits wiki because he likes to, not to get awards. PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, as you can see by the way I do not collect or maintain any record of my "achievements" or "awards" (I don't even have a user page). Nevertheless, I've received barnstars containing appreciative words from editors I admire (the above admin would not fall into such a category, obviously). How much is that worth in cash? I'm not sure, which is one reason I am asking the question. Geometry guy 00:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question, with potentially revealing answers. For myself, I'm much happier with a few words of thanks rather than a barn star; those words can't be taken away no matter what happens next. Basically I have no time at all for any rewards that can subsequently be withdrawn (I'm reminded of the shameful rule that VCs could be taken back if the recipient later did something unsavoury), which is why I have a minimal set of user rights here, not even rollback. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also value the words much more than any barnstar containing them (if there is one). It is interesting that you bring up user rights. I don't regards them as rewards, but as tools that help me to contribute when I need them. If someone were to take them away without good reason, then it would reflect badly on them, not on me, as they would be impairing my ability to help. Geometry guy 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can't see why you don't have rollback, Malleus. That is, unless you don't want it for some reason. Any admin can just give it to you, and there's no need to go through the "requests for permission" gauntlet. It's very useful when, say, a little puke makes a bunch of bad edits quickly in a row on an article you've worked on (when others happen to be asleep at the switch). One click instead of a shitload of "undos". No rewards except for less time wasted. Doc talk 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And any admin can just take it away again, out of malevolence or spite. I find that with Twinkle I just don't need rollback anyway; in fact I used to have it until I asked for it to be removed as a matter of principle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to its extreme that principle implies dropping all tools that anyone can take away, including all tools available to autoconfirmed users, the ability to edit as a user and have a user talk page, and even the ability to edit at all. Geometry guy 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MF seems to have adopted Hurricane Carter's strategy for doing time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but bear in mind I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I don't fit in here, and it's only a matter of time before I'm expelled for good, most recently here. I believe in the idea of knowledge being freely available, which is the only reason I'm still here, but I'm vehemently opposed to Wikipedia's social engineering experiment, and always will be. Particularly as it's largely policed by children. My survival strategy, such as it is, is that nobody can threaten to take away what I don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting diff - you can sometimes take things a bit too personally, Malleus, or take the views of one random editor (or misguided admin) as The View of Wikipedia. There are pretty much as many opinions as to what amounts to "civility" as there are editors, which means that none of us truly fit in. Given this, you may be as concerned as I am that the WMF is currently planning to include the concept of "civility" in a legal document on terms of use. If policing this asylum by children is a problem, then the way it is overseen is erm...I'm lost for words. Geometry guy 02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned the WMF is fucking up big time, but I guess they have their reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I see their potential as long as there is some wittiness attached....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding ... civility in the TOS? They should rename it to POS. Btw Malleus, thanks much for your help with Uxbridge ... Milhist has one other old and graying British-themed FAC, Warkworth Castle. I've just finished my second run through, and I wound up with just two questions. It should be in pretty good shape if you want to give it a once-over. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit bad about Uxbridge in a way, coming in late with a bunch of stuff, but I don't look at FAC all that often these days. Or GAN come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can come in any time you like, when you can spare the time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding civility in the TOS, my comment there has so far received no response. It will be interesting to see what the new week brings. Geometry guy 00:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Once I built an encyclopaedia, made 2% of articles on which you could rely, once I compiled a cyclopaedia, brother can you spare a social science participant payment? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point, you will just shut it down in sympathy anytime there's a strike.  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect that our comparator organisation is British Rail: inheritor of run down pseudo-monopolies, underfunded and under-resourced despite expansion plans... Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very good point at my talk in the High Schools section. Thank you for making me reflect on what it is that we are here for. Ultimately the "why" questions are always the most difficult to answer; why do a particular job, why have kids, why go to the pub, etc. These are nevertheless very important questions, and once again I find myself in debt to your intellectual honesty. I will continue to think about the question you asked, and I think that while I am unable to fully answer and will probably always be, I appreciate sharing space with people like you. It keeps me on my toes. I suspect many others would say the same. --John (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect many more would say why doesn't Malleus just fuck off. But I'm baffled by your "why go to the pub" question. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wanna send me a plane ticket so *I* can go to the pub (and a few cathedrals and monasteries along the way...)... I'm with Malleus - who needs an excuse to go to the pub? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put that in as a joke. I was channelling Douglas Adams, perhaps. --John (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rohn has the eternal answer to those "why" questions: "Why? Why not? Why not you? Why not now?" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'" --John (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SG seems to be inactive at the moment, could I talk you into glancing at (and possibly answering) a question I posed here? --SPhilbrickT 16:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second part of your question, why don't you just look at Talk:Albert Einstein, click "show" next to article milestones and then you'll see the links to the 2005/2009 FACs, the 2006 FAR and the 2007 GAN for yourself? Bencherlite^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm embarrassed I didn't know that, but now I do.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey could be a perfect example. I'm STILL fighting this outdated and disproven theory ... and periodically I STILL have to deal with people pushing it. No modern historian OR competent genealogist subscribes to the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror - but some folks WANT it to be true so they insist that there IS a controversy (there isn't) so that it MUST be given due weight in the freaking article. Once more I had to AGAIN dig though books and try to demolish some idiotic reprinting of a theory long since disproven in historical thought. If I tried to say that Gundred was William OR Matilda's daughter in any historical scholarly work based on the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne - I'd be laughed out of the profession - but some folks think Wikipedia requires our articles to respect that society as much as serious historians. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should be appointed WP:Resident Czar of Medieval Articles. Screw WP:OWN--let the experts decide. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think yourself lucky she didn't wear a Guy Fawkes mask... Parrot of Doom 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a victim of the "verifiable untruth" brigade, to me ;P Clarifying: that's those who interpret "Verifiabilty, not truth" to mean "Who cares if it's not true - I can show you where it was published!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case I think it's a case of amateur genealogists - they really WANT Gundred to be the daughter of someone more important than her father - who is an untraceable Fleming. If she's the daughter of William or Matilda - this elevates their ancestry more .. much more fun to have yet another line to William or Matilda than to have a boring no-name in your tree. This is a common problem in medieval history - and it started in the middle ages, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of my ancestors (great great great grandmother I think) was convinced she was directly related to the royal family. They locked her in the mad house, but could be she was right.... right? :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "the Royal Family" or perhaps "a royal family"? --Senra (Talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing my luck, it's probably this one --Errant ^(chat!) 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before some watcher (over 400 last count) reports me, this is a term of endearment. Truly it is --Senra (Talk) 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any lurkers willing to help me with a couple of minor 16th century related queries raised by a GA1 reviewer please? Specifically, my answers to "William Wolsey & Robert Pygot" (my new counter-reformation prose) and "John Alcock" (d. 1500 disagrees with bishopric ended 1501 according to Pevsner). Thank you in advance --Senra (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite's suggestion looks sensible to me; clearly Alcock couldn't have remained bishop after his death in 1500. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alcock d. 1500 per "Alcock, John". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/289. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) though that will teach me to rely on PEVSNER :( --Senra (Talk) 23:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only person you can rely on is yourself. There's been some discussion elsewhere on the meaning of truth vs. reliability where Wikipedia policy is concerned, with the implication that reliability of the source always trumps truth. But of course ultimately it can't, as in this example. It's not uncommon, at least in my experience, to find reliable sources disagreeing about some detail or other, and it's our job to find a way through that conundrum by considering exactly how reliable each of the sources is likely to be for what they're claiming. But of course that's just my view, I speak with no authority here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Though this is the first time I found an error in Pevsner. Actually, the ODNB is not immune to errors. They had William Sole born Thetford—ODNB Sept 2004—which differed from born Little Thetford in the Isle of Ely—DNB 1897—which after my intervention was corrected to baptised Little Thetford—ODNB Jan 2011 :) --Senra (Talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just have to stop being an editor and reliably publish... well done on your correction! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB in my experience is full of errors, but we're hardly in a position to cast stones. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over Hog Island sheep, it reads so much cleaner now than before. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to take a rather Zen view of writing, believing that every word needs to earn its keep. For instance, imagine you had to pay a cent for every word; would you really be prepared to spend three cents on "in order to" as opposed to just one cent on "to"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree wholeheartedly with this Yups --Senra (Talk) 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having a look at Reculver. It's good to have a (trustworthy!) pair of fresh eyes look over stuff, and I thought all of your changes were spot on. I've done quite a bit since you last looked, adding sections on e.g. Politics and Education, plus numerous tweaks of formatting, layout and so-on. I think I've pretty much scraped the barrel dry for now (or my brain's telling me I have, anyway), so, hostages to fortune aside, I think the article's probably going to be fairly stable from here on (eek!) - should you feel inclined to comb through the article again...! Cheeky? Moi?! No problem if not. Any tips for a GA newbie? And, if there's anything I can do in return...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a pretty good job with what seems effectively to be an abandoned village, but I do have a few questions for you:

