User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

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

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

Archives

2007
April May June July August September October November December
2008
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2009
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2010
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2011
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2012
January February March April May June July August September October
Molon labe!

Thanks for the feedback on the Woodstock Library article. Happy to address your concerns ASAP. Would you mind perhaps striking or capping resolved concerns so it is easier to differentiate between resolved and unresolved problems? Your time and assistance is much appreciated--I look forward to having an improved article to showcase to MCL staff. --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, THANK YOU for your many improvements to the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to offer it as a model then it ought to be a good model. Have you considered reducing the clutter in the text by converting to list defined references? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am thrilled with the current state of the article and think it makes a great model. Thanks so much for your help, seriously. I always appreciate thorough reviews. Actually, embarrassingly, I am not sure what you mean by list defined references, or if I do I don't recognize it by name. Could you offer an example? I want article to offer best practices, but at the same time provide the best learning opportunities (AKA don't make it too hard on the newbies!)... --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll convert it and you can see for yourself. If you don't like it for whatever reason you can always revert me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from potentially tidying up the citations I'm going to leave the rest of the review to your official GA reviewer; I'm just an interloper. I'd be interested to know how your presentation to the library goes next week though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like I will be needing another GA reviewer. That sure didn't go as planned... Please let me know if any of your concerns related to the article still need to be addressed. Thanks so your assistance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reviewer was a malevolent idiot, no shortage of them here. Renominate the article at GAN and I'll pass it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you have the authority to pass the article given your contributions to the article. According to GAN, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." That being said, I cannot make that call and I would at least appreciate your comments on the new review (either to offer support or to address any concerns you may still have). Thanks again. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have the "authority", but all's well that ends well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it seems you have potential. Also, Beeblebrox is much better than me and I only just bested Bbb23. This is a fun tool to run, though it'd be more fun if it added expletives. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*LOL* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If insults are needed, check out this: User:Darwinbish/insultspout

Hey, me too! 966 .... Tools don't take account of desires, though. Pesky (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How fast can somebody earn a score of 666? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should use this for closing AFD and other discussions, to properly weight the value of the arguments. And I bested you all scoring over 1200 without the benefit of any "user rights" points, which alone is enough to cast doubt as to the utility of the tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have 1279... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1339 for me. Sandy's score ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn Ealdgyth! Jimbo has 488. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But is that a testament for or against it's accuracy? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say for, I don't believe Jimbo would become an administrator under the current system. Ryan Vesey 15:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder how Jimbo really would do at RFA... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He has enough groupies that I'm sure he would do fine. He also has enough nemesi (and the usual contrarians) to insure it would be a record setting event for drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For every season... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to wish you good luck and say that I will see you after your block. I'm not a fan of April Fool's jokes around here, and in no way do I condone such activity, but I have to admit it would be interesting (sociologically speaking) to see what would happen if he put himself up on any regular day of the week. My gut says it would a very bipolar event, but ending in a sickening love fest, so I'm not inclined to take action to find out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm not going to do it... probably. There's enough acrimony at RFA right now, we don't need to create new ill-will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think my block count of -330 has at least temporarily made the prospect of RfA #3 even less likely than it was before. I'd resolved to wait until our Sun became a red giant, but now it looks like I'll have to wait until the heat death of the universe. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take heart, Your Grace ;P Ideas are being mooted (OK, mainly by me, but someone better than I is considering it, too) to do some housekeeping work spring-cleaning a few block logs to separate the just from the unjust. There's very little use that I personally (and I suspect you, too) would actually make of being awarded The Most Noble Order of the Nadmin. If someone ever succeeded in forcing Nadminship upon me, the most I'd ever be likely to do would be to use the delete button for blatant copyvios, or possibly use it to edit through protection. I'm trustworthy on those ones, but I have no interest whatsoever in blocking people, closing XfDs, or all the multitudinous other chores at which Nadmins are supposed to excel. If you had the bit (OK, I know you don't want it!), what would you do with it? Pesky (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to comment on the 5 day extension proposal for nominating DYKs to avoid a nominating rush?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because basically I couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then bugger off from editing the article and kicking up a stink about DYKs and plagiarism then. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall continue to do as I please, whether or not that meets with your approval. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to care enough to complain about it on the talk page and extensively pick holes in the article which would have been avoidable if the duration to write it had been longer and it had been fully copyedited. The fact you imply you don't care less tells me that you like having things to moan about and belittling the work of others. Then when somebody raises a concern about one of your articles you start looking for the sympathy vote here complaining about how much work you put into the article and how dare anybody complain about it. You're one of the most hypocritical editors on here Malleus, always moaning, and then one somebody tries to solve what you clearly think is a problem you say you couldn't careless. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up Blofeld, show everyone what an arsehole you are. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The facts of the matter are very clear, even though you choose to ignore them. In the discussion about including GAs on the main page LauraHale made the rather bold claim that DYKs were more rigorously reviewed than GAs. I challenged that assertion by looking yesterday at the current crop of main page DYKs with a view to demonstrating why they fell short of the GA criteria. The mosque was an egregiously poor example, which out of the kindness of my heart I helped to fix up a bit, for no thanks whatsoever. I have absolutely no interest in DYK, which I think is a joke; my only intention was to refute the ridiculous assertion made by LauraHale, as I do very much care about GA. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this subsection started so beautifully....

"We both know there is good and bad in everyone...."

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its because you know I'm right. Every week or two you intentionally get involved in a "conflict" which results in you being warned and you either get blocked or warned which sparks off a new spate of moaning and conversation about how terrible you are treated. You then threaten to leave wikipedia or imply you are "going outside" to get your "friends" here to massage your ego and tell you "You're wonderful Malleus. It would be so awful for you to leave us Malleus, you are our best editor." I've seen you repeat this process dozens of times on here, you insult somebody, get blocked and so the drama ensures, Malleus at the centre of the attention. Jimbo, the foundation, everybody knows what you're like Malleus and its only for the fact you've put in some great work on here that you haven't been banned from the website and are tolerated. I may be an asshole but at least I'm honest asshole and am one of the few people who has the balls to say what everybody else thinks. No doubts people will jump tp your defence here but I'm sick of your attitude Malleus. If you make a point of complaining about the state of an article you could at least show an interest in trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you didn't post here again Blofeld, as you're simply making a fool of yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Your attitude seriously needs to improve Malleus. I had barely touched the Hassan article and agreed 100% with your concerns. It was caused purely by a nomination rush and I propose to extend the DYK nomination period to allow editors to try to produce better quality articles and you say you couldn't care less. If you couldn't care less about DYK stop complaining about how dreadful it is and accusing editors of plagiarism and focus on GA then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, go blow somewhere else. I'm simply not interested in your brain farts. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad enough that the actor who played the angel in The Green Mile died. Don't you remember the angel's pathos and suffering at how people are mean to each other?

What's going on today? It's like the RfA nonsense has infected the central nervous systems of a lot of normally sane editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits as always are appreciated Malleus, and you know I respect you as an editor and at times as a person for what you sometimes stand for. But at times I find you and your negative attitude impossible. I simply don't know how you can make that many edits to an article and take the time to complain about it yet seem unwilling to do anything to prevent it from happening again. You are frequently complaining about the quality of DYK. Maybe you are convinced anything to do with DYK is a joke I don't know and that was your justification for your response but your response given the time you have spent on the article seems a little hypocritical.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and I will not discuss this further with you until you drop all these unwarranted personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you of all people just brand the WP:NPA/civil card? Goodness me, that must surely raise a few giggles. Well, that settles it then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is you think gives you the right to come here and make all of these insulting and nonsensical allegations, but whatever it is I suggest that you stop drinking it at once. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR Blofeld, I don;t know much of you, but this seems a little unlike you? Could I suggest changing your current beverage for a lervely cup of 'Shroom Tea and an accompanying Shroom Omelette? The crop down here in the lervely Forest has been a real bumper one this year ;P

Malleus, I can totally see where you're coming from with that DYK/GA stuff, and I can totally understand why you edited where you did. It's not from an interest in DYKs, it's just from that overwhelming compulsion to clean the damned stuff up ... In Real Life, I find my ability simply to read something in print, without trying to hit an edit button and polish it up, has significantly diminished! Everything I read, I'm reading with half an eye on how it should be copy-edited, lol! Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus. I mentioned you at User talk:Cunard#RfA 2 regarding two edits I made to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ and its talk page. Those two edits have been contested on my talk page, and I would be grateful to hear your thoughts about the matter. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but my thoughts on the matter are exactly as you describe them. I think the ArbCom restriction is an absolute disgrace, clearly intended to stifle the expression of unpopular opinions, which is what's happening to you now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ArbCom restriction was crafted because you offended too many editors in your RfA opposes. If any discussion between you and another RfA participant is moved to the talk page, I recommend that other editors move it back, as I did in this case. Preventing you from having honest discussions is deplorable. I'll have to be wary about the same happening to myself because it's clear that someone must be punished for their friend's failed RfA. Cunard (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very clear. Keepscases has already paid the price and now obviously the "baying mob" are looking for another victim, you. Kudpung is determined by hook or by crook to eliminate all oppose votes at RfA, to make it a friendlier place, that's the bottom line. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Keepscases should never have been blocked, and Drmies has rectified that injustice. Several of the supporters engaged in similar conduct, but of course they are above reproach because they did not oppose the candidate. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've mentioned you on Jimbo's page in a discussion related to this RfA. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind". You people just don't get it, do you. If you're not respectful to me then you have no right to expect me to be respectful to you, and sure as Hell I won't be. If you want me to be nice to you, then start by playing nice yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I'm going to risk sticking my neck out and making an enemy of everyone! The ArbCom restirction was Ceaușescu-esque in the extreme. Very worrying – the thin end of a particularly nasty wedge. On the other hand, I'm going to stick up for Kudpung here, just to remove what I perceive as a misunderstanding / misrepresentation. Kudpung doesn't want to remove oppose !votes, he just wants to remove unwarranted nastiness from them. Personally, I applaud the idea of removing unwarranted, hurtfuly-meant nastiness from a lot of places in here, but I can also see the massive difficulty which we, as a community, face in defining what it genuine nastiness, and what is just coarseness or a culturally-different way of making a point. Malleus, dear heart, you have my permission to call me a stubborn, naïve, overly-optimistic, Pollyanna-like, parblind old cow. I will still send hugs your way. Pesky (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the two issues you brought up here, even though the first was referenced with three different sources. Till 03:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus

Thanks for contributing to Gibraltar F.C., we're doing a project in Gibraltar at the moment to help improve the articles, here

Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be a very welcoming place to be. DYK I mean, not Gibraltar. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to copyedit Koutoubia Mosque before it hits the front page..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How very generous of you. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, as the DYK consensus on the Gibraltar hooks was to promote no more than one per day, I had to revert your promotion of Rosia Bay to Prep 3 since Gibraltar F.C. was already in Prep 2. I'm about to do so again, although you haven't been doing it correctly. Please do not continue; if you wish to discuss this, I've already opened a subtopic in the Gibraltar section. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how do I do it correctly? Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to substitute the template (i.e. use subst: ) as well as fill in the "passed" parameter — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I know that now, thanks. Maybe I'll have better luck tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go look at the DYK section on these promotions. Down at the bottom, I think there's some confusion. Please.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is some confusion. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MF. Regarding your reverting the IP here [2]. The IP was on one of those mild vandalism sprees where they were making seemingly innocuous changes to dates and cities etc all of which were inaccurate. I reverted the others but I have a question about this one. In the infobox the birth year is c. 1572 but it is 1573 in the death date template. Is that a mistake? Or is it something to do for using "circa" for the birth year. I hadn't encountered anything like it before and I wanted to find out in case I come across something like it in the future. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the template year is something that some bot has done. I wrote most of the article but I rarely bother with those templates, I just leave them to others who understand them. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PoD. In all of those templates that I have dealt with the info in "birth" is always the same in "death" and that lets the age calculation do its thing. But, I have never dealt with it when one of the dates is "circa" so I thought that their might be some quirk in working with that. On the other hand if the two dates should match I thought I'd check with those who take care of the article so they can fix it. For years we had a vandal on film articles that went around changing the release date by a year or two just to mess with the article. Maybe not important in the grand scheme of things - I was just curious. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk

I've changed it to 1572 anyway, just to give a more plausible idea of his age at death. To be honest though I'm not sure the {{Death year and age}} template is appropriate in cases like this one though, when all we know is that he wasn't born before 1572. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What was your rationnale for reverting my edit on this page. I thought it was uncontroversial. The phrase "but not official recognition of their political status" seems to me to be POV, in that it assumes that they were, or should have been considered to be, political prisoners. The very slight re-phrasing removed that implication and seems to me more neutral. Jay-W (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your alternative – "but not official recognition of political status" – is a barbarism. Everyone has a political status; you, me, everyone, and to deny that displays a POV. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case your argument is with the original phrase "political status" and not the change I made. Jay-W (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't presume to tell me what my argument is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well if you want to make your objections clear and be constructive then please do so, but I'm not going to get drawn into some pointless argument with you. Jay-W (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you ought not to have started one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've realised now there's no hope of any intelligent discussion with you. If you decide you want to make a useful contribution you can follow this discussion on the article talk page.Jay-W (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have hope of an intelligent discussion with anyone? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem incapable of understanding what you've already been told; perhaps you don't understand the term "barbarism" when applied to sentence structure? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence structure cannot be barbaric. And you are not being constructive. Jay-W (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being silly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in continuing this non-discussion. Please use the article talk page. Jay-W (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American Mathematical Society's "Guide for authors of mathematical papers" had this Piranianism: "The barbarism called the dangling participle has become more common but not less loathsome." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be mistaken; Jay-W knows better, or at least he thinks he does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I must have been mistaken in thinking Piranian was thanked in Steven Krantz's recent AMS guide to writing, when it must have been in fact Jay-W. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I pasted the translated de tag into the article instead of the talk page by accident. Hope there isn't any major edit conflict. It's clearly based on a de wiki translation (even the etymology section has its own tiny paragraph at the end) and the author didn't credit them. I've notified the writer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything's fine. I've restored the Discovery section you merged with Background, because what I want to see is some background on dog funerals/burials/mummification in Ancient Egypt. It's not at all clear to me, for instance, whether Abuwtiyuw was remarkable because he was buried ceremonially, or because his funeral ceremony was so elaborate. But that's for the nominator to sort out; the sources are there to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also the date is unclear as the Boston Museum started reporting on it in 1933. I think the 1936 is actually the publication date, I might be wrong though. The nominator says he is "discouraged" at the moment. I'll try to look into it but I couldn't find much in google books beyond the snippets and a lot of sources for some reason have errors when you click them. JSTOR only has two articles, one the article used and another which I believe is some sort of copy of the other. it has occurred to me though that different spelling might pick up more, the German name for instance..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to check out the December 1936 PDF the article relies so heavily on (for some reason it was unavailable earlier), and it says the tablet was discovered "last winter", so could be either 1935 or 1936. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1935 I'd go with, I also saw 1935 in another snippet.. I've picked something up under the other spelling which the Germans use but damned server went funny on me as I was about to save. I'll try again shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave that as another thing for the nominator, or you, to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.207 photograph by Boston Museum is dated 18 October 1935, date of discovery. I'll ask Gerda to translate the snippets it picks up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you to do whatever you think is best. I'm not fond of the way you've re-merged the Background and Discovery sections, as it's not at all clear what this is now the background to. As I said, what I want to see there is a background to the Ancient Egyptian practice of holding funeral services for dogs. But I'll suspend judgement until you've finished. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for assistance in regards to that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope he can help, as I wouldn't be prepared to list the article as it stands. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that it would fail, especially with one source, and the idea of a mummified dog fascinates me. Ancient Egypt is one of my major interests but rarely get the chance to work on something of quality towards it. Thanks, I see what you meant now, I hadn't thought of the background being about the burial customs, so its back. I don't want to overcook it though as it is about the dog, I suppose if extensive info could be found an article on Funerary customs of animals in Ancient Egypt could be started. I'll just cap it off now and then see what Aymatth can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth has finished I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and for making those needed minor edits too. Great topic. had to save that one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some great work done there I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick look at this, and thought the use of "spolium, spolia" looks a bit odd to me:

• I haven't come across "spolium", though it might be in use and I just haven't seen it; but, in the second paragraph of the lead, "[The inscribed tablet] was apparently part of the spolium incorporated into the structure" doesn't work, since "spolium" is singular, and such items found together would collectively be "spolia". So, if there were more than one re-used item in the structure, I'd routinely write "It was apparently among spolia incorporated into the structure". If it was the only re-used item, I suppose one might say "It was apparently a spolium incorporated into the structure"; but, as I say, I don't know that "spolium" (singular) is found in modern English. If not, perhaps just avoid using the word!
• In the first paragraph of the section "Discovery", it seems to me that "The tablet was apparently re-used in about 2280 BC in the spolia of a different grave" attributes "spolia" to the wrong grave (and "spolia" are by nature things re-used): here, "spolia" are the spoils of (an) earlier grave(s), so something like "The tablet was apparently among spolia used to build another grave in about 2280 BC" would be better. Spolia are only found in the later grave because someone nicked 'em from (an) earlier one(s), to which they really belong. HTH. Nortonius (talk)

  Thanks. That seems to make sense, so I've made the changes you suggest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem Malleus – glad you agree! Looks much better now, to me anyway... It's been a long day, but my tired brain insisted on making me squeeze that out before bed! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper just posted a support at the FAC, and included some comments, one of which is about the lead. Since you worked on it, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion. My reflex would be to merge the short first para with the second, and move the second sentence further down, to place it in chronological order, but Jim's support seems to have been conditional on three paras in the lead so I don't really want to do that. Can you take a look? Perhaps the lead could expand slightly, to allow that merge but still have three paras? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've jiggled a few things around, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it; thanks. I'll post at the FAC and see if Truthkeeper's OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you've already done that too. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3] - let me know if I'm stepping on any toes and causing unnecessary edit conflicts.  Volunteer Marek  21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You carry on. As I've said in the GA review I think the article needs a bit of reorganisation, so let me know when you're done and I'll pick up the review again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Haldraper (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell other editors to "fuck off" [4] Nobody Ent 10:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine my complete lack of surprise when I found that you'd posted a similarly silly message on J3Mrs's talk page, but not the talk page of Stevo1000, who was the user who started all that drama in the first place. Are you bored or something? Parrot of Doom 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me not to tell other editors to fuck off when they deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody Ent, while I appreciate your intentions are (probably) good, have you ever considered doing any article improvement work? A look at your last 500 edits doesn't seem to reveal any such work at all. You might even find that those of us who actually write the content would have more respect for your pronouncements on civility and the like if you were to do this. Failing this, you should not be surprised if content editors politely ignore your comments, like a fart on a bus. Incidentally, "incivil" is not a word. --John (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of escalating self-referentialism, I don't see how the chiding " have you ever considered doing any article improvement work" is working toward a resolution. I agree with the first part of the statement (good intentions) but I'm not really following why a call for more civility is only valid if it comes from content creators.
• I support the content of Parrot of Doom, who correctly observed that the instigator wasn't addressed (now has been). It is too easy to see a particular word, jump on it as uncivil, and fail to look closer for the more egregious lack of civility.
• I wish MF recognized the knee-jerkedness of many editors (generally speaking, not directed at NE) and modified his use of language. While "wish" often means "request", that is not the case here. The community doesn't have the clean hands to make such a request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (I now see that there was an intent to notify the instigator contemporaneously, but the wrong editor was identified. Sounds like a classic British comedy, except for the lack of humor, unless falsely accusing someone of incivility is self-refernetial enough to qualify as humor.)[reply]

  Wish all you like, ain't gonna happen. If "the community" behaved itself then I would have no reason to tell ignorant and rude transgressors to fuck off from where they're unwelcome. Let's try to remember what sparked this incident shall we, and maybe wonder why Nobody Ent sat idly by while another editor was being serially abused for upholding Wikipedia's copyright policy? Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand, that's why I tried to emphasize that it wasn't a request. I do see what sparked this, and agree it could have been handled much better. Frankly, your response was remarkably measured given the baiting.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to clarify your first bullet point SPhilbrick. Criticising others' behaviour is always a risky area to get into, and it works best (by which I mean it is more likely to effect a change in the person's behaviour) where there is mutual respect. I do not claim to speak for Malleus but I imagine he may share my mild contempt for sanctimonious pen-pushers like Nobody Ent who regularly lecture others, hang out at the noticeboards, but never apparently contribute anything of value towards the work we are doing here. I recognise we all have our different strengths and areas of expertise but there is a point at which you have to wonder why someone with no wish to write wants to spend their time working on an online encyclopaedia. You certainly have to wonder what he thought it would achieve writing his ungrammatical little "warning" here of all places. --John (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I have to correct you slightly there John, my contempt is off the scale. Some people talk of an admin/non-admin divide, but more and more I've come to understand that's a false dichotomy. The real divide here is between content creators and those whose only interest is in policing the behaviour of others; whether or not those self-appointed policemen are administrators is irrelevant, although I expect that many of those who aren't aspire to those lofty heights. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are largely on the same page (I think). (As well as being on the wrong page; if MF objects, I'll take this elsewhere:) I fully agree with the point about mutual respect. It is virtually impossible to accept criticism form editors you do not respect. However, I mildly disagree that one has to do content creation to earn respect. I think all editors should try, if only for the "walk in my shoes" reason, but, for example, if someone is skilled at creating templates, yet struggles with prose, by all means, stick to templates. Does that mean they are prohibited from having opinions and expressing them, with respect to civility issues? I do agree that Nobody Ent handled this situation far less than optimally, I disagree that Nobody Ent, in general, deserves contempt, even if mild.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if this were a template creation project, but last time I looked its aim was to write an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no respect. Whoever he is he came to my page to make false accusations. He should mind his own business and stop stirring up drama.J3Mrs (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incident reminds me of one of my favourite jokes of all time, which I'll shorten, as it can go forever. A kid goes to the circus, where's there's a clown act. Part way through one of the clowns turns directly to the kid and asks him:

"Are you the front end of an ass?"

"No" says the kid.

"Are you the back end of an ass?"

Again the kid replies "No".

"Then you must be no end of an ass" says the clown, to thunderous applause.

The humiliating exchange makes a deep impression on the kid, who resolves to study logic, philosophy, disputation, and anything else that might help him to get the better of the clown. But despite all his efforts every year when the circus returns the story repeats itself. Many years later the kid has grown up and become a professor of logic at a prestigious university. He decides to go back to his home town next time the circus returns and face the clown for a final showdown. Sure enough the clown spots him again and asks his usual question:

"Are you the front end of an ass?"

"Fuck off clown" came the reply.

And that just about sums up my attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice one. It's an interesting point in the perennial meta-debate about "civility"; how should we respond when someone's behaviour or communication (more usually the combination of the two) evokes real contempt? In real life, I almost always try to just ignore it "like a fart on a bus", but every tenth time or so, I think it is ok to say "fuck off clown" instead. Am I way out of line with Wikipedia's standards? --John (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think so. But the community will have a billion different takes on it so you can pick one that suits, I guess. Intothatdarkness 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One challenge is that there are so many editors, from so many backgrounds, that it is difficult to pint down the Wikipedia standard on this issue. I daresay there are literally thousands who agree, that in certain circumstances, "fuck off clown" is perfectly acceptable. