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.

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

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

I'm waiting for another book to clarify matters in the 35-odd years since the Lee book, and it needs a couple more read-throughs to trim the rough edges, but what else do you suppose I could write about this bloke, before sending him to FAC? Parrot of Doom 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Have you has a look at Edward Lowe? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another damn fine piece of work PoD, just about ready for FAC I'd say. Here am I wasting my considerable talents on bawdy trivia and you're churning out masterpieces like this. :lol:

On a completely different subject you mentioned on this page a week or so ago that you were contemplating a career change, or at least a return to full-time study. What are you thinking of studying? Answer privately if you'd prefer, or not at all if you think I'm being too nosey. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Lee book I'm certain has a few things wrong which Konstam has since corrected (new papers found, etc, correcting dates) so that's what I'm waiting for. The post office have it somewhere.

I'm thinking of an English Degree at the Open University. Work isn't too bad at the moment, but there are no guarantees in television and I have no other advertisable skills other than pointing a camera at a fast moving object or sticking a microphone in the right place. Teaching is something I reckon I could do quite well, and its the only thing I could see myself doing other than television, so I figured I may as well get the qualifications and training out of the way. I have to wait until October now, though. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, astoundingly, Trafford libraries have come up trumps again and found what I think is going to be an excellent source for Elizabeth Canning, so that'll be another 18th-century scandal to work into shape. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OU degrees are seriously hard work; I've got a lot of respect for anyone with the determination and drive to get down to studying after a normal day's work. I did my degree the easy way, three years full-time on a maintenance grant most of which was spent in the Student Union bar. I did once enrol on an OU course on formal specification languages, but I abandoned it after I discovered that the course leader was someone I'd had a public falling out with in the pages of a computing magazine. Tosser.

Teaching is also seriously hard work these days, at least for the first couple of years anyway, after which you can just regurgitate the same old crap every year and look forward to your long holidays. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. In recruitment-speak it's "transferrable skills", not "advertisable skills". You'd be amazed at what "transferrable skills" you could lay claim to if you applied your mind to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a little easier for me, I work between 2-3 days a week on average so I have a lot more spare time than most. Plus I think they're quite flexible in when you take the courses, its all split into little segments (makes it easier to afford also). I was going to start in Feb but was too late to enrol. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PoD - sorry to butt in - but have you thought of lecturing? Several people I know have transferred from journalism to journalism lecturing without a degree... they simply take a Masters degree (paid for by the Uni they are working for) - and Bob's your uncle. (And, of course, universities have even longer holidays than schools!). Your type of skills are, I have just been assured by one of these new lecturers, highly sought after. (Salary from £30k).--79.64.134.71 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly enamoured with the idea of lecturing students on, presumably, "meeja". Many of those students are part of the reason why I'm getting rather sick of this job, one can only work for so long with people who think that waving a Z1 around and filming everything that moves constitutes programme-making. Standards are slipping woefully low. Besides which, I earn far more than £30k actually "doing", rather than "teaching", so if I change career it will be a big change. I do, however, like the idea of being able to encourage youngsters to develop their language skills and historical knowledge, which are two things I think are very sadly lacking these days. These are all early musings however, and I may well change my mind at some point. You only live once... Parrot of Doom 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I've seen of your interests here on wikipedia and what you've just said I'd have thought that history was a more natural fit PoD. You've even made a start on your first history book; Notable 18th-century hoaxes. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The degree sounds great! As far as teaching goes why don't you spend some time in a school (not on your doorstep, 5 miles is about right otherwise you trip over someone who "knows" you every time you go out). Get in touch with a head, and don't just think of the "best" schools, there is such competition for jobs in them, look at some of the others (the inner city can be very supportive not only to pupils) and be realistic. Schools have changed such a lot, mostly, but not always, for the better. I have seen some fantastic late entrants to the teaching profession and a few with high ideals who clearly didn't research the job properly. Unfortunately these days teachers can't always chose what to teach, even within their chosen curriculum area, but in my very humble opinion, it's how teachers build relationships and earn respect that makes it possible to pass on a love for learning and an enquiring mind (which you already demonstrate here). --J3Mrs (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good advice. While you're here, can I ask you something? Was DSCF0233 really taken on 1 January this year? There's bright sunshine, a chap strolling in a short-sleeved shirt, and no snow on the ground, but the snow lay for weeks here in the big city and it's still ball-chillingly cold. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hijack your page Mal but I know a few admins pay attention. Can any of them read this thread and sort out the mess, please? It needs a simple article move or two. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They only watch my page looking for a pretext to block me, but occasionally useful nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Malleus would have been much more exciting, but unfortunately I couldn't find a reason, and I'm not creative enough to make one up out of whole cloth, so I've gone ahead and fixed PoD's issue instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pal. The original "mover" did so without any warning or discussion, and then claimed that the Little Boots song was not a secondary topic to a Pink Floyd album. I'd issue a sentence of death for that, if I could. Parrot of Doom 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, death threats! Now there's something I think I can block for. Blocking you wouldn't be quite as exciting (no offense), so I'll just wait for Malleus to agree with you and then spring into action! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to go on record as saying that I think PoD was completely out of order in not assuming good faith, and that he ought to be taken to task and given a civility warning and told in no uncertain terms that personal attacks are unacceptable. Now you have your excuse Floquenbeam, my account has obviously been compromised. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, if your account was compromised, wouldn't the Cabal be happy with the exchange, and therefore overturn my block at ANI and send me in for social reprogramming take away my mop? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a trick, check out the links. Besides, the Cabal do as they please anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone whose sense of humor is not failing them, "civility warning" is missing an entry. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another of my many interests (I do have many!) is this twin beam pump in Radcliffe, which I finally got to see today (its my thread, and my piccies). I've emailed and pestered enough people now that things are in motion. I want to see it working again, or at the very least put back in order so it looks nice, and can be a tourist attraction. Another good example of how contributing to Wikipedia can expand your horizons - I'd never have found out about it were it not for doing Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for geting things moving on that. Looks like an awful lot of work's going to be needed there. I was amused by your "that crack may be a problem" comment. It's not a "crack" man, there's a bloody great chunk of the wheel missing! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may end up in the Museum of Science and Industry, who knows, but I'd prefer it to stay where it is. Heavy machinery will be needed to move that wheel though, lol. The pipes are interesting, riveted along their length. Never seen that before. Its one of those things that I'm happy to spend as much of my personal time on as I can, and my own money too. I have ideas for public access and everything, I've thought about it all, the council want to open that area up to the public a bit, and I have the ideal solution for them :) Parrot of Doom 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck sake. Guess which twonk ordered two copies of the same book then? I opened this morning's mail, hoping to find the Konstam book I need for this article, and finding instead another copy of Lee. I think I'll donate it to the library, that'll make me feel all warm inside. Or maybe that's just the wee leaking down my leg. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it come from Amazon? I've had the same thing happen with them. I ordered three books with their 1-click system and I got two copies of two of them, luckily the two cheap ones. I keep meaning to put them back up for sale on Amazon. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use Amazon all the time for cheap books. It was my mistake, I ordered the book I wanted from one seller who cancelled, so I re-ordered, but I must have re-ordered while drunk and got the Lee book again. Oh well, its only 8 quid, pales into insignificance with the mortgage etc. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I have put the WP:alt in, added more citations for Port Royal, and to Indian logic section. Trimmed the fat from the Islamic logic section so it is duly weighted in line with the other sections. Made some cosmetic changes here and there.