Lead

• "Reculver is a village and coastal resort about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay in southeast England. It is a ward of the City of Canterbury district in the county of Kent." It's obviously also a parish, as all the demographic data relate to the parish of Reculver. Are the village and the parish coterminus? Presumably not. Is it the village or the parish that's a ward of the City of Canterbury? Presumably the parish, as the village's population doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a ward. In fact even the parish's population seems very low for a ward.

The village is in a ward called just "Reculver" - but, now that I look: the ward includes Hillborough, Beltinge and a big chunk of eastern Herne Bay; the civil parish was absorbed into Herne Bay CP in 1934; and the (current) ecclesiastical parish includes Hillborough and Beltinge. Some re-writing to be done there then, and under "Governance"… About the population, the earliest censuses detailed parishes, but the Reculver "census area" for 2001, in which only 135 people were found, looks to include only Reculver, plus scattered farms etc. between it, the A299 and Hillborough (which is the next settlement to the west - there isn't one to the east, within the census area). Obviously I wasn't paying attention - I can tweak that under "Demography", but I'm not sure how to do that in the lead, without it being too wordy - maybe there's no need, if I fix "Demography"? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The census of 2001 recorded 135 people in the Reculver area, nearly a quarter of whom were in caravans." That looked rather strange to me when I first read it, and it still does. Were these 30 or so people living in static caravans or did they just happen to be on holiday in one of the caravan parks on census day?

I haven’t found a decent way to answer that one yet! I think the inference is that they were (at least mostly) on holiday in a caravan park, given that Reculver’s been mainly a sea of caravans for the last 60 years or so, but the census data don’t go deep enough to be sure - unless you know better…? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country park

• "The new Reculver Centre for Renewable Energy and Interpretation opened in July 2009, marking 200 years of the moving of Reculver village." I don't quite follow this, as the village hasn't moved has it?

I hadn’t noticed that bit - "village" should probably be "church", as the date fits, but a (probable) source does actually say "marking 200 years of the relocation of Reculver village", in a photo caption about ⅔ of the way down the page! No, the village hasn’t moved, except mostly down and into the sea, I’m not sure what to make of that… Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Any use? J3Mrs (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks J3Mrs - nothing in there about the village moving, but I'll add it to my list of "things to stuff the bibliography with"! And, it did remind me of an estate map dated 1685, reproduced (rather poorly) in a recent book, so thanks for that, too - lucky for me I have a copy, unlucky for WP the map's not showing up in Google. Anyway said map shows late 17th century Reculver looking a bit like a hot cross bun, centred on a crossroads just west of the Roman fort's west gate. The sea's swallowed up pretty much the whole lot. And, there's nothing like a "New Reculver" to replace it, looking at a modern map. Nortonius (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education

• "It was rated as "satisfactory" (Grade 3) in most aspects by an Ofsted report in July 2010, when it had 489 pupils." This is a bit of a surprise given that Reculver's population is only 135. Where do these kids come from?

Yes that surprised me too when I saw it, but don’t worry, some ale and mulled wine helped me get over it! I’m ignorant of legislation on school catchment areas, but the school’s brochure says that "proximity to the school" only becomes an admission criterion if it’s over-subscribed, though it then says something darkly about "pupils admitted to the school within the VI Designation". I’ve no idea what that is, and searching on the web hasn’t helped. From what I have seen, I imagine busloads of little ‘uns descending on Reculver from all over Kent, to enjoy the "wonderful peaceful location"! Simple answer is, I don’t know: maybe I should add in something about proximity in the over-subscription bit of the brochure? Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(later:) I've had a go at all of the above points now, if anyone fancies wandering over to Reculver and having a look. GAN looks set to occur this evening. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's my GA tip: nominate this at GAN now. There's absolutely no danger it will be quick-failed, it can take several weeks for a reviewer to turn up, and you'll get at least seven days to fix any problems anyway. I'd be dubious about the article meeting the FA comprehensiveness criterion, but much less so about it meeting GA's "covers the major topics". My other tip would be to try and meet the reviewer half-way with any criticisms that may come up during the review. You don't have to knuckle under and give in to every demand, state your case where you don't agree and stand by it, but there does have to be at least a bit of give-and-take. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those are great tips! I had been tempted to think of FA, maybe I'll have a look at the criteria, but I gather it can be a bit of an ordeal. And, it seems that I have a reviewer kindly waiting! I'm off for tonight though, so I'll probably get on it tomorrow. Cheers again. Nortonius (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: good advice. A good review should involve some give and take, and a good reviewer may often raise queries as well as complaints. Any give and take should be based on agreeing what is needed to meet the GA criteria. It's fine to make improvements beyond that, but if a reviewer seems to be demanding more than the criteria require, WP:WGN can be helpful - try not to be argumentative though: we all want to make articles better, after all. Geometry guy 00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. With an experienced reviewer like Aircorn watching over things, a review is likely to bring out the best in the article.

