User talk:Eric Corbett

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

Hygeberht

I've made those last tweaks, and would greatly appreciate your wondeful fine-toothed-comb going over the thing one more time before I nom at FAC. Eventually the carousel has to be promotoed, right?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I always see "pallium" used with the definite article--.02¢ from Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see it used that way. See the ODNB entry for Anselm of Canterbury - "The strictly legal view was that Anselm was not empowered to exercise his archiepiscopal functions until he had received his pallium from the pope..." or for Berhtwald "...subsequent journey to Rome to receive his pallium from Pope Sergius..." or Nothhelm "... the archbishopric of York being established about that time (and probably a little earlier than Nothhelm's consecration) by the gift of a pallium from Pope Gregory III to Ecgberht...". Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@Talbot1954 (in the style of PASE), p. 48: "Furthermore, he gave the archiepiscopal pallium to the envoys...". I meant "the" as opposed to "a", not to other determiners. Your Nothhelm quote, that's the first time I see "a" pallium. But anyway... Drmies (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you want me to look over Maggie for you guys, by the way? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do, that would be great! Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The carousel is already an FA in all but name, patience grasshopper. I'll take a look at the old boy later; got a few other things to do first. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you and John won't kill me for the monster list... done with Maggie. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ealdgyth. Doesn't faze me in the slightest as John will probably have to deal with most of that; I'm a little tied up with 12-century aliens for the next day or so. Some useful reminders there about what Yanks might or might not be reasonably expected to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What you two have done with Mrs. Thatcher is truly impressive. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is right; it's not yet quite the finished article, but we'll get there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"What you two have done with Mrs. Thatcher is truly impressive." Oh do tell - what have you done with her? I know what many people would like to have done with her when she was in power :) Richerman (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to admit to being ambivalent about Thatcher. She did many things I didn't approve of, and as a student I attended marches against her; the "Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher" one stands out in my memory as that was where I met my wife. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

... which makes me think that all of these dating agencies have got it all wrong. Just do stuff and you'll meet people, it'll happen naturally, but don't go hunting for them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Had a chance to check him over? Any TPSs are welcome to butt in also... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look him over this evening. Been trying to mop up a few FAC issues on my green children. Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Obviously I should stick with bishops for nominations... much quicker supports this time around... now I gotta figure out what goes up next! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your energy for FAC quite simply astonishes me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When my other option is yard work in the pouring rain ... or code... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gees, I really SHOULD stick to bishops .. six supports in under two days??? Yowsers, as the "meddling teenagers" used to say! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You've actually got two FACs running that got six supports in two days. Here's the other one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You cheeky little bugger! (Did I get the accent right there?) Or, to use an Americanism, you brat! (Be glad I'm not calling you what I call my horses - "goober brain" when they are being particularly equinish is a favorite). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the references you provided I couldn't have written it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Your thoughts on "baubles" are well documented, but I hope you'll accept this as a token of my appreciation for all your help with Mike Jackson from GAN to FA. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good news. You did a fine job with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lake Untersee

Eh, on a rather more mature subject.... I was wondering what you thought of this. Its by no means the longest article but I think it is about as good as it could be using online material. An obscure Antarctica lake with a PH like strong Clorox... I think its quite a good one, would it stand chance at GA do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Content-wise it seems fine, but the writing still needs a little bit of work I think. For example:

• "The studies involved 'geomicrobiological explorations to test laser induced fluorescence emission (L.I.F.E.) to be used for the exploration of the Mars regolith and poles; monitor adaptive genetic responses to global climate change; and evaluate methods for detecting hydrocarbon contamination and subsequent bio-remediation in a fragile, endangered ecosystem.'" That doesn't really make sense. "The studies involved ... monitor adaptive genetic responses ..."?
• "Scientists have examined the bottom of the lake by diving. In 2009, Dale Andersen, a scientist with the SETI Institute’s Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, went diving in Lake Untersee to carry out studies on its unique microbial communities." Too many diving scientists there.
• "It is sometimes called a “soap lake” where microbial life system has existed below the lake surface water depth of 2–6 metres (6.6–20 ft) for over 100,000 years." I can't follow that at all.
• "It is also inferred that studies of this lake could decipher 'the origin, adaptation, and evolution of life on Earth'". The passive voice is awkward there; inferred by whom? "Inferred" doesn't quite seem like the right word anyway.

Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback, I'll look into this tomorrow. Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought of you ...

When I saw this article ... here. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My interest in those kinds of things lies in why people believe in them, much like my interest in God. With the English witches for instance, it's very easy to see the connections between the trials and the Protestant-Catholic schism of the 16th and 17th centuries. I do like those whacky subjects as well though, but you've given me a shed-load of work to do on Maggie. ;-( Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Never let it be said I won't dig in and help. I'll pick up some of those journal articles tomorrow while I'm at the U of I. I've also started working on the Great Psychotic of the Middle Ages, as I liked to think of him in college. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's one big subject. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

At least I no longer cringe when I see the article. It remains far from "good" but it's no longer full of POV and Victorian/Edwardian wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, when I was driving around earlier today I found myself in "Canute Road", only about a mile or so from where I live. That old boy really got about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Shakespear