The Stanford Encyclopedia is a stronghold of grocers (see John Longeways article's for instance). On that subject, it still seems odd we write 1's and 2's but not one's and two's. In that case, the apostrophe is to separate the numeric characters from the alpha ones. Writing 1960s without the apostrophe seems arbitrary to me. In any case, I have removed them from all dates in the article, in line with house style. HistorianofLogic (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John Longeways article's"? ;-) I quote from Fowler: "to insert an apostrophe in the plural of an ordinary noun is a fatuous vulgarism", so it's not just a house style. So far as "1's and 2's" are concerned, they're treated in just the same way as "p's and q's", where the apostrophe is used to indicate the plural of single letters. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John Longeways article's"? - was intended as a joke (note the deliberately omitted apostrophe in Longeways name). I don't understand your point about p's and q's. The letters are used to refer to other letters, so they are common nouns, signifying any token of the letter-type. So if it is a fatuous vulgarism to insert an apostrophe, it is a fatuous vulgarism in the case of p and q also. But it is not. HistorianofLogic (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to read a few style guides. I find The Times style guide to be a useful resource, and it specifically mentions the case of "p's and q's". --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention the case of p's and q's, but without giving reason or logic. The letters are being used as nouns, therefore why the apostrophe if it is always fatuous and vulgar to signify a plural with an apostrophe? I'm simply commenting on the reason you are giving. HistorianofLogic (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--- And here [1] Joke Spruyt who is a distinguished medievalist is talking about the 1250's, with apostrophe. My view is that some points of grammar are really just convention and have no rhyme nor reason. E.g. 'sixes and sevens'. The 'e' in the plural of 'sixes' is just put there for aesthetic reasons. If you spend your time working on medieval manuscripts, which have almost no punctuation, arbitrary line breaks and inventive spelling, you quickly acquire a sense of the arbitrary and ephemeral nature of most of our rules. I have no problem with conforming to house style and conventions such as in Wikipedia. As for Fowler, he is just another style manual, and rather outdated and snobbish at that. HistorianofLogic (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an apostrophe is primarily twofold; to indicate possession as in "men's clothing" or a missing letter as in "there's". I already drew attention to the special case convention of "p's and q's" and "1's and 2's". Distinguished medievalists are not necessarily the best of writers, as your example of Spruyt demonstrates. The rules of English grammar are quite clear on the subject of apostrophes, and unless Spruyt is using "1250's" in the context of something belonging to the 1250s, such as "1250's manuscripts" for instance, then he is unequivocally wrong. You may elect to follow Spruyt's poor example or to write correctly and grammatically, entirely your choice and nothing to do with "house style". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spruyt says that Peter of Spain died in the 1250's. The purpose of an apostrophe is not twofold. In the examples I have mentioned it is there to clear up ambiguity. Dos and don'ts, for instance, is hard to read, so we write Do's and don'ts. HistorianofLogic (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find even a single style guide that agrees with your interpretation of the use of apostrophes? You don't like Fowler, so what about the University of Oxford's style guide for authors, which states categorically "do not use the apostrophe in year dates: the 1960s, the 1990s". [2] --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, although the American Heritage Dictionary (now there's an oxymoron for you), for instance, allows both "dos" and "do's" as the plural of "do", it's technically incorrect. "Dos and don'ts" is the correct punctuation. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I Googled <dos and don'ts apostrophe> and there is a lot of material there, but nothing authoritative. This [3] was interesting, saying that the apostrophe "is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations and symbols where adding just s rather than ’s would be ambiguous". It also notes that "while British English did formerly endorse the use of apostrophes in numbers and dates, this usage has now largely been superseded." Except of course Fowler mentions it. Although I can't find it in my version, which is a 1950's reprint of the original 1926 edition. I am going to have a look at some older books. This is complicated by the fact that referring to whole decades like this is comparatively rare before the mid-twentieth century. HistorianofLogic (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW This [4], while it has no authority, is essentially what I had mind. "The rules about the use of apostrophes to signal a plural rather than a possessive may seem complex, but for the purpose of the current question, can be reduced to saying that an apostrophe is used to signal a plural for a word that does not otherwise have a "natural" English plural. Therefore, in strictly correct terms, an apostrophe is inserted in year dates, abbreviations, foreign words that would be rendered in italics, and certain English words." HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my copy of the second edition of Fowler the issue of no apostrophe in "1920s", for instance, is dealt with in the section entitled possessive puzzles. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<---- Here's another beautiful example [. Dot the is and cross the ts is incomprehensible without the apostrophes. It's a clear example (a) of precedent (b) of the clear application of a logical rule, in this case to avoid ambiguity. It also says "Even the 19th-century printers (who tried to establish the possessive apostrophe rule) recognised that there were exceptions. They allowed a plural apostrophe after abbreviations (she has three MA's), numerals (he hit three 6's), and dates (in the 1990's). There is a tendency today to omit the apostrophe in some of these cases, but the alternative usage is still widely encountered. So here we have a raft of usages where we have to be tolerant of the plural apostrophe." HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the blogger in question is David Crystal who is definitely authoritative. HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it's "widely encountered" does not make it correct. There's no disagreement about using an apostrophe after a single letter, as in the example of "p's and q's" given several times already, or "6's". The discussion is simply about "1920's", which is absolutely and unequiivocally wrong, no matter how widely it's encountered. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry Malleus, am butting in...) The Brief Penguin Handbook (Lester & Faigley, American edition, page 501) states clearly that apostrophes "are not used with the plural of numbers and acronyms." Examples they use are: 1890s, CEOs, VCRs, URLs, and JPEGs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear example of what Crystal calls the 'zero tolerance approach'. The zero toleration approach is wrong. It's the health and safety approach to the beauty of language. HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be his opinion, but that's all it is. He's clearly just cashing in on the success of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've yet to see any authoritative guide argue that "1890's" is correct; David Crystal referred to above appears simply to be tolerant of the incorrect use of apostrophes to indicate plurality, preferring to blame the education system for its widespread use rather than those who misuse the apostrophe out of ignorance. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Crystal also says that it is also OK with dates. See also his site [5]. He is an erudite and sensible guy. HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a clot, arguing that it's nobody's fault that they can't use punctuation properly, it's the fault of the system that educated them. Typical "no blame" nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, read and understand carefully his logic [6]. "So we do use an apostrophe, sometimes, to express a plural. We do it when we want to pluralise an unusual noun, such as an abbreviation or a date - as in the 1960's." That is what he says. A writer on linguistics and the history of grammar. HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this has become an enormous waste of time. You are wrong. Crystal is wrong. End of story. Now let's get on with something else. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Time to get on with something else' is an excellent way to win an argument. Ok. Note: the first edition of Fowler (Possessive Puzzles) does not mention this 'rule'. HistorianofLogic (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the second edition does, on page 467, under subsection 6. Now enough. Continue with your poor punctuation if it pleases you, I'm wasting no more time on this. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a suitable word which describes the relationship between supporter and supported? For instance, a patron may support a charity. What word would then be used to relate the charity to that patron? Parrot of Doom 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benefited, accommodated, bolstered? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its in relation to a woman, specifically "Gascoyne also thought that some of the Canningites doubted the girl's veracity, but supported her cause just to spite him" - 'her cause' just isn't right. She was their cause; their "Virgin Mary" if you like. Golden meal-ticket, etc. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article's that from? I'd probably get a better idea from a bit more of the context. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you already linked Elizabeth Canning. Doh! I'd probably say something like "... but colluded in her version of events just to spite him".

Its a little problematic, because her version of events may very well have been their version of events, if you see what I mean. Parrot of Doom 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this case has variously been called one of the most famous in 18th-century England, so I want to spend some time getting this right :) Moore's book doesn't follow any particular narrative, she's basically picking everything apart rather than telling the story. Its going to take quite some time to sort it all out. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but it's the version of events she recounted at the trial, so it's her version of events, whether she invented it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, and I've therefore used your suggestion. Just gotta find me an unwatermarked image of Crisp Gascoyne now... Parrot of Doom 00:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find an unwatermarked one, let me know and I'll have a stab at removing it for you. I do that sort of stuff all day long... unfortunately.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only one I've found so far. Parrot of Doom 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark I can get rid of, but I notice the sneaky gits cut the image in half if one wants the larger one... which I would like as it gives me more pixels to work from. I'll get stuck into it tomorrow as my eyes are a little tired starring at this bloody monitor all day (calibrated or not). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can drag it up and down. I can host a stitched version if that helps? Parrot of Doom 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, didn't realise about the scrolling. I'll have a stab at a higher resolution one later. meanwhile I've uploaded this lower resolution one sans watermark. The cheeky gits claiming copyright on a public domain image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

s'gone! Very nice work, I look forward to the higher resolution version :) I've been looking in old books, I may find it elsewhere, but thanks for now! Parrot of Doom 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "...confirmed/backed up/gave credence to/verified her version of events..."--Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of word help, would you mind starting a glossary somewhere? Asking "what's a willy" was bad enough ... and then there was the slag ... and I missed another one this week (somewhere on your talk page), but I was too busy fighting meanies to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really are two nations divided by a common language. "Taking the piss" just means what you might call "having a laugh". Perhaps we do need an American–English glossary, and most likely an Australian–English one as well, as those guys really do tell it like it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "having a laugh" might still be a bit too European. ;) By the way Malleus, I really have to thank you; I can't even begin to describe how much that cheered me up when I needed it. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I did wonder, as whenever I think of the phrase I see DellBoy saying "you're 'aving a laugh intcha?" It's a curious thing though, because when I first looked at your article I was dead set against its promotion, but your hard work won me round. I really hope this incident doesn't affect its chances. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no tomorrow, only tonight?" Sheesh, sounds like a line a Brit gave me a bar recently ... I have canned answers ready for most, but not that one. I should start a contest, but Wiki is dying and no one would join. Or Malleus would delete it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No self-respecting Brit would come up with "there is no tomorrow, only tonight", much too lyrical. "Get your coat luv, you've pulled" is far nearer the mark. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Malleus: Hopefully it won't, but I suppose it depends on whether the SPI/CU on the account comes back positive. If it does, I'm guessing that the user visited this particular FAC because I restored their deleted comments, but with the previous editor's concerns regarding the SPI and low edit count added in a small note. I really hope it doesn't affect the chances though; I've had bad luck with two previous nominations for No Line on the Horizon, so I was determined to make this my "third time is the charm" break. If it does, I guess I'll just take my lumps and try again in another two weeks.

Re Sandy: Hey, I only quote song lyrics that really resound with me y'know! ;) It ain't easy to come up with so many and still limit them to U2! :P And besides, it wasn't a Brit; It were that drunken Irish lad who dun tried ter save the world. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't refer to other editors as lunatics.[7] It's not a good way to make friends and influence people. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronise me with your silly warnings. If you choose to associate yourself with the civility police then that's your problem, not mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. This is truly out of control! I've got so many pictures in my mind of Jonathan E. Hochman deciding to make this post, that I can't describe, simply because the description would get me blocked! :) Scottaka UnitAnode 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My talk page is a free fire zone. Per the comment at the top, you can say whatever you like to me there, as long is it is witty, insightful, or highly sarcastic. Also, feel free to email me any insults. I don't mind. Malleus, if you don't see the humor in my post, you're missing out on some good lols. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I said to you earlier. The intention is to provoke a response that can be used to justify a block. Don't give them the satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Nobody is getting blocked. If you check my logs you'll see that I hate using short blocks on established editors. I generally tolerate users until they deserve an indefinite block. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We both know how it works. Administrator X provokes a response from editor Y, and administrator Z administers the block. Job done. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• True enough. I usually know pretty well when I'm being baited, and my "baiting radar" is beeping right now. Now he's ignoring my request that he not post at my talkpage, claiming I've "disrupted a noticeboard" with my lil' ol' response to LHvU's warning me for using the honorable Mr Tony Sidaway's surname. He's itching to pull the trigger, but right now, he'd have a very tough time defending as anything other than a block made in anger. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm not angry at the moment. I'm amused that you're taking this so seriously. Why not go edit an article instead? As for the editing restriction LHvU placed, I don't really support it. I don't like being called "Hochman" by anybody younger than 50 (your age is unknown to me), but I didn't complain about it. In general it's best to avoid pissing people off needlessly. Please call me "Jehochman". That's what I like most. Thank you. Jehochman ^Brrr 05:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever. So are you now saying that you are offended in some way by my using your actual, given name? You're dropping "warnings" all over the place, but that is what it is. Your arbcom candidacy was soundly rejected for a reason, and part of it is how you come in stomping around a situation that you know very little about. If you were to have to stand for RFA again, I highly doubt you'd get even 50%, based on the way you use the fact that you have a few extra buttons at the top of your screen as some kind of "badge" with which to attempt to move other editors in the direction you want them to go. The sooner you realize that those buttons are only supposed to make you a janitor (and not some kind of "civility police" or hall monitor), the better off everyone will be. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think those remarks are helpful to further the goal of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia? You can't control what I say or do, but you can control your own actions and statements. If you don't like what I've done, your best response is to demonstrate higher standards yourself. Jehochman ^Brrr 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I find it hard to see how your remarks "further the goal of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia"? Why should others control their actions if you don't control yours? --Philcha (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God, at last! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. BigStupid.

I've obviously missed something then (again). Any clues? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have caught up. This is to do with Mr Rodriguez again. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't feel my feet. (ask moni) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy. You crack me up. --Moni3 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pay tmorrow ... this is new terrotory for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broke a fingernail, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends don't let friends edit drunk. MastCell ^Talk 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, shhhh! Yes they do. Just pass Sandy the beer bong and bask in the moment. --Moni3 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all i want is a manicure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do *not* send chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about some aspirins? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allergic. I'll just have to wait this one out. The day-after evidence indicates that only three glasses does me in. No wonder I don't imbibe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you're cheap on a night out then. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can usually find other ways to compensate for being a cheap date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O_o Must...look...away...and scrub brain with cleanser after visualizing.... --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, and my post was intended as a general comment without any implied criticism. All reactions I've seen to this are understandable in my eyes. This morning, I shared the disappointment and surprise of your first response, but did not have time to comment. Best wishes, Geometry guy 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth (and it would be worth nothing to Mattisse unfortuntely), I too have been saddened by this for months. I do not wish to think of people irredeemable and I was grieved to find every olive branch I extended rejected. I don't understand it. I regret that I may have been problematic to her mentors because I was very genuinely frustrated a few times. My own inability to reason away my frustration I consider a personal failure. I apologize, Geometry guy. I read over the talk page of Mulholland Drive recently, and I remember the way you and I began editing that article. I respected you then and I still do. I hope we can collaborate again and be friends. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take part in a straw poll on my user talk page, Malleus. (I'd really like your input!)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you my input right here. Don't even think about it, it's a stupid idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, everyone I know thinks its a stupid thing to do. (sorry for the pun, though you may not get it to be honest.) Anyway, I was not the one thinking about it. Rather, NSD was. I created the poll to show him that any RFA of mine go down in flames.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't understand your banter. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with speedy deletion of Cousins Properties. It was deleted because there was "no indication of importance". I will concede, per WP:LISTED, that the fact that the company is traded on the NASDAQ does not make it inherently notable, but I should think that fact should at least save it from speedy deletions and force any deletion attempts to be done through an AfD. But then again, I suppose "thinking" is the problem, isn't it? For example, I shouldn't think anything of the fact that 22 wikipedia articles mention Cousins Properties [8] (even though most don't link to it). I shouldn't think anything of the fact "Cousins Properties" can easily be made to be a non-orphaned article whereas articles like Highland (Capital MetroRail station), despite being almost guaranteed to be orphans, per the afd, are "inherently notable" and thus apparently immune from deletion. Neither should I think the fact that, according to Google News, the company has been mentioned in news articles 5,000+ times since 1976, satisfies the An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources criteria stated in WP:COMPANY? That argument was good enough to keep the article on Cuil but I suppose I shouldn't think that that argument is good enough for this article.

I will concede that the article could use improvement, but that's an argument for making it a stub (which it already was) - not for subjecting it to a speedy deletion.

Also, I'm not interested in userficiation and indeed, if the article is userfied, I will delete it as my userspace is my own. I just think the article deserves better than a speedy deletion. If it was decided, through an AfD, to delete the article, I'd be content, but that's not what happened, now is it? TerraFrost (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the article, I just drew attention to its inadequacy by tagging it for speedy deletion. If you believe that you can make a case for notability then go right ahead, but if you restore the same self-aggrandizing fluff piece then it'll be deleted again, sure as eggs is eggs. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I just did make a case for it's notability. I mean, what do you think my initial comment on your talk page was? The same sort of fluff you think the article I created was? Funny, because I think your reply is just as full of fluff as you seem to think mine is.

And regardless of whether or not you deleted it, the fact that you would call it a "self-aggrandizing fluff piece" means that you might as well have. So tell me - what, exactly, made it "self-aggrandizing fluff"? I don't believe it was at all. It was intended as a purely informative piece. It had like one sentence as I recall. It said it was founded by Tom Cousins, who has a wikipedia article, already. It said it was a REIT. How is any of that "self-aggrandizing fluff"? I didn't add any information that wasn't already on wikipedia. If the article I created was "self-aggrandizing fluff" then so to is the information I mentioned in the article. So if you think the article I was made was fluff, here's an idea: go delete List of public REITs in the United States, Tom Cousins and Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (C) since they must obviously be self-aggrandizing fluff, as well.

Wikipedia has a policy: Assume good faith. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it because apparently you're not. TerraFrost (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several policies I believe to be more appropriate for a nursery school project than for an enterprise undertaken by responsible adults. AGF is not synonymous with "suspend all reasonable scepticism and powers of rational thought", as too many seem to assume. Now if you've finished ranting please clear off. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If you folks are enjoying this argument, don't let me stop you. But from a practical matter, it's serving no purpose: (a) I've restored the article and added a reference from the Atlanta Business Journal that will likely make it immune to a speedy deletion (b) it wasn't really a fluff piece, and (c) it's really annoying when someone shows up on another editor's talk page, posts in a needlessly snotty and aggressive manner, and then demands that they get an assumption of good faith in return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly Tom Cousins himself has been nominated for speedy deletetion, and not by me. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties TerraFrost (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This 2nd cousin properties AfD is bizarre. I am finding so many sources its mind-boggling to weed through them.--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was bizarre was the motivation for opening it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me; surprised to see it tagged for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: User:ChildofMidnight/Mermaid problem? Here's the deletion discussion [9]. There does seem to be a fair amount of synthy original research, but on the other hand it seems kind of notable, interesting and well sourced to have been noted and recognized as an issue in various works of art and literature. Is there a way to include the content appropriately? Should it just be a small section in Mermaid? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, seeing a Fortean Times article as the first entry in the reference section is about as red as a red flag could be. – iridescent 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) And seeing a Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy entry cited as a 'source' pretty much kills the credibility for me. – iridescent 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at that article, but I think you do the Fortean Times a disservice Iridescent. I'm preparing an oeuvre on the Green children of Woolpit, and there's no doubt that the Fortean article is some of the best scholarship available. Mind you, I suspect you'll point out that that's perhaps not saying very much. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that FT article that you mentioned about blood rain online? Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through the FT site and I can't see it. I think I may have seen it Fortean Studies, which is a periodic collection of the more academically oriented FT stories. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT does indeed have some genuinely good researchers; Jenny Randles, for instance, is probably the world's leading expert on aerial phenomena, and Jan Bondeson practically keeps Parrot of Doom in business. However FT suffers from the same problem as Playboy in Wikipedia terms; the legitimate articles are interspersed with froth and fluff, and without verifying from footnotes it's impossible to tell what is what. (Heck, the very essence of Forteanism and "one measures a circle beginning anywhere" is that the loons are given equal airtime to the sane and there's no editorial judgement as to which are which; the disclaimer within every copy of FT says inter alia that "FT is a forum for [...] observations and ideas, however absurd or unpopular".) – iridescent 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair point. In fact Bondeson has been very useful to me as well, with some of the premature burial stuff– from his books, not from his FT articles. The problem is though, of course, that lots of the whackier stuff is ignored by the more mainstream journals, so often it's only published in the FT. With the green children, for instance, I've come across a scholarly article on a novel inspired by the story that references the FT article, as an authoritative source on the origins of the story, so it's horses for courses. Bit of a nightmare for Ealdgyth though, trying to judge the relaibility of sources; not enough to look at where something's published, but also at the wider reputation of the author. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Heck, the very essence of Forteanism and 'one measures a circle beginning anywhere' is that the loons are given equal airtime to the sane and there's no editorial judgement as to which are which". Kind of sums up wikipedia as well, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Fort would have had a lot to say about Wikipedia. Not so much the 'one measures a circle' part, but The Book of the Damned; the preamble to TBOTD could practically serve as a user manual to that peculiar beast, "Wikipedia consensus". – iridescent 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect he would. Actually that link contains quite an extensive discussion of blood and other coloured rains that Nev1 was asking about above. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look now, and I've got so many issues with that Mermaid problem article it's untrue. Starting with the basics, who has ever used the term "mermaid problem" other than the author of this article? The Examples section might just as well be renamed Trivia, and the whole thing gives the very strong impression of being a piece of original research. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights Iridescent and Malleus Fatuorum. I pretty much agree. The options I've come up with are an article on mermaid morphology, an article on mythological animal morphology or integrating into the article on Mythological conundrums I created, that is not good at all so far. I think there's some subject there somewhere with sources, but I haven't found it. So it's an uphill effort so far, but I'm hoping that a great inspiration will arise in an epiphany or, better yet, someone else will come up with a good idea. Anatomy of mythological creatures? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say you're on a hiding to nothing with this topic. To do it justice, you're going to need to cover 3000+ years of history in multiple cultures. Just as an example, think of how much work would need to be done explaining the origins, characteristics, cultural background and possible basis in dinosaur-nest fact of:

• the ancient Babylonian Sirrush;
• the Dacian Draco, the Welsh Dragon, Níðhöggr & Grendel, Cuélebre, the Wyvern and the Lambton Worm in Western Europe;
• the Slavic dragons of Eastern Europe;
• the demonic Near Eastern dragons of the Golden Legend;
• the Vedic Vritra;
• the Chinese Lóng, the Vietnamese Rồng and the Korean Yong;
• the Bhutanese Thunder Dragon;
• the North American Thunderbird.