Absolutely. I think the combination of Senra and Aircorn is a match made in Heaven. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new GA nomination, new reviewer and (hopefully) GA all in one package. This is what GA is about, IMO: spreading the word about quality articles, and it happens a lot here. Geometry guy 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I meant. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds rather promising! Nortonius (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC can be an ordeal. Unless you've been through the mill yourself you can have no idea of the level of scrutiny the article will be be exposed to, from the slightest MoS deviations up to major omissions of sourcing and comprehensiveness. For a first shot I'd recommend GAN followed by a peer review before tackling Mount FAC. Even I, full of hubris that I am, don't often take an article directly to FAC without passing through at least one of its base camps. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly ever take articles right to FAC ... I generally pass through GAN first and usually try for at least one Peer Review as well as having someone trusted look it over (that usually means Malleus who is such a sweetie and really a marshmallow inside!) before going to FAC. With that said, I've done the direct to FAC route twice - once with my very first FAC and once much later. Generally, the more steps on the way to FAC and the more eyes on the article, the less trouble I find at FAC, but you never know what might trip you up.. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the few occasions I've taken an article directly to FAC it's been one I've worked on with an editor like PoD, Nev1, or Jza84, and it became obvious that GAN could offer nothing other than a green blob. Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, I'm in no hurry...! Nortonius (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look, something there in need of a good copyedit.J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be going anywhere near that one based on experience at MediaCityUK. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither will I.J3Mrs (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basically neither of the people who might have been willing and able to help are prepared to help. Nice job Stevo. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being circumspect here because I guess barnstars are not your thing. If they are, have this one *, otherwise please accept my sincere thanks for your assistance in raising Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA standard --Senra (Talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a barn, so I'm not into barnstars, no, but I am really pleased to see that you've got yourself a GA with Ely. I've said it before, geography articles are among the hardest to write IMO, because you're dealing with everything from geology to the modern provision of services. So give yourself a big pat on the back. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... confused. Can it pass? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could, but it depends on what view the delegates take of the outstanding oppose and the comments. SandyG and the other delegates are clearly indisposed at the moment though, so you need to be patient. All I can say is that if I were a delegate I'd be inclined to promote. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Malleus. I did my level best to fix THR comments. Some of his points are irrational. Sorry for my honesty. He wants the article to be in a way that only people who study literature could read. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. You're not expected to acquiesce to every demand, simply to respond reasonably, which I think you've done. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my friend. Thanks for being so nice and encouraging. You are a Wiki-angel. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overwhelmed. In one evening I'm a marshmallow and an angel whereas only a month or so ago the WMF in the form of User:Kaldari were trying to get rid of me. How fickle is fate. Malleus Fatuorum 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realize that. Some of my fiends here indirectly try to find flaws in my work and I do not say anything to them. Then I am GOOD but when I do the same thing in their work, I become BAD. Let's face it, most human beings are like this. Like if they are never satisfied. Lol. Anyway, I swear on all the love I have for Beyonce Knowles that I was totally sincere. You are an angel for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just love to see Freudian slips like that one: maybe you meant "friends"? :-) Malleus Fatuorum 06:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Another one to put into my stable! I shall adopt it immediately. Though, to my mind, nothing has quite the fits-of-hysterical-giggles-inductivity yet of The ArbCom Secret Ballet. Just visualise it ... :P Added! As the "Fiendish Cabal". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you want more? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only collect WikiBlunders :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you need more, visit my user page. You are welcome. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malleus, seeing that you appear to be in a benevolent frame of mind (per above), maybe I can trespass on your goodwill? A year or so ago you and I combined to rescue a couple of languishing FACs which had got to near the bottom of the list with hardly a review comment between them (I think we actually got one of them promoted). Well, there are two on the current list, The Constant (nominated 29 November) and Live Show (nominated 25 November) which are in danger of sinking without trace (my private name for these lost souls is "ed millibands"). Would you be prepared to help out? I have not looked at either of these articles, but it must be galling for their nominators to see their work ignored, given the level of attention all around them. If you are willing, please choose which you would rather do first, and I'll take the other. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a kind-hearted soul Brian. I'll start with The Constant, hopefully later today. Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll tackle the other. It might be tomorrow before I get to it, though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Prehistoric Britain, this strange animal was persecuted by early hunters, before being humanely laid to rest.

"The remains of a Mesolithic elk found caught in a bog at Poulton-le-Fylde in Lancashire had been wounded by hunters and escaped on three occasions...."

See it wandering in the wild here. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... the reviewing good article guideline, if not in the letter of it, your reversal (of my reversion of my initial view) may be wrong. Your seem to be implying that the class= parameter, in for example {{WPUKgeo|class=GA|importance=mid}}, is independent of project. I contend that each WikiProject—in this case England, UK geography, Cities and Middle Ages—have their own project assessment criteria, which may differ from the good article criteria. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements requires editors to use {{infobox UK place}}, whilst the GA criteria do not. Although I initially thought different, I suggest that a member from each WikiProject should be the judge of whether an article meets a good article criteria within their own project <smiles questionatively> --Senra (Talk) 12:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, GA transcends projects just as FA does. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, as I recall, there was some disagreement about whether there was a separate "wikiproject GA-class", but I believe that's old news; GA is its own thing these days. However, wikiprojects are encouraged to tackle B-class, etc., on their own, and a few wikiprojects have an A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dream to mentor copyeditors on WP (and people who don't want to be copyeditors, but want to do things that will makes copyeditors' lives easier). GOCE is the obvious place to start. Slon is one of their more active participants. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on what? Slon? Your dream? Both? Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both if you like ... I'm trying to scout the lay of the land (I'll also be asking GOCE how they feel about GAN and FAC these days), without setting the agenda (in case you needed another horribly mixed metaphor). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it seems likely Slon will soon become an administrator at the fourth time of asking is an indictment of the way that Wikipedia is mismanaged. So far as the GoCE is concerned, I think it suffers from another fundamental Wikipedia problem, the risible notion that we're all equally able, whereas in truth there ought to be some kind of test (administrators have one, it's called RfA) before an editor is allowed to join the guild. Of course that will never happen, and therefore the GoCE is a well-meaning but ultimately doomed idea. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never did buy the "darwikinist" idea that it's not a problem if edits are bad because they'll eventually be sorted out through some kind of natural selection ... or at least, I don't see that working before the heat death of the universe. I do think that the review processes are largely successful in extracting useful work from less than perfect editors such as myself, and I'd like to suggest to any GOCE people that are willing that we tackle the problem in the context of review processes where I'm paying attention to how it's working out. Most won't be interested, but I'm hoping some will be. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legendary infinite number of monkeys will produce a predictably infinite amount of crap. But I think your focus on the review processes has some merit, as that's where the pedal really hits the metal. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed here is not a guild, but a licensing/accreditation agency, as in "The name's Fatuorum... Malleus Fatuorum... licensed to spell". Editors love passing tests and gaining wiki-qualifications, so why not try something like this? The test could follow the examples in Tony1's guide, only with a randomized element, and a pass/fail result—maybe also a 200 word (and randomly selected) badly written text to copyedit. Then list or link to the accredited copyeditors in suitable fora, and other editors have a resource (other than this talkpage!) when they seek competent help. Geometry guy 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were that it was only spelling. The trouble is so few seem to understand simple standard English or how to write in the past tense. What's worse is some take huge offence at having their efforts copyedited, corrected or the trivia removed. When I attempt copyediting, (which I find oddly theraputic), I inevitably offend, and those who write poorly never learn from their mistakes and, if they've been here for any length of time, what they write is rarely challenged and becomes the norm.J3Mrs (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well that copyediting goes far beyond spelling, and my reference to the latter was light-hearted. Concerning tenses, the most common problem I have seen is a failure to use them in a consistent way. Some accreditation might help you deal with the offense you find. Geometry guy 00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G-Guy, how about we start it off with just a series of quizzes that you get barnstars for if you pass? Barnstars are less threatening, and then everyone could come up with their own quiz and hand out their own barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am not a barnstar person, the idea of graduating the accreditation might work well, borrowing terms from elsewhere, as in "Copyeditor sophomore" or whatever. Geometry guy 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying accreditation wouldn't help, I'm saying that I think we've got a long road to go down before we can get consensus on a wide variety of questions. Experimenting with quizzes first (and if you don't get a barnstar for passing the quiz, I'm not sure what you would get) might help. I started working on a fairly lengthy quiz a week ago (good timing, it looks like), I'll try to make it go live before the new year. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed is a recognition that although anyone can edit, they can't all do so competently. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And actually I find Geometry guy's insinuation that I'm focused on spelling to be rather insulting. What I'm actually focused on is telling the story. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off-topic, but is also fascinating. I made absolutely no insinuation, but Malleus read one in my post. My edit summary included "guy, Geometry guy, licensed to spell", so in his scenario, I must have simultaneously been insulting myself. Well, I've done that before, but doesn't it seem more likely here that I could have been playing on the similarity of the words "spell" and "kill"? I've seen this kind of confusion (and upset) happen time and time again across WP: how can we deal with it? Geometry guy 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a copy editor, an irritating and uncivil pain in the arse, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus; would you consider copyediting this user sandbox of mine? Another user pointed me to you for copyediting on my talk page; I do hope you can spare a (bit) of your time to give it a copyedit. Thanks. HurricaneFan25 — 22:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started to fix your complaints in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Constant/archive1, can you continue with the review, or at least strike what has been solved? (also, if you can add some input here, it would be welcome). igordebraga ≠ 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave just a few examples. You need to recruit a competent copyeditor. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012!
	(This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left. The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.) Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope this won't get me blocked)

If an admin blocks you for that, let me know and I'll block him for gross abuse of the block tool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably closer to the truth than you believe Brian; my wife just bought me a "Bah, Humbug!" Christmas hat. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hanged, drawn and quartered include "Taylor is sexy" in the prose, on your computer? It does on mine, and yet I can't see it in the edit window. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does on mine and I can't seem to find the text either. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :)

Sorted it. Somehow, someone had managed to write that phrase in code that was invisible in the edit window. I highlighted the section and deleted what looked like a bunch of spaces. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was due to lag in the database server. An IP had vandalized the page, which ClueBot NG then reverted. However, due to database server lag, the updated (reverted) version failed to propagate to the displayed version and only appeared in the edit window. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The important question though is this: is Taylor really sexy? Or just a little bit sexy? Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor is probably an American teenage boy or girl. So probably not very sexy at all, unless that's your kind of thing. :) ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting behaviors, how different we would be if the dominant sibling consumed the others. Would our mothers view us differently at birth. The GA's have been thorough, very exciting for those actively editing. I should make some medals and present them on awards day... speech speech! We are on Christmas break as of today - curious to see if those sand bagging use this time or accept the fail. There are a couple that have been on the sidelines, yet show promise - both the mushroom and the seahorse. The hog island sheep - not a clue about that strange choice! The sand tiger is an effort by my youngest, a sweet heart who has probably benefited the most from the c/e process. Time will tell - of which there is very little. As always thanks for your magic touch. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your students have done really well this year, a credit to you and themselves. Is that the end now? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't mind a harmless talkpage stalker interjecting... as someone who is interested in helping students with projects like these in the future (not the immediately approaching winter semester, but the fall semester of 2012), how would I apply (if that is the correct word) to do so? Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I wrote you a message last time. I asked if you could copyedit one article. Since then I have not received any single response from you. You can say if you don't want to, but not answering is not very nice. Regards.♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)} [reply]

I get asked to edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I forget, or other things intrude on my time. Which article are you talking about? BTW, I've never claimed to be "nice", which to my mind is about as insipid a description as to be almost insulting. Oh, and try to remember that I'm not employed here, much less by you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, it was Otis Redding. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi Malleus. Just wanted to drop by to ask about how you have been lately? How are you these days? Busy because of the coming festivities? I hope you are doing well my friend. And again, thanks for everything you have done for me. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to do everything Christmassy as late as possible because I hate the crowds: buying presents in the last half-an-hour before the shops close would be typical for me, perhaps it is for many other blokes as well. How's your review going? Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very uncomfortable in crowded locations. Lol. I am timid in RL. The nomination... I am fed up of In my opinion ... in my taste... in my whatsoever, according me as if I have to write the article 1 billion times to conform to everyone's individual preferences. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all timid in real life, I just can't stand being jostled and shoved in crowds of people and have a tendency to lose my rag with the worst offenders, especially in crowded bars. But enough of me. What SandyG's telling you is that you have to try and manage the nomination, chase up the early opposers, state your case clearly where you don't agree with something suggested by a reviewer and so on. It's really a bit of a balancing act. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I cannot even dream of myself setting an offender right in real life. Lol. Maybe with growing age, I will fight off my timidity. About the FAC, I am trying my best but it is not very encouraging when some reviewers want their personal preferences to go in the article. Pardon me for telling this Malleus but some of their comments are sometimes borderline ridiculous and irrelevant. I have contacted the opposers several times. There are two. They are not replying. And they are quite active. Did you see on what note Indopug opposed? Lol. User:THR is not relying although I have addressed all his concerns. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to set people's hats on straight if you're big and look like you might be a bit of a handful. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you are? Lol. I am quite quite short. I am 1 m 73 cm (height) and 64 Kg (weight). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the exact height of the average American male and a helluva lot lighter. ;) (We're a fat people. ;/) I am only slightly taller at 180 cm and slightly lighter at 61 kg. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that mean I am fat? But I assure you that i am not overweight. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds, for Christmas party, deferred the Christmas party, then cleaned, cooked, washed, changed beds some more, now have to do my Christmas shopping and clean, cook, wash for the Christmas party that was deferred to this weekend. Sooooo ... could MF and his friendly TPS please give me the 101 for Dummies version of everything I missed in two weeks? Arb elections went better than expected, G guy is calling it straight on the remainders of the TCO manic manifesto (which never should have been given any play by The Signpost, which is the only reason that wasn't a flash in the pan), folks seem to be understanding the effects student editors are having on medical articles, folks still seem to not be getting it on "gender" issues, Yomangani's edit summaries are the best way to find out what's going on of any significance, and no idea how FAC is faring, haven't looked yet, anything I need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it, can't think of anything else. Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's this interesting piece of artwork User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpgNobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good point made there. All the foundation has to do is to continue encouraging administrators to piss everyone off, and the gender ratio will become 0:0. Job done. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Except for you really ought to look at this. You couldn't make it up. Malleus Fatuorum 06:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

enjoyed reading your entries re the witches and also the Talk pages behind them. I'd best not get into an argument with you it seems!

Sorry I didn't wrap the kitten, but enjoy

All the best for 2012

Simon

Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoyed it, it was a bit of a labour of love to be honest. My mother used to have a holiday home near Pendle, and I have fond memories of the place. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you Jivesh. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will always remember you Malleus because you are a real gem to Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Wikipedia is very lucky to have me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. And I meant it from the bottom of my heart. Yesterday, you wrote something like fair heart... What does that mean? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old English proverb: "faint heart never won fair lady". It means that you have to be bold and fearless in striving for what you want, the attitude that made the British empire great. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay. For whom is this the message below? I am confused. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me I think, an ironic comment on my immodest assertion that Wikipedia is lucky to have me. One thing I think non-native speakers of English find difficult to understand is that we often say completely the opposite of what it is that we mean, as a form of irony. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. And you (I mean native speakers of English) often talk in riddles. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of voice and general attitude while speaking are the clues to what's really being said, but of course we don't see any of that on the Internet. For instance, I had to take a couple of animals to the vet earlier today. The bill came to just over £200. When presented with it I said to the receptionist "Oh, is that all?", but she knew damn well I didn't mean it was cheap. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are matched only by your modesty. May all your articles be featured and your blocks quickly overturned. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that, hic! Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that as "and your bollocks quickly overturned". I need a break. Parrot of Doom 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is a drink. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you Malleus, but I believe you are a very nice person! You are responding very intelligent and humorous, and yet you were blocked for incivility. I wish you the same! =D --♫GoP♫_T^CN 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no doubt I will be again, as I ain't about to change. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? When did Malleus get blocked? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to happen every second or third ANI report, which have been monthly recently I think. Just part and parcel of the stupidity here, nothing to get too excited about. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay but you can still edit your talk-page. Lol. I see am a bit lost right now. Are you currently blocked? I guess NO, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't been blocked for ... let me think ... must be about a month now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. You give the impression that this is quite an achievement for you. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is. And it's an indictment of Wikipedia's prissy "Have a nice day" mentality. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the real tea Malleus. We should all learn for you. You are simply great. Your sense of humor is beyond my imagination. You are the most friendly person I have met online. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've always quite liked Malleus; perhaps it is my own English heritage, but I've always found his occassionally carping comments to be inundated with the dry wit only Brits are capable of far more often than any genuine malice. He doesn't try to hide the truth behind layer upon layer of euphamism; he speaks what he means, plain and true. Perhaps some people simply cannot face being told the truth, simple and bluntly. I may just be a talk page stalker, but I've always found his unwillingness to twist unpleasant truths into pleasant lies quite admirable. He speaks honestly, openly, and plainly; and that's something that cannot be said of quite a few others in the community. Hats off to you, Malleus. Wikipedia would be a far sadder place without you. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would. But I note you say that my comments are only "occasionally carping". Note to self: must try harder next year. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I've actually been rather disappointed with the quality of your comments this year. Last year's selection was far more impressive. Perhaps going from "occasionally carping" to "often carping" should be one of your New Year's Resolutions! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bah, Humbug!" ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are one hell of a good writer, and I appreciate all your hard work here .. but Geesh Mal. That was some pretty crude language. Not that I have any delusions that you'd give a shit what I think or anything. Just wishful thinking that there was a bit of a gentleman behind the name I guess. And yes .. I know there was no NPA violation, and civility is all so subjective here ... just wasn't expecting something like that from you. Either way .. you have a nice holiday. — Ched :  ?  18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it just has to be told like it is. And actually "cunt" isn't at all sexist where I live when it's used as a term of abuse. And neither is it as uncommon as it appears to be in the Puritan colonies.[2] Hasn't it ever struck you as odd that editors are allowed to call each other dicks here (there's even an essay on it) but not cunts? Any chance of waking up any time soon? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, hypothetically speaking, if the word "cunt" was to be redacted from the conversation there, would you let it stand or revert it? While acknowledging cultural mores vary within subcultural, it is really offensive in a non-trivial subset of the Wikipedia culture. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking non-hypothetically, I don't give a flying fuck. I see no reason why it's permissible to call regular editors "dicks" but not administrators "cunts". Go chew on that, and when you've worked out a logically coherent position come back and we can discuss it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because in the imperfect sexist world -- at the least the one on this side of the Atlantic -- "cunt" is considered more offensive than "dick" 2. Because too many admins think they're "all that" and there's a double standard here, like in many other places. My good faith interpretation of "don't give a flying fuck" is consent, so I'm going to go ahead. I do get what you're saying, but this won't fix it. It'll either blow over (achieving nothing) or blow up (causing lots of churn and angst and in the end achieve nothing). Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I give a shit. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not something I have any desire to get into any protracted debate over, just an observation that I was surprised. (and that doesn't happen to me here very often anymore). I know it's just a "word". I even understand the "shock value" of putting things bluntly in order to get a point across. It's not even that in a discussion with another guy that I'd even take notice of the use of the word. Simply that in mixed company I've been taught that it is impolite. As far as "waking up" .. meh, after 5 and 1/2 decades - I'm not likely to change my spots any time soon I suppose. Different strokes for different cultures I guess. — Ched :  ?  19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I've always demanded, and I do mean demanded, is consistency, and there's none here. Gentlemen's parts have been appropriated by the Wiki elite as representing some kind of sanctionable behaviour, but ladies' parts are out of bounds. Does that really make any kind of sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Mal. Yes, you're right that it's an unfair throwback to allow the use of one word and not the other. I also agree there's a huge lack of consistency here. On the other hand .. I don't recall ever calling another editor a "dick" either, so I at least try to be consistent in my own actions. Either way, as I said at the onset, I do admire your candor, sense of humor, abilities, and your dedication here. — Ched :  ?  19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fond memories of an administrator (female) telling me that I was a dick of porn-star proportions; it makes me laugh even when I think of it today, but I still wonder how she knew ... the bottom line though is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so lap it up. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<laffin> .. I remember that one. I see her about on Facebook from time to time - she's actually doing quite well. She's continuing her education, and just finished a semester with a straight "A" report. Anyway - I'll let you get back to the content end of things here - thanks for taking the time to talk about it all. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Food for thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]