Hi Malleus - I've nominated Olivia to FAC and wanted you to know, should you be interested in reviewing again. Thanks, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. I've had enough of working on Margaret Thatcher for now anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits. Olivia was popular today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason mentioning an article on my talk page seems to have that effect. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks too for the copyedits to Georgie. I think writing is hard and it's nice to see someone fix a page I know needs work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the comma after her birth name and before the parenthetic birth info is not formally incorrect, but I'd place it after those dates. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I looked very hard but couldn't find anything wrong with your children. I personally wouldn't call Cohen's a folk tale explanation, but I don't have a better term at hand (his is cultural criticism). I saw you didn't put Robert Burton in, but that's really a very brief and derivative remark anyway. Looks fine to me, Malleus. What's next? FAR--I don't know exactly how that works, really, but I'd be happy to learn. (Does that transclude to the article talk page like GAR?) Drmies (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I was torn between folk tale and folk lore, but I don't think Cohen's is a historical explanation ... maybe folk lore would be better? Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I'm at, I'd call it cultural criticism, but our article (cultural critic) hardly covers it, and it strikes me as a pretty US-specific word. Folklore, now that you mention it, is a better term than folk tale, certainly. I don't think it will be problematic at the review, and if so, we can figure something else out. Maybe I'll just rewrite the cultural critic article first. Hey, that is a lot of edits you made--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just decided that I really wanted to put this one to bed finally. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made the nomination, so it's game on! Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exciting! I may have a hard time falling asleep tonight. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's almost always a bumpy ride, so hang on! Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. We've got a problem with the two Clark (2006) papers. We need to distinguish between the two, which one is supporting what. Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I see correctly that you fixed that by moving the articles to the footnotes? MLA formatting is easier in this regard, I think. At any rate, the Clark note on beans was mine; yes, that certainly was from the Folklore article. The others you added when you were first working on the article, no? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "historian" as a modifier for Charles Oman. I am trying to figure out who he was--he can't really be our Charles Oman, given the initials. That Oman died in 1946 and our article dates from 1944, so I thought it might possibly be his son, whom our article describes as having written "several volumes on British silverware and similar housewares," but I can't find anything to prove this with. Our library does not subscribe to the Dictionary of National Biography--do you know anyone who has access to that? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the DNB, Charles Oman had a son called Charles Chichele Oman (1901–1982). Does this help? BigDom (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

YES--thanks! I just reached the same conclusion, that it was the son, and have added that to Charles Oman. Malleus, I am not sure what to call him--feel free to add any profession you like, but I couldn't call him a historian unequivocally. BigDom, do you mind adding that info to Charles Oman? You have the proper reference at hand--and if you can find an entry for his sister, that would be appreciated as well! Drmies (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ODNB also notes he was "Charles Chichele (1901–1982, later a noted antiquary)," ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also found this obituary, originally in The Times, for C.C. Oman. BigDom (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I did yes; my general rule is to reserve the Bibliography for books, for which page numbers are quoted in the Footnotes, and to gather journal articles in the Footnotes, for which only the page number range is given, not the specific page number in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. You're on top of it--I only just had a chance (and the frame of mind) to look at the review. I responded to one of four questions there. And I figured that the Manchester thing was a joke, but you never know. Glad to hear you're having nice weather. So are we: I'm riding my dad's bike today. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably starting to get a feel for the level of scrutiny that articles are subjected to at FAC, but it's all to the good. The article has already been improved, pass or fail. The important thing is to keep on top of the review. Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<--I love antiquaries. Thank you both. Malleus, the LadyofShalott dropped a few links on the article talk page, including this one. I think it's worth including in the "Literary legacy" section. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just another re-telling of the story isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as is this, its source, by Thomas Keightley (historian)--which predates Herbert Read by 80 years. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain, so do whatever you think is best. Obviously though Read wasn't retelling the story of the green children, it was simply his inspiration. The question in my mind is whether or not Keightley's book is significant enough to mention, and I'm dubious. Unless we can make a case that it brought the green children back into the public eye? Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I think happened. I personally think that (like Godwin) Burton and Keightley deserve mention, but making the case that this brought them back from obscurity will be impossible by WP and FA standards--I have found nothing to verify that, and verifiability trumps suspected truth. So I don't know. I might bring them in when the spirit moves me; in any other article I would have done so already. In other news, I've been looking for Crossley-Holland's email address (or that of Alan Marks, the illustrator) but to no avail: I've not found it on his website. I'd love to get permission to include an image from his book (I've been reading his translations of A-S poetry for decades, so he owes me, haha) and I'll keep trying. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use an image would be great, so good luck with that. I'll give some thought to making the case for including Keightley in particular, but obviously anything we claim has to be supported by reliable sources, as you know. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Godwin is in because Lawton mentions him--is even mentioning those accounts out because it could be based only on primary evidence, the texts themselves? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Relying on the original texts isn't necessarily primary evidence, it depends on what we're relying on them for, and what inferences we draw from them. For instance, it's commonplace for the Plot section of literary articles to be completely uncited, as the novel is its own source. I think I'm beginning to see a consistent way of tackling this, but in the meantime I've got other things I need to be doing, so later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Burton and Godwin are integrated into the article now, just leaves Keightley. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That was fancy footwork, that alien transition. Kudos. Keightley might could fit in the folklore explanations--he's retelling fairy tales. BTW, my apologies for one of my temporary house guests sticking an 8 in your name; I don't know why they did that. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that with a little more "fancy footwork" I can get Keightley in there as well, if the children don't get me blocked first. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Interested in opinions

We can't do polls here, but I'm curious to know what it is that content editors find discouraging about the way that wikipedia is run. I'll start:

• New editors are valued above established editors. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Established editors are dealt with more harshly than new editors, even the most obvious vandals, as they're expected to already understand wikipedia's arcane rules. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Very few administrators have written anything worth spit, and fail to understand the frustrations experienced by those who do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps RHM22's promotion today marks a change in the rather contemptuous attitude the community has had towards admin candidates with writing skills.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch RfA any more. It is what it is and nothing can change it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, the most discouraging thing about Wikipedia is that you can't do polls.-RHM22 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the power imbalance between administrators and content editors. The longer a content editor edits, and the more useful the edits, the more the editor is at risk.

• There is an increasingly large and increasingly entrenched admin corp, all with tenure for life, without review. They cannot really be desopped short of attacking other administrators or going completely mad.
• The admin corps now controls any procedures concerning their own privileges. Like the rulers of Myanmar, they determine the rules governing their own power base.
• There is mostly silence now from content editors on these issues. Some admins say that is because there are no problems. Maybe the rulers of Myanmar feel that way too.
• Admins are usually elected on the basis of a small skill set, such as work on article deletions, or categories, or spam, or vandalism. Often just a sliver of skills. They are then given the full suite of admin privileges, including draconian powers to block other established editors. Why do they need to block other editors to carry out the tasks they said they wanted to do? And how does the ability to handle spam in any way give them the skills to apply blocks to highly productive, long term content editors?

The admin privileges need to be unbundled, with specific privileges handed out to the users who need them. The ability to block vandals should also be available to any established editor who wants the privilege. Review procedures would be easy to set up to ensure standards are maintained. Privileges in specific areas can be withdrawn and regranted as appropriate. The ability to block established editors is another matter altogether. Perhaps a form of the current RfA process could be retained for that, and perhaps the term "administrator" could be retained for those users.

There is no way the administrator class is going to unwind their own privileges. There is a current pretense at reform, called Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011. When I raised the issues above, they just fell into a black hole, and I was warned that I was nonconstructive, and to be quiet. The administrators and administrator wannabees controlling this debate are not at all interested in reform, but only in propping up and further securing the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right Epipelagic. Expecting the turkeys to vote for Christmas (Thanksgiving?) has never proved to be a successful strategy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue at the reform discussion is that it is defined by what the coumuinity *coughadminscough* will accept. I personaly would love to get behind that epipelagic, but currently I can't imagine them accepting it. --In actu (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So maybe the only way forward is for the serfs to rebel. Or at least, for content editors to start reframing the way they interpret things. We could start by regarding blocks as awards of honour and integrity, something to display proudly on our user pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

• I am not sure if you would consider me a "content editor" Malleus, especially as I have not yet managed to do my share on preparing Maggie for promotion, but I'll comment anyway. My biggest complaint is the "Randy from Boise" meme that we see so often; Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and the "anyone can edit" model means that people who cannot write, or (more seriously) cannot tell the difference between facts and advocacy positions, believe it is their right to have articles reflect their own position on a subject, regardless of what reliable sources say. It doesn't help when User:Jimbo Wales encourages them. Overall though I think it is still a nicer and more welcoming place than most online environments; having a mission (an encyclopedia to write) generally screens out the most unsuitable people, but I find as I get older (and like you I am ancient in Wiki-time) the occasional squabbles and nonsense one sees weigh heavier over time. I also have close to zero confidence in Arbcom (the institution, not the current incumbents, some of whom are ok), but that is one for another day. I will try to get some work done on the Thatcher article tonight or tomorrow; having time off hasn't been as relaxing as I had hoped and my days have filled up with stuff, not all of it bad, but it has precluded my putting time into it so far. Sorry. --John (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maggie was always going to be a tough one, but we can each only do what we can, when we can. Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your understanding. I haven't even looked at what you did with it yet, though I saw you had been working on it. I promise to at least look tonight. --John (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) We've already done the important stuff, so there's no urgent need to do anything else. Maggie is now back to being a good article; we reversed the slide. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I can get two articles on Chamberlain to FA, you guys can get one on Maggie! Seriously, I think the admin menace is overstated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well you would say that, wouldn't you." Things look a little different out here among the plebians. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye open for the pitchfork and torches brigade, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that there are quite a few rude administrators, that's true of regular users as well. Assuming that the 1,500+ administrators are a subsection of regular members, you're going to get a lot of rude people.-RHM22 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Odds are we're not a representative sample of the population! And Malleus, come on, you know I haven't blocked an autoconfirmed user in at least a year!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This "you know I haven't blocked an autoconfirmed user in at least a year!"–type response from administrators is entirely off topic. That's another problem, that as soon as some generalised statement is made, such as "Some administrators...", then some (many?) administrators assume a personal attack has been made on them. "Most administrator are fine." That seems definitely true to me. And that's one statement you can take personally Wehwalt. However, RHM22, if admins are to be given the right to block and jerk the rest of us about, then there should be some sort of quid pro. They might at least be expected to behave with some basic intelligence and sensitivity. That's not always my experience, nor my recent experience (and that is definitely nothing to do with you, Wehwalt, nor you, RHM22). --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think they have the right to "jerk us around". At least they're not supposed to. What is allowed and what happens in practice are two different things, though.-RHM22 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to walk that far on eggshells, Epipalagic, I do not take offense easily. The only thing I can offer in the system's defense is that we have no better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Editing policy is not followed by admins who have a fixation on the whack-the-mole measures encouraged by the deletion policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV). Editors who add to articles are considered vandals as often as people who remove content.
• What is commonly considered "good experience" at an RfA.
• The spirit of WP:IAR (something that I believe tends to be an content contributor friendly policy) is dead.
• WP:AGF is grossly applied. Actions speak louder than words, but admins seem to look at words and not actions.
• There seem to be more backseat busybodies than article contributors and the current environment attracts them.
• The system easily allows backseat busybodies to congregate and work together (they have their dedicated watchlists) but article contributors face more hurdles (you cannot solicit support because that would be canvassing). Lambanog (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing demands that editors actually research the articles they spend so much time on talk pages complaining about. The pillar of verifiability is ignored because people would rather argue on talk pages than read the sources to discuss them intelligently. The culture here asks nothing challenging of new editors and time and again I run across experienced editors or ones who have been placed in high positions of respect who go to talk pages and give their two cents, often in complete ignorance that their opinions are completely unsupported by the cited sources. It's a mind-boggling position to be in, and I get tired of saying over and over: find a source, now find a better one. Go do the work. Then receive the ire of editors who think I'm being arrogant. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The feeling among some editors that books and journal articles, that can't be viewed for free, are second class citations is troubling. --In actu (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a concern, and perhaps a symptom of the overall problem that editors seem to want to rely on their own perceptions or singular knowledge without exploring how that knowledge was formed. It's the attitude of "I don't have to get a book to say I'm right, I just am. If a book or 20 say I'm wrong, you, who has summarized these books in this article, are clearly pushing your POV, and I don't have to read these books to condemn them." --Moni3 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Moni) Or that using say, Dictionary of National Biography articles is "better" than using Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles, because the first is free to everyone and the second is only free to UK library subscribers. Never mind the 110 year difference in scholarship (and the turgid prose and Edwardian/Victorian POV), I've seen it argued that we should use the DNB before the ODNB. It's like competence isn't required to edit, merely civility, which is so wrong on so many counts it's not even funny. I took the latest Wikipedia Foundation survey today, and found it unsettling. More questions seemed aimed at "how close is editing WP to FB, and what would make it cooler/more social media/etc to you?". Does no one remember we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia??? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly of that when I edit conflicted with you in posting "The attitude I find most troubling is that if there are two sources for the same thing, one online and the other a book or journal article, then the online one has to be preferred, as it's easier to check than a printed source. Regardless of the quality of the sources that is." Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I just completed that survey and almost didn't do it after I saw the questions about the top two adjectives to describe interactions with other editors (I chose "helpful" and "unhelpful" because ... how pointless could I be if I tried?) and the question about how to get a reputation on Wikipedia. Stupid question. Bad too. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I chose 'helpful' and 'unhelpful' too and though huh? they're canceling each other out, so replaced 'unhelpful' with 'rude'. Very surprised to see the reputation question, but I shouldn't be. Apparently only a few editors are writing an encyclopedia, the rest are looking for a good rep. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have chosen "Only idiots try to get a reputation on Wikipedia" but it wasn't available. In it's absence, I'd have liked to see the #1 way to get a rep here as "Sleep your way to the top". --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person on this entire site not to have seen this survey? FWIW, I'd say print sources are almost always superior to online sources, since online sources have a nasty habit of (a) changing after you've cited them, and (b) showing something different depending on who's doing the viewing. (Can't be bothered to look up the diffs, but I'm sure you remember that thread where various people were explaining, with increasing exasperation, that Google Books serves up different versions depending on the country of the viewer and their browser settings.) – iridescent 22:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread which then resulted in an RfC. Oh well. Yesterday I went to the library in a downpour, walking out with an armload of book, thunder and lightning all around, and began to wonder about my sanity. But the books are so much better to have when you need them - I always go to print sources first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't seen the survey either. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of online versus offline references, the way that most new editors first encounter Wikipedia policy is to get their first article deleted, and the perception that most of them take away from this process is that their article is being deleted because there are insufficient online references available; and that offline references are not relevant or even permissible. I've seen that over and over again. Latest example from earlier today (although actually he's correct the subject is not notable). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best example you could have chosen to make your point. For stuff like that there's often only online material available. Having said that, the article does look like a lot of huff and puff about nothing very much. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That survey highlights one of the major problems - the foundation is simply out of touch with the Wikipedia community.. both in terms of the dynamics and the ideals. :S The treatment of book [& scholarly paid-for] sources are a major bug bear of mine. Far too many people think that RS means "online newspaper". It's also incredibly tedious trying to navigate a content dispute where it slowly becomes clear that no one has read the books. I mean, forgive me for being old fashioned and all, but to my mind the first step in debating a source is to read it :S --Errant ^(chat!) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Google snippets won't cut it as far as I'm concerned. A broad basis of just knowledge is needed to edit most articles, so you know what the current state of research is, and the background. You need to read the full context of something, which usually requires reading books, not just googling things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've sometimes found Google snippets useful in searching through a book to find exactly which page something or other is discussed on, much easier than thumbing through the book itself, but I do find the growing trend of providing Google links in references to be mildly irritating. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But that requires some effort Errantx. I've even bought some books that I couldn't easily get hold of elsewhere, just to help with an article, and I know I'm not alone. One that sticks in my mind is Roy of the Rovers, a book on a comic feature that I'd never even read as a kid. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

True enough. I spent quite a lot on sourcing Digital forensics, the GA reviewer commented; WP is a free collaboration and you should not invest any more in it than you are paid for contributing to it Which on one hand is a reasonable point (obviously accessing books, short term, for free is relatively easy) but I think it highlights an important point... that we don't spend enough time finding, accessing and reading sources to compile material before writing the words. I'm planning some contributions to Wright brothers that has taken about 3 months to research (happened to pick up a book about them second hand that twigged my interest). Computer forensics is a pile of drafted notes on my desk here at home (6 months+ in the making so far). Far too many articles are cobbled together based on what the BBC said about it, and not from a genuine interest in the subject. The latter of which is probably another core problem. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously some articles are easier to research than others. I'd contrast Cotswold Olimpick Games with Margaret Thatcher for instance, although even for the Games I had to buy another book. To pick up on Ealdgyth's point, it's very hard to write about something you have no background knowledge of or interest in, but bizarrely I tend to avoid those areas that I know most about. Largely because I can't be bothered to argue the toss with kids who've got no idea what they're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an advantage to my field... no one else here seems even remotely interested :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Digital forensics is a subject I know a little about, so beware! ;-) Generally though I prefer to stretch myself by learning about new stuff. I'm almost embarrassed now to reflect on how little I understood Herbert Read's novel The Green Child before I embarked on that article, or even how to approach a literary topic, but I learned a great deal from writing it, with lots of help, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Input definitely welcome. Especially criticism. The prose is a bit turgid I fear, and I have a few pre-conceived notions (from doing the damn thing) that probably need beating out of me. If you have time to take a look and throw out some pointers, eternally in your debt :) if not, no worries. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I keep meaning to do more with computing articles in general, but selfish as it may seem I don't learn very much from working on them, which is a large part of the attraction for me. Added to which it's exhaustingly tedious looking for reliable sources to back up straightforward stuff that anyone with half a brain working in the field knows to be correct. Nevertheless you're piqued my interest. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! it's exhaustingly tedious looking for reliable sources to back up straightforward stuff that anyone with half a brain working in the field knows to be correct "Amen" to that. If I was absolutely honest there are parts of that article I wrote from knowledge.. and dropped references to them as and when I came across a good one :) I think I have just about half a brain (opinion is generally divided on that one), and it is only me in that subject area. So it might be the perfect place to whet your appetite :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Broad Ripple Park Carousel was quite rushed for me, it took me about a month of research and writing to get it mostly ready for FAC. Much more typical is Hygeberht, which I just put up for FAC today. My first edit to the article was in August 2007, (it looked like this right before), but the serious work on it started in March 2009 (was what it looked like before that series), and it look multiple trips to the library as well as lots of reading to get it to its current status (And LOTS of greatly-appreciated copyediting by Malleus and Mike)... a lot of folks don't seem to think that effort is worth it, but what Wikipedia has is now a better, fuller article than the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (here for reference). (1500+ words for WP, 350+ for ODNB). Of course, to get that took much more effort than it seems a lot of people want to spend. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 3.8 million or so articles are mostly crap, no argument about that, but there are an increasing number of examples where wikipedia's article is the best available online. And IMO that's largely because they're not written to a deadline, by an author with no axe to grind except to present all the facts as neutrally as possible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

WP:3RR is no small deal - I almost always see this as the first reason for a block for an WP:AGF'ing editor. In addition, please do not remove my comments - see WP:TPG, and refrain from personal attacks. You will likely not be blocked for this though, and I think both of us can do better.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take your hypocritical rubbish elsewhere, as I'm just not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it would maybe be more productive to put away the three letter acronyms when talking to an editor with over 100,000 edits and interact with them without condescendingly treating them like a moron? That's without going onto the issue of what was your message supposed to achieve in the first place (stopping a discussion that had ended an hour ago?) or why you felt it necessary to revert (were you worried your message had not been read?). Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But I have none of the "rights" that grant status, unlike Jasper. I wonder if he knows or can understand why. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nev1, are you talking about Malleus? And he has more edits than me? It does seem likely that I'm only going to pass him by running for admin and blocking him. Nothing personal, Malleus. I'll block Blofeld too, so I can pass him on article creation (I'm only behind him by a factor of one million or so). BTW, what's that I saw, Ubuntu? (Small print is difficult on old eyes.) Sounds interesting, and I'm in the market for a laptop. Then again, I'm a dinosaur--if I can't run WordPerfect, I probably don't want it... Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This past Xmas I was given a netbook with Windows 7, which does seem to me to be a significant advance on Atari TOS. OTOH computing has moved on significantly since the 1980s; is there a more modern version of Microsoft Windows I can upgrade to? Ning-ning (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard that Windows 3.1 was going to be released soon. >_> — Ched :  ?  13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing Interfaces

The speed with which you pull off your edits leads me to ask for a piece of advice: what editing environment do you use? Just the straight Wikipedia textarea interface, or something handier? -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just the standard wikipedia editor, nothing fancy. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Penny for the Guy"

As you say on your userpage, you have an abiding interest in the quirky, so here's a bit of centuries-mulled fun:

Can you contribute anything about the phrase "penny for the Guy?" to the entry "Guy Fawkes Night"? It's totally absent from my dialect—but the phrase seems quite active in the UK. When I googled on it now, the tone of current remarks about its present usage in the UK nearly forced me to replace my CPU's cooling fan. -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I was a kid it was comonplace to see children in the street with a guy, asking for a "penny for the guy", supposedly to use the money for buying fireworks, but the custom died out some years ago, don't see it now. Partly I suppose because a penny's practically worthless now and children are no longer allowed to buy fireworks by law. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's rare, but it hasn't died out. I try to reward anyone with a guy. Bloody trick-or-treeters on the other hand can go whistle. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the last time I saw kids in the street with a guy, maybe 10 or so years ago now, they were asking for "50p for the guy". Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that will scan. Poor old guy/with a hole in his sock/and a hole in his shoe/please will you spare him a 50p or two?/if you haven't a 50p/a 20p will do/if you haven't a 20p then God bless you. Naargh, rubbish that, maybe kids today don't have the wit to write new tunes. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

Thank you for your significant copy edits to entry "Guy Fawkes Night" and especially for catching my absolute bungles in rev 425106011, namely, my two typographical errors:

 «In the 1850s changing attitudes» → «In the 1850, changing attitudes»

and

 «18th century reports appear» → «18th century reports, appear»

I usually check these deltas obsessively (literally so) before committing them, but this slipped by—likely because I was creating some redirects in other tabs and looking up the syntax for such in another tab altogether, or because I was giddy with the thought/planning of rolling lighted tar barrels through the streets, or I can blame a cat if that helps.

Aside from those two typographical errors that involved punctuation, what incorrect punctuation have I introduced and must learn from? That is, having said "learn to punctuate correctly before you correct the punctuation of others", can you direct me to your favorite style guide on punctuation?

Although it has been quite a few years since my syntax courses, I think I can handle whatever syntactic framework a discussion of English punctuation must draw on—assuming (safely, oh please, please, safely) that it is not one of the newer frameworks consisting of Let Move Alpha Be The Whole Of The Law!

I ask because I worry that there may be EN-GB / EN-US differences all over Wikipedia that I might mistakenly treat as errors, a situation that no good can come from! For such worries, I would seek the reliably friendly voice of Fowler's Modern English Usage. But I am left in the dark when, on some or other straightforward issue, Fowler's advice is suddenly extremely foreign to me. That is: I cannot tell if it is because England is a foreign country, or because "the past is a foreign country". Both isoglosses can seem to me heavily inked and unhappily indistinguishable.

(When I speak of Fowler's book, I mean OUP first edition, of course. I find the later "adaptations" to be, er, upsetting.)

Salve atque vale!!!!!111!!1 -Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

EN-GB / EN-US and now EN-IND, as at least one article has now been tagged for that, meduck. Ning-ning (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm rather old-fashioned, and still defer to Fowler's revised edition. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

TPSs (and Malleus)...

Which should I work on next? Theobald of Bec - rather bland Archbishop of Canterbury, Liber Eliensis - a historical document, Gerard (archbishop of York) - an Archbishop of York who was suspected of heresy/witchcraft, Richard Barre - a canon lawyer and Archdeacon of Ely, Skipper W - a Quarter horse stallion who got his chance when his sire broke his neck, or Fairfax Harrison - an American railroad president and writer on Thoroughbreds and genealogy .... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The first two seem to be pretty close already, though I'll admit I only glanced at their prose. Richard Barre might be an interesting choice. ceranthor 14:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any medieval bishops that were involved with horses in a significant way? That would be an interesting cross-over article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've run across. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Barre might be good (didn't realise we had an article on him), as it's been suggested that he married the green girl. Otherwise I fancy Gerard. Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to mention that in his article? I've never run across any intimations that he was married though (and given his time frame, it's unlikely he would have been officially married ... as he was an archdeacon). Are you sure this is the correct Richard Barre being referred to by the green person scholar? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unlikely, but not impossible... Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just speculation by Duncan Lunan based on his research into Richard de Calne's family background. But as you say, the balance of probability is that Barre wasn't married at all, which is what I think at least some other researchers believe. I just thought it was a curious coincidence that you mentioned him here as one of your possible next candidates, that's all. As to whether or not to mention this possible marriage in Barre's article, that's entirely up to you. I probably would, but then I'm a fan of the quirky. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. He's an astronomer and science writer... I'm thinking keeping it out as nothing else is even mentioning the possibilty (ODNB, Fasti, etc.). I just don't know how prominent the green children folklore thing is, honestly. If it's a well known incident in England, then perhaps I could see a mention, but if it's an obscure bit of folklore, then probably not. (I.e. are we talking Lady Godiva/Robin Hood level of knowledge or are we talking strictly local history.) I've not got a problem with taking Barre up to FAC, he's obscure, but definitely interesting, as he'd be considered one of hte early legal scholars for England. I like Gerard too, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of the green children is by no stretch of the imagination anything like as well known as Lady Godiva or Robin Hood. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there aren't any horse bishops (17th Earl of Sæbiscuit), I like the Liber Eliensis article. I like articles about historians and texts.-RHM22 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

CE

Isn't it amazing--it doesn't matter how often one proofreads something, there's always something left. Good work. Thanks for fielding 99% of the questions (yesterday and the day before were busy days at work for me). So now we wait for more editors to weigh in? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

With six supports we just have to wait now, and double-check that we've addressed all of the reviewers' comments. FACs are usually left up for at least a week, but barring any unforeseen accidents it's looking like job done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies...

If I bothered you. Have a good one. Swarm ^X 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't bother me at all, I just think you're talking cack. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise :). Regards, Swarm ^X 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer

To your question: Typically, the rank someone has is capitalized. The best example of this can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite simply wrong. The rank is capitalised if it's used as part of a person's name, such as in "Captain Mainwairing", but not when used on its own, as in "he was a captain in the Home Guard". Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I really do wish that those so keen to serve up blue links had actually read and preferably understood themselves. Your source very clearly says "Address all personnel with the rank of general as 'General (last name)'". Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's what a review is for. Anywho, I have made the changes you requested, you said there were more that were needed, please let me know where, so I can make those changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC is for assessing whether or not an article meets the FA criteria, it's not an article improvement workshop. I've just realised though that you and I had a recent difference of opinion on a current RfA, so I will be excusing myself from any further comment at Buckles' FAC for the obvious reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, whatever, should I disregard your oppose or would you like to change it since your concerns have been addressed? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You delude yourself; my concerns have not been addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? Examples are helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given you examples, but you seem to think that once they're fixed everything is hunky-dory. But they're just examples. Geddit? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look over at the FAC page, you will see only one of those points I think are "hunky-dory", the rest were changed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Your requested changes have been made and your oppose will be disregarded at the end due to your unwillingness to be forthcoming with further information and examples on what problems you see on the page. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. The article is rather poorly written and needs a lot of work to meet the FAC prose requirement. I think it's even marginal for GA. And let me remind you that it's not your prerogative to ignore anyone's opinion at FAC. That's a decision taken by the delegates. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, Malleus, if you do bow out (which I hope you won't), would you please correct the bit about peer review? There was already a PR for this article. Anyway, a full 33% of your examples were overuse of the word "also" which I had not previously realized was a bad habit of mine. It's now corrected throughout the article, so I assume you agree the article is now 33% better. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Final response: It passed GA without you, it passed A-Class without you, over 20 people said it was clearly a GA and clearly an A-Class. Your opinion now that it is "even marginal for GA" is moot and unfounded, since you weren't part of the reviews and hell you didn't help with the creation or editing of the article until now. The only reason you have "wandered" by is because you and I got into a pissin' match on Dylan620's RfA and you are trying to get back to me. Big whoop. You can do your worst and it won't mean anything, it's a website. I have had an oppose on my last FAC and got it overturned for the same behavior you are showing now, unwilling to be forthcoming with further information and examples. So, again, do your worst, you don't bother me and your opinions on an article that over 20 people have worked on, they don't mean squat to me. Move along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. (Weren't you the one demanding that I AGF at Dylan's RfA, or am I thinking of another of your buddies?) How many times do I have to say that I think the article is rather poorly written and does not meet the FAC prose requirement? Let me give you a few more examples:

• "When America entered World War I, Buckles sought to enlist in the armed forces." He didn't try to enlist when America joined the war, but after American joined the war.
• "... and by the Navy, who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet" Since when was the Navy a person? Same with "Army" in the next sentence.
• "He was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, and helped to alleviate their hunger by providing food." Where did he get this food from?
• "As the interwar period began ...". Periods don't begin.
• "In the 1930s, he listened as German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and military officers told him that Germany was equipping for war." Does that really make any kind of sense to you?
• "Also during the 1930s, he received an Army bonus of $800 ...". Another one of those rogue "also"s.
• "By 1942, Buckles had worked for the White Star, American President, and W.R. Grace shipping companies, and shipping business took him to Manila in the Philippines." Trying to cram too much into one sentence, and consequently it doesn't make sense.

Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your further examples:

• "When America entered World War I, Buckles sought to enlist in the armed forces." Changing "when" to "after" would convey no sense of how long after. It's perfectly proper to use the word "when" to describe one action that closely follows another.
• "... and by the Navy, who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet" Groups of people are often referred to as "who".
• "He was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, and helped to alleviate their hunger by providing food." The source does not say where he got the food from, if I recall correctly, but will double-check.
• "As the interwar period began ...". Periods begin all the time. So do intervals and eras.
• "In the 1930s, he listened as German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and military officers told him that Germany was equipping for war." Makes sense to me, and evidently to the sources (also).
• "Also during the 1930s, he received an Army bonus of $800 ...". The word "also" serves a good and valid purpose there, reminding the reader that everything before and after that word are in the same decade.
• "By 1942, Buckles had worked for the White Star, American President, and W.R. Grace shipping companies, and shipping business took him to Manila in the Philippines." It's not a long sentence, and readers are presumably not feebleminded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think. I won't be changing my mind; this article is not of FA quality in my opinion, no matter how much you try to browbeat me (a hopeless task) into admitting that it is. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was doing you the courtesy of a reply. I agree with you that it might not be FA class, but not for your "further" reasons. Farewell, Fatuorum, for our first fight fell flat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For you perhaps, but for me it further demonstrates the dangers of handing the reins to children. They have no context, and simply do whatever they think is required to avoid criticism. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a well-known interloper and smacker-of-heads-together: I would hope that the creator of the effluvia article Tickle Cock Bridge would not only not be proud that this 12 reference joke is considered a "GA", but would not stand in the way of others trying to make a far more notable subject into a FA. Ban me from your page if you will, but don't let your influence mar the efforts of others. There, I've said it. Cheers to all of you. Doc talk 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "standing in the way" and "letting pass despite deficiencies". I also agree that the article does not currently meet WP:WIAFA, although for different reasons than the ones Malleus has put forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm shattered that you consider my masterpiece on an admittedly rather undistinguished underpass to be "effluvia" Doc, which is a plural noun by the way, but I suppose you think you know best even though you clearly don't. Why not try taking it to AfD and see what the adults think? Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly your masterpiece. But it's a "GA"? How the hell did that happen? And I would never nominate it for AfD as its not a bad article. It's just not "up to snuff" to be considered a GA. I have respect for all editors concerned and was merely making a point. Doc talk 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAR, if you're concerned. I'm not, personally, but as you will. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As we're hardly likely to agree I'd suggest it would be better for you to confine your comments to Buckles' FAC. And as must be obvious I think that you're an idiot. If you don't believe that Tickle Cock Bridge meets the GA criteria then take it to GAR as Nikkimaria suggests, and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite wrong about that, but I'm not surprised at your assessment. And usually "children" call each other names like "idiot". You shouldn't presume to think you're any more grown up than any of us, and therefore know what makes a truly good article and can wield their stick over it. Doc talk 04:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but note that this bullshit started after I opposed everyone's favourite new child admin candidate. I'm just not interested. Make your case at GAR if you can, not here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles is already a GA. So is Tickle Cock Bridge. Nobody is taking it to GAR: it's a freaking example, geddit? Apples vs. oranges, really. Try to take criticism of your own work in a little better stride, and don't urinate all over the little ones who are trying hard; but may need some encouragement without getting the patented treatment from you, and don't actually need your support if or when you feel like it to get it to FA. Doc talk 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Take your nonsense somewhere else, where it may be more appreciated. I find it tediously boring and repetitive. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"this 12 reference joke" - Powerful advice from an editor with only 41% of his edits made to articles. Someone clearly doesn't understand the GA criteria. Parrot of Doom 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Squawk off ;> I spend a lot of time keeping crap out of not only articles either one of you would write, but warning vandals not to do it again. Hence the user talk pie chunk. The dispute is over. G'night :> Doc talk 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether it's over or not. I suggest that you reflect on your behaviour here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, so despite working so hard to keep the vandals at bay, something you might just be good at, you feel expert enough to comment on whether or not an article meets the GA criteria, even when it's clear you're not. Ok. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, any registered user is expert enough to decide whether or not an article is GA quality.-RHM22 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there has been a recent case of a user being topic-banned from reviewing at GAN, so you're clearly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say pretty much the same thing as Malleus. Not everyone is able to assess whether an article meets the GA criteria. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You got me there!-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hail!

And I hate IS CONSIDERED TO BE! An abominable passive that ought to be buuuuuurrrrrrrrrned. Check your mail before the mailbox explodes. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Forensics

Thanks for the copyedit. Lots more pointers to help improve my writing. :) Anyway, much appreciated, it reads a lot easier in places now. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1 April

How's this for a DYK hook - "... that in 1677 the pope's belly was filled with live cats, "who squalled most hideously" as his body was burnt on a fire?" Parrot of Doom 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A conundrum

In 2009 I created an article about Broughton Suspension Bridge (a surprisingly infamous little bridge) put it up for DYK and it got 4.2K hits. It recently went on the 'on this day' section and got 26.2K hits. As DYK and 'on this day' are both on the main page, and the hook for DYK contained the same information as the 'on this day' one (plus some more) can anyone think of any reason why there was such a big discrepancy in the number of hits? Richerman (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not many people bother looking at DYK, which should really be renamed "Do You Care"? There's more of a historical connection with "On this day" in any event, which probably accounts for the discrepancy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

or DYGAFF maybe? Richerman (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the idea to devote some space in that area to GAs, which are exemplars of our improving (but not yet perfect) content. That would create a bit of competition for space so that only "most-interesting" and rigourously-checked DYKs get prime-time, rather than the somewhat indiscriminate approach taken nowadays. No diss to the hard-working people involved in DYK, it just seems to me that if it can be squeezed in it will be / we have a demanding time schedule and we need content. Really, when even I have 2 DYK stars to boast of, you should be thinking there is a problem with the organization of the main page. :) Franamax (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked that idea as well, but it won't fly; wikipedia is ossifying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what they really need to do is only put up the hooks that are interesting from articles that are well written. At the moment if you put something up it's virtually guaranteed to appear on the front page however uninteresting it is and however badly written the article is. Richerman (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In many cases it's obvious that the DYK reviewers haven't even read the articles. Which would be no great task, as many of them are little more than stubs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately most proposers now have to review an article themselves before their hook is considered, so they are mostly done by inexperienced reviewers who may not be very motivated. The last time I reviewed one I ended up completely rewriting the article as it was abysmal. Richerman (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The biggest factor is that the article would have remained on the front page for a 24 hours in the "on this day" section whereas DYKs are renewed up to four times a day. When an article appears on DYK also effects the number of views so the six hour period when the US is in bed is difficult to compare with a whole day. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see - I hadn't realised that. Actually, what I said above isn't quite correct - there was some new information in the 'on this day' hook. I thought there was a sudden outbreak of interest in mechanical resonance :) Richerman (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you can see why Nev1's an administrator and we're not; that incisive brain. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A trait common to all admins of course :) Richerman (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation and my poor command of English and my tin ear ....

Dear Malleus and friends,

I cleaned up the prose of a stub article, Branching random walk, which I moved to Branching random-walk, to avoid ambiguity.

(The "branching" comes from branching process, and "branching" modifies "random walk".)

At the WP project for mathematics, my English competency has been questioned: I have a "tin ear" and although I "claim" to have professional competence of English, I don't seem to have the command of a "native speaker". "Totally"²

It is like having my pronunciation of "nuclear" corrected by George W. Bush.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So what's new? Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mathematics Project is usually a haven in a heartless WP!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Replica of the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM) at the Museum of Science and Industry in Castlefield, Manchester

Nowhere's safe. I get chased from pillar to post. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been over-ruled on hyphenation before, where I have displayed an exaggerated fear of ambiguity. ;-)

This is the second time that I've been asked whether I am an native English speaker, or even a native speaker of USA English! ;-) (Previously, my use of the subjunctive and my (mathematician's stereotypical) use of "yield" provoked the solicitation about my problems with English ....)

Has anybody ever asked you about "your problems with the English language" (LOL, as the kids say), perhaps due to your not having been raised in Texas?

No, but I'm often accused of being immature, usually by 12-year-old children. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I thought you were joking. 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Exercising a long-neglected retort, "I'm rubber and you're glue ...", is a temptation ... (with adults 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In your absence, the youth at AFD have been behaving better than a few grownups, who have been loosing their slings and arrows of paraconsistent logic ... again ... in your direction.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say AFD do you mean RfA? I'm well aware that's it's heretical to suggest that children ought not be in charge of anything on wikipedia, so all the righteous indignation being expressed by the clearly deluded is no surprise at all. Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us hope that the souls that previously harassed you have found more peaceful and productive pursuits .... One of them seemed to have calmed down before the present vacation, and I hope for his best.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

Your well hyphenated "pillar" is another great article: I shall read it immediately. (Poor Turing, poor humanity!)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Post" as in "Fear of clowns"-disorder trauma

Image: Scary clown.jpg

A depiction of an evil clown, a character depicted in the media, which might cause anxiety to someone with coulrophobia

Unbelievable!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		For mildly commenting "This is ridiculous" when restoring the scary-clown image to Coulrophobia  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)