Then, once you've done that – which would be a long book's worth of research and writing in itself – imagine doing the same for the mermaid, the giant, the cockatrice, the griffin – even my personal favorite mythological critter (inexplicably overlooked by J.K. Rowling and the writers of horror movies alike), the Enfield.

And once you've done that, you'll have written a lengthy high-traffic article which by its nature is going to implicitly criticize major world religions, The X-Files, and the Harry Potter books. Once it goes into the mainspace, you'll then have an object lesson in the less savory implications of "you can edit this page!", and within three days the whole thing will have degenerated into an incoherent soup with little if any resemblance to what you meant it to say.

Wikipedia is superb at covering low-interest, low-traffic topics but the Wikipedia model is awful at covering topics like this. Seriously, don't try. – iridescent 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Just because my account is pretty new doesn't mean I haven't been reading Wikipedia for a while. You seem a little paranoid, maybe you should step back from the vote? QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW i don't think this warning is warranted. Malleus posed an observation that went no further than being an (in my view accurate) observation, and drew some off-topic ire from a third party (Hammersoft) to whch he then responded. Some of us who have spent time at WP:COI, battling vandals and POV-pushers are quite willing to assume good faith but also put up red flags as soon as we see them - such as was the case here. Lots of us read Wikipedia for a long time before we edited here, but to enter debates such as this one at the start of one's editing history does appear unusual to others of us too - which is what Malleus stated. All it was was a flag. Quattro, i invite you to strikethrough your tagging here, and particularly the suggestion that Malleus is paranoid, which appears to assume less good faith than did Malleus. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you accusing me of having a conflict of interest on? And accusing a new user of being a sockpuppet for voting in a Request for Comment is absolutely being paranoid. If you can't see that, perhaps you need to take a step back as well? I thought that anyone could edit Wikipedia.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack quack quack... The old, I've been reading Wikipedia for a while schtick. And I'm all for being nice to noobs, but it doesn't demand we be silly about it... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quattro, i obviously didn't make my point clearly enough. Long-time editors like Malleus or myself or many others (CoM too it seems) see a lot of editors come in to Wikipedia with a lot of agendas, whether they are particular POVs in articles, or commercial agendas, or conflicts of interest, or a desire to vandalise, or helping out a real-life friend (AKA meatpuppetry, sometimes), and so on. Sockpuppetry is also very common. After spending a lot of time dealing with these things, it is common to assume good faith, but also to immediately, and sometimes directly and bluntly, raise the possibility of alternative explanations. In a relatively heated and intensely watched RfC, a newly-registered account coming straight in and engaging in an RfC about the management of administrator functions (something most new editors aren't even aware exist) is the sort of thing that will trigger this kind of questioning. I wasn't accusing you of COI or of any other particular problem, but trying to explain the kinds of experiences editors have that lead them to raise these issues. Paranoia is in the eye of the beholder: you think i exhibit it, i think you exhibit it. You can be sure neither Malleus nor I will be taking any steps back. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got that right Hamiltonstone. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MF, you've been templated by a duck; lots of those goin' round :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lodged an Alert; someone else can file the SPI if that's necessary as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of QuattroBajeena's contributions is rather revealing. Issuing a templated 3RR warning on your second edit? I mean, come on.[10] --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my first edit was an afd. maybe QuattroBajeena has previously contributed anonymously without an account. maybe QuattroBajeena is a new account created by an established user for this exact purpose but even if that is what it were so long as it is not being used "to alter the apparent weight of an opinion" it is not sockpuppetry. i find your overall cynicism of wikipedia very refreshing but am disappointed by this display of cronyism. attacking a user simply because they are new is the textbook definition of ad hominem. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've met before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand much of what goes on at WR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out on the opportunity to be on a 10th grade pep squad with the girls who thought they were popular. No wonder you don't get it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what a pep squad is. So much to learn ... --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pep squad: Girls who weren't elected as cheerleaders but get to wear uniforms and cheer in the bleachers anyway. Sometimes they dance (the crowd usually hopes they don't). Generally take themselves and their role seriously but are egregiously teased by everyone else. This may be more practiced in the Southern US, where high school (American) football is king. At my school we called the pep squad the "whore corps". Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some schools they are the Pom-pom squad, instead. And some lucky schools have all three! Cheerleaders, pom-poms, and pep squad. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I am so thankful I am not a girl in an American High School I could weep.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a dose of musical theatre that might help you understand, Malleus; what drives some people is quite simple. Karanacs, only a Texan could describe pep squad girls so well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Lord of the Flies was rewritten for girls, it would be about girls on the pep squad and those who are not on the pep squad, either because they tried out and did not make it (to be forever scorned for wanting to do something and failing at it), or they never imagined someone would want to be on a pep squad (which would translate for the pep squad that they really want to be on the pep squad but are too ugly, poor, clumsy, or otherwise imperfect). For a week following the choosing of who gets to be on the pep squad, the pep squad is a united group, uniformly dressed and similarly rejecting those who are not within their ranks. Following that week, however, chaos unravels when the pep squad members continue to reject outsiders while simultaneously competing with each other for whatever their individual goals are: boys, trophies, titles, clothes, facebook pages, etc. It's a fascinating society. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools 2011: a Moni, Malleus, PoD collaboration. That oughta keep you all inspired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia policy, Sandy. Once you write an April Fools FA you are forever immune from being recruited from writing another. Like chicken pox. Have you written one? Hmmmmmmm???? --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Ask MastCell. "The World's No. 2 Authority

I have an absolute blinder for 1 April next year, I just need to find more sources on it. Raul has shown himself to be quite brave with a certain article being TFA'd last year, but this one is easily as objectionable. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then you little tease, what is it? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already seen it :) Parrot of Doom 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best part about that CDA thread was Hammersoft accusing you of insulting him. Now, I'm fairly positive that you and I are both well acquainted with insults, in both directions. What I saw was you going miles out of your way not to insult anyone. It's hard for me to support a process that has editors like that slavering at the bit. Of course, you might be itching to implement it as well - but at least I moderately trust your judgment thereabouts. I dunno, I might stay out of the whole thing. Tan | 39 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd intended to insult Hammersoft nobody would be in any doubt about it, as I'm sure you can imagine. I've supported the CDA proposal as a protest against the "admin for life" culture really, not because I particularly want to see it implemented or think there's any chance that it will be. I couldn't ever imagine using it myself anyway, just like I've never been to RfC or ArbCom, except as the defendant. In truth I think the fear some of the opposition has expressed that groups of editors may gang up on individual administrators is a reasonable one, and it would almost certainly happen. Whether they'd be successful or not though is another matter of course. My preference is for fixed terms of two years or so, with the option of some kind of straightforward renewal process in which other editors have the opportunity to voice an opinion if the administrator opts to carry on in that role, but nothing even remotely like RfA. I well understand the reluctance I'm sure every administrator would feel at having the run the gauntlet at RfA again; it's a harrowing enough experience even when you haven't been blocking and deleting for the previous two years. Despite my well-known views on administrators there are probably only half a dozen or so out of the 800 odd who're active that I'd actively oppose at any renomination, and I'd be surprised if they didn't know who they were– you wouldn't be one of them btw. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. Whatever problems we've had seems to be in the past; as you've mentioned in passing, we see eye to eye on more things that we admit. Fixed terms makes complete sense; it's too bad this wasn't implemented from the start. The Wikipedia society has too much inertia now to make sweeping changes - especially controversial ones like a fixed-term proposal is bound to be. Thus, our communities' answer is to create yet another process. You can probably draw parallels to various governments. Adding a bureaucratic layer - as I perceive this proposal to be - is hardly a good thing. Yet I still find myself wanting there to be any way to desysop other than Arbcopm. I'd probably be the first one up against the wall when the revolution came (see the latest thread on my talk page). Tan | 39 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: several DYK regulars, including myself, are strongly supporting toughening DYK standards; we can't make it a written policy, but reserved right for reviewers to reject based on informal criteria. The key issue is having enough men*hours of good reviewers, and your help would be appreciated there. A few editors who keep the project running are doing their best, but simply can't cover up everything. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest I think that DYK has lost its way. For amusement I not infrequently look at the mainpage DYKs, and I'd estimate that about 25% are an embarrassment and about 75% of the hooks are "who gives a fuck?" The time for rewarding new articles has passed; it's time to start rewarding good articles instead. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're better than the best writings of many a "leader" or "policymaker" on wiki....not that this means much YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I ruled the world and could make just one change at DYK it would be "for Christ's sake, make the hook interesting!" I mean, "Did you know that politician X runs an antiques store in smallville Y?" just makes me yawn. Maybe the criteria for DYK ought to be that the subject is actually interesting to more than half a dozen people. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happened in the old days with only two people operating DYK in early 2006, but some people just went nuts and gave everyone an earful each time their hook got questioned, when the hook was just "...that X built this house" or whatever rather than "that John Devitt won the 100m freestyle despite clocking a slower time than silver medallist Lance Larson?" but the culture on Wikipedia rewards people for turning a blind eye to anything, so these BLP reforms aren't going to work either except teh usual posturing. Everyone who runs for ARBCOM etc makes the usual specch about standing up for NPOV but how many of them rv pov pushers? If they did they would get opposes at elections YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... the culture on Wikipedia rewards people for turning a blind eye to anything". You got that right. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That what I was saying above - we failed to do that by setting solid DYK rules and can only press as reviewers - every nom has to be approved or rejected, and only extra voices at T:TDYK can help that at the moment. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a disinterested commentator though is what I'm suggesting. I think DYK occupies too much real estate on the main page to the detriment of GAs, which aren't featured at all and are far more hard work to write. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Sectioning of the main page is decided above DYK project. (ii) A large percentage of DYK articles go straight to GAN (I monitored that by seeing GA tags while tagging the articles). (iii) There was a move to bring DYK standards closer to GA, and again, it's all about (lack of) manpower. Sure, GA standards are higher, but it is much much slower and can't keep up with those recent events which are not good enough for ITN. Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps we may disagree about the details. My experience would be that hardly any DYKs are taken to GAN, and any move to align the DYK standard with the GA criteria would effectively result in the elimination of almost all DYKs as failing to achieve that standard. Your point about "recent events" is of course a red herring, as wikipedia is not a news source, and any sensible editor would delay writing about an event until the dust had settled on a few reliable sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can check yourself that almost any DYK article written by Yzx, Sasata, Ucucha, Sturmvogel and a few others goes to GAN (some might not like their topics, but their quality is high even by my standards). Johnbod, Spinningspark, Cbl, and many others, also write quality content. User:Stone - a hard-core encyclopedian was turned to write for DYK ;) and find it refreshing, not to mention user:Dr. Blofeld (his edit stats would tell much). "Not a news source" is my background, but, that part makes WP No1 information site and thus attracts serious editors, whom we desperately need for quality content. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I never put anything up for GA; I feel about it pretty much as Malleus does about DYK, and judging DYK on the basis of what goes on to GA is a pointless exercise. Ceoil for one puts his future FAs through DYK if they are new. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that some are taken on to GA, but your assertion was that "a large percentage" were, which I think is at best dubious. In an attempt to establish some parameters here, would 5% be a large percentage in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5% is large for me, considering the numbers of GA/GAN articles and number of new/all articles. I am too lazy to get an estimate, and this is beyond my point, which is, with enough reviewers, DYK standards can become closer to GA. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are clearly not a scientist, material or otherwise. Your claim was that a large percentage of DYKs were advanced to at least GA, which is clearly rubbish. I think we've discussed this enough now. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also remember seeing GA nominations fairly regularly while doing DYK updates, so I decided to check the manual updates I have performed since February 15. That was a total of 101 articles, which included 1 FLC, 2 GANs, and 3 GAs. Ucucha 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, 6%. I'm surprised it's even that high. I wonder what happens to the other 94%, if anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They join the ranks of the other three million articles that never see much action, I guess. I actually agree that Wikipedia should focus more on improving existing content, instead of adding new articles. Creating the right incentives may help in getting people to focus on that, but doing so is complicated by systemic inertia and by the difficulty in achieving well-functioning incentives. I would be interested in exploring possibilities, even when they are as radical as replacing DYK by a list of the newest GAs. Ucucha 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overall percentages are about the same as those above. Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles has 34873 members, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles has 1972, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles has 517, and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists has 287, giving 8% of DYKs which have become good or featured. Dr pda (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I'm with Malleus on this.

• The DYK criteria are to create an article or expand one by least 5x, so that the result is at 1500 chars of pure prose, all within 5 days.
• The GA criteria are more complex, but the ones I think most about are "reasonable coverage", WP:V and reasonable presentation (incl prose). IMO coverage and references are the most work, even if the article is B-class before work starts. The % of articles of B-class or lower that reach GA is very small. IMO the gap between B-class and GA is so large that in my experience it's usually a re-write.
• What % of articles reach DYK at all? I'd expect that only a insignificant % of GAs have early reached DYK.
• I'd expect that only a insignificant % of DYK articles reach GA within 2 years.

As Malleus said in another discussion, DYK is a quick and dirty job. --Philcha (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion part of the DYK criteria annoys me. I've completely re-written articles in under 5 days, and eliminated virtually all the old (and bad) content. Yet still, my editing hasn't produced a 5x expansion, or, by the rules, a "new article" (even though it is). I say we should look at more tabloid style hooks, for instance yesterday Michael Foot died, and I still remember one tabloid headline from years back, that said "Foot Heads Arms Body". Parrot of Doom 09:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general focus on new articles as opposed to decent articles is a relic of wikipedia's early days, but DYK has to evolve. I've been made to feel like a second-class editor because I've only created maybe 30 or so articles in my time here, but how many have I improved, and like you often improved very substantially? Wikipedia has over 3 million articles now, but the overwhelming majority are complete crap. Time for a rethink; son of DYK ought to be turning its attention on article improvement, not more of the same old rubbish that'll never be more than the barely adequate stubs that too many DYKs are destined to remain. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following its appearance on the front page a couple of days ago Mendip Hills (which became FA in early 2007) has been put up for FAR. Some of the reviewers comments include "Choppy prose" (which I would be really grateful if you could look at) + lots of stuff about references & citations, which I will work on.— Rod ^talk 12:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, not much of a reward for your day in the limelight. I'll try and help out with the FAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to you reading over German Type UB I submarine and telling me what's left for an FA? Slipped your mind? If you just don't want to you can go ahead ans tell me. I'll be ok.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did slip my mind, but I've also been a bit busy over the last few days with some RL writing, so Ive been popping in here from time to time as a little break from the serious (i.e., paid) stuff. I'll try and take a look later. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I would imagine that your job would be more important than this place. (The joys of being a minor inculde no work) When you get the chance, just read over it. Thanks and enjoy your semi-wikibreak, AKA:Work (that is, if you enjor your job).--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When your time comes you'll find that Work is like the curate's egg, good in parts. When there are bills to be paid though there's little alternative. Anyway, I've just about finished what I had to get done today, so I ought to be able to take a look at your sub shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For both parts.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've a quick look through and I think there would likely be a few problems at FAC. The first is to do with the prose, which ought to be fairly easy to fix, but needs fixing. For instance, "... built in Germany during the beginning of World War I" is at best awkward. How long did "the beginning of World War I" last? "Construction on the first boats ..."? Obviously what's meant is "construction of", as no construction could take place on the boats until they'd been built. You also really need to look very carefully at the whole article again for obvious grammatical errors like "over the UB Is' first year of service ..."; it's a singular type, so it should be "UB I's". You'd also need to be prepared to field questions about the German and Bulgarian sources used, or at least have the help of someone who could.

Overall I think the article is a reasonable GA that still needs some tidying up, but it's got a way to go before facing the lions at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALright then. Thanks. Perhaps I shall wait until I'm fully ready to handle a task like that to take it to FAC. For now, I'll just do DYK's and GA's.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I weep for the loss of common sense. This edit just sums up for me the malaise at the heart of wikipedia; too many toss pots who think they're allowed to reinvent history as it suits them.

For anyone interested in the facts, causing harm by witchcraft (not witchcraft itself) was a crime in 17th-century England, and those poor unfortunates were convicted and executed as witches. Obviously causing harm by witchcraft is a crime that's inconceivable to a 21st-century teenager living in Randy's home town of Boise– it's an absurd notion to me as well– but that's what they were found guilty of nevertheless.

I've got an idea. Why don't we change the words in all of wikipedia's articles to suit the narrow-minded world view of Randy from Boise? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*snark* "Live with it". I flew here to read this because the subheading matches a very good long forgotten ABBA song from their post-divorce cynical phase. Anyway, understand your frustration. Won't someone please think of the witches? Other than Roald Dahl? --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Moni the gadfly) Oh, my (I liked your response). What's a "toss pot"? @Moni: Laugh (and send balloons). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ... err ... don't we have an article on it somewhere? Remember spitoons in those old Western movies? Well, spit isn't the only bodily fluid that can be ... to cut a long story short, "toss" is a slang term for masturbation. There I've said it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have towels over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahha! Malleus is embarrassed about wankin'. I think that's choice. --Moni3 (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my extremely poor eyesight and hairy hands would allow me to reply to that, then I would. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't told me why you need a pot ... never been to a baseball game in Venezuela, I see (where you'd need the pot to protect your head from the flying bodily fluids). Moni, stop beating me to the punch; I just figgered out it's a wanker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a pot, but apparently others at some other time did. It does seem a strange idea when you come to think of it ... ah well, such is life. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you need to be quicker. Or have the lyrics to She Bop memorized. Good vibrations. Goin' out with a lion's roar, goin' south, that is one weird video--hahah self service...messin' with the danger zone, oh, Cyndi. You're so awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, dude! Dr. Siggy's Masterbingo! I totally missed that the first time because I was typing. That's so awesome! Lulz! That was 1984. Nancy Reagan must have shit a gold brick. --Moni3 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus is wankin' and you're mentioning skinny girls on diets? Where is this headed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have soap according to the Australians. "Hide the cutlery Sheila, I smell a soap dodger approaching." I suppose they felt they had to get their own back for us deporting them all though. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Malleus it was all an evil plot to get you to disclose your sex life. Tosspot means drunkard. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see ... now Malleus is calling me a drunkard. That's what I get for indulging on his page ! Next he'll call me SandyChillin. Reading further on this thread, I detect a grand scheme between PoD and Malleus to avoid April 1, 2011. Serious 1b issues remain at tosspot.

1. Why did the Brits have the need to collect said bodily fluids in a pot?
2. Were they afraid to dispose of all of their future heirs?
3. Don't they know those tailed little buggers die quickly?
4. Was there an alternate use for the contents of the pot?
5. What became of the contents once the pot was full?

Inquiring minds want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the witchcraft talking, Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit seems fair, just the edit summary is broken. We know (with moderate WP:V) that a number of people were executed. We have no real evidence for how many of them were witches. The history of witch burnings (and one reason why it's so misogynistic, in comparison to burning heretics) is that it was often used as a way of murdering someone in a dispute over property, and the targets of this were disproportionately women. Alleging witchcraft was a good way to remove a widow and capture a "rightful" inheritance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the law decided they were witches, then they were witches. Otherwise that woman who lives in Buckingham Palace isn't a Queen. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Gordon Brown should make an formal apology and give them a postumous pardon - hold on though, would they still be witches then? He could then give their decendants some compensation as they probably haven't got a pot to toss in. If someone was convicted of homosexual practises when that was illegal does that make them a queen? Richerman (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a quotation I had to take out of the Pendle witches article at FAC along the lines that "to the modern mind, witchcraft is a crime that doesn't exist". Nevertheless, to the 17th century mind of King James I it most certainly did exist, and a substantial number of those executed as witches considered themselves to be witches, Alizon Device among those hanged at Lancaster. Although there have been efforts to obtain pardons for at least some of those convicted of witchcraft, the official government view is that it is inappropriate to pardon those tried and convicted under the laws of their time. So these unfortunates found guilty of witchcraft and executed for witchcraft, are still considered to be witches. In much the same way that St Augustine is considered a saint I suppose. Once again, to a modern mind the idea of sainthood is absurd, or it ought to be. I do know that the Swiss government granted a pardon to Anna Göldi, executed in 1782, the last person in Europe to be executed for witchcraft on the basis of her haviing being tried illegally, but nothing similar has happened here, or looks likely to happen, despite periodic campaigns. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that always needs hammering home - especially to people who don't have the same cultural context - is just how ingrained witchcraft and witchery is in European culture. While some of these trials were "persecution of the local crazy old lady", a lot of the witches genuinely believed in what they were doing; the same cultural phenomenon lives on in the US as Louisiana Voodoo. Remember, the last successful (for the the prosecution) witchcraft trial in Britain was that of Jane Rebecca Yorke in 1944 (not Helen Duncan, despite what most sources say), well within living memory. That said, the authorities in Britain formally ceased to recognise witchcraft as real with the Witchcraft Act 1735. – iridescent 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 17th century was a complicated time in England, in no small part because because of the religious turmoil that was going on at that time, as you know. Some of the "spells" that witches were accused of using were actually quite well-known Catholic prayers, and as you say, many did actually believe that they were witches, although not in the caricatured "flying on broomsticks" kind of way, which even King James dismissed as nonsense. I gave the example of Alizon Device earlier, who was quite convinced at her trial that she was responsible for the stroke John Law suffered after their altercation. The English experience of witchcraft was quite different from the European one though I think, and there just doesn't seem to have been the appetite for hunting witches in England– incidents like Matthew Hopkins were unusual. Reading the account of the Lancashire witch trials, in particular the the trial of the Samlesbury witches, makes it evident that "witchcraft" had rather little to do with what was going on. Recusansy and being seen to do something about it were at least as important I think.

Those later trials you mention (Yorke and Duncan) are interesting too though, and deserve a bit more work than has been put into them so far. They weren't convicted of witchcraft though, but of pretending to be "witches", which is rather a strange crime in itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All English witchcraft convictions post 1735 were for pretending to be witches; once the Witchcraft Act 1735 had passed, the state (and hence the church) formally recognised that witchcraft didn't exist, so the convictions were always either for fraud or vagrancy. ("Pretending to be witches" isn't that odd a concept. Go down to your local Psychick Fayre or Spiritualist church, or read the small-ads in FT, and you'll see people claiming all kinds of dubious powers. – iridescent 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Moni, so glad to see I'm not the only one who likes The Visitors. The title track and Day Before You Came are IMO the greatest work Abba ever did. – iridescent 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. "The Day Before You Came" is hypnotic. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, no offence to the ladies above! <Drops hat>...Any interest in a collab on a fairly harsh condemnation of the political motives and exploitation of popular superstition that lead to thoes trials. I've been building it up for a few weeks, though it has not come together for me yet. Its necessarly an ugly article, my hope is that by the time it is finished (about a month) it will be a proper eye sore. Nay worries if you are preoccupied, I'm just chancing my arm here. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's shaping up to be a lovely little article. Unfortunately I'm not any kind of an expert on either art or European witchcraft, but I'd be happy to help out where I can. I see the article already mentions the Spanish Inquisition, so that's a good start. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely? Eh, thanks I suppose! I might ask you for help with a c/e at some stage if thats ok.

No problem. One thing that struck me immediately is that the lead images are a bit too wide. I'm on a widescreen laptop, but even so the images covered more area than the text did. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not following things closely, but I keep seeing witchcraft mentioned here. I once read an article in a scholarly journal that retold an anecdote... from my vague memory... during some plague or other, a scholar was walking down the street and wiped something off his hands onto the wall of a house. It was probably ink, but someone reported him as a witch who was cursing households. He was arrested, horribly tortured and killed. I might be able to find that anecdote again, if it interests. • Ling.Nut 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly sounds interesting. What I think is obvious is that hardly anyone really believed in witchcraft in the way we understand that term today, but it was often used as a device. As in the case of poor Anna Göldi. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This user has been blocked for ban evasion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloody stupid. What's more important, a technical detail that can't be enforced anyway or improving an important article? That's a rhetorical question btw. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pretend that I don't know what rhetorical means and say that I don't think the community making a decision that someone is no longer welcome here to be a technical detail. It is the duty of admins to enforce such community decisions, otherwise the community would be without recourse towards persistently disruptive users. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the duty of every editor to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. That means improving articles or creating an environment in which that could happen. Peter had stated that he just wanted to work on history of logic. This is a cock up to be expected of a bureaucracy where common sense is discouraged. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to follow common sense, not the supposed decisions made by a mythical community. You know as well as I do that there is no way at all to enforce blocks or bans, thery're just pointless willy waving. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting hypothesis, I hope you never try to test it as I really do appreciate your content contributions to our project. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, more veiled threats already. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hidden code there, I was being sincere. Regardless, good day. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you said that on this page? Pardon me if I'm wrong but hasn't Malleus repeatedly requested that you not post here? Parrot of Doom 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your experience on Witch stuff, I wondered how you'd go about summarising a trial. The issue I have (and I've raised this on Richerman's page) is that Moore (1994), while apparently a very thorough piece of scholarship, is more interested in presenting the facts of Elizabeth Canning's perjury trial in minute detail, rather than telling a story. This makes it difficult to pick out a narrative, and to work out exactly when things were said and done (although I know exactly who said and did them). So is it acceptable simply to present a week-long trial as a summary, with "x said this, y said that, etc"? I think if I tried to present it chronologically, my brain would explode, but that would surely be the more acceptable solution from a scholarly point of view? Parrot of Doom 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts of trials tend to be pretty tedious I think. I prefer to summarise (dates, defence and prosecution barristers, judge, how long the jury deliberated and so on) and just pick out anything significant or that paints a picture. Like 9-year-old Jennet Device being placed on a table to give evidence against her mother, or well-known addresses to the court before sentencing. I like to try and paint a picture rather than relate all of the tedious detail– anyone who cares about the detail can go to the source– but what do I know; I write like a journalist for The Sun apparently. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, but here's an interesting address to the magistrates before sentencing which turned out to be a hoax. You don't write like a tabloid journalist! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a truly dreadful article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is. Plenty of work to be done around here... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid journalists are pretty good are expressing points clearly and concisely. Fortunately Malleus also checks his facts and reasoning. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects I don't mind being compared to a tabloid journalist; they at least make stuff look interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expense account is pretty cool too! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOW you're getting frisky, Fred ... hold the oysters! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't heard the "Fred the Oyster" sound effect from the Goon Show :p --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a YouTube! Since I'm so "exercised", maybe I should watch one LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised, I can't find one. As I've piqued your interest I shall get one sorted for tomorrow. I think it could even be a fair use ogg for the Goon Show article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrrrumph, you already spoiled one party today-- you ruined my joke at ANI. Are you trying to grow up and be like Malleus, who took down my best joke thread ever (he hates it when I remind him of that, so I'm doing it for fun ... MF, silly hat on !!) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which joke was that? It was hard to differentiate due to the amount of joking coming from the other parties.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when he called me a "slag", and I had to look it up, then I started a poll to find out which kind of slag. He removed my poll just as I was setting up a trail ten pages deep to get The Fat Man to come and vote! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of attack isn't appropriate. I have blocked you for 24 hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me to watchlist this page because it housed drama, but that comment by itself was pretty pedestrian to win a block over. Perhaps I missed out on juicier stuff. Oh well.--Milowent (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is really taking the piss, especially given the accuracy of the statement. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, this block seems to be of the utmost of assness, Ten. Seriously. Bad. Block. In my non-editing-on-a-regular-basis opinion. What happened to civil warnings? Seems really pretentious, Mr TOAT. Keeper | 76 03:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best part is, everyone knew Chillum would do this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Because I need more crap. --Moni3 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it by a few seconds. Anyway, fully support unblock. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but plenty of us are tired of seeing Malleus as a whack-a-mole target, while admins themselves commit worse abuses. Chillum did not need to take it upon himself to revert all those edits, when they were clearly under discussion at AN/I ... it was an unnecessary provocation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You win, you are more stubborn than I am determined. Being abused by drive by trolls and single purpose accounts is one thing, but when the abuse is sanctioned and protected from rebuke by admins then that is to much. I am going to spend time on a project that does not endorse abusing its members. I hope you are proud Malleus, you have often said Wikipedia would be better without me and now you have your wish. Please know Malleus that is it not you who gets the credit for this, but rather those who enable you to do this. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bye. Keeper | 76 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOly moly, we're to rage quit in record time!!--Milowent (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should make an "I've quit, this place sucks, fuck everyone" template to save time. With an option for "I'll be back in three days when I've calmed down". Tan | 39 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. BTW. I'm still blocked. Have you all thrown me to the wolves? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked again by some half-assed willy-waving clown. Sad. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with block. Moni3 is not a disinterested or objective editor when it comes to Malleus. She is misusing her tools once again to unblock a chronically uncivil editor who does much to lower the tone on wikipedia. I am not an admin, but I am plenty tired of seeing Malleus get away with murder (so to speak) and driving awayt other editors. As an editor that was driven away by barbs, attacks and harassments by Malleus, I see this as a sorry day in the history of blocking. It is too bad. The endless persecution crusades against Chillum should cease, if there is any decency in (or on) wikipedia. Talking image (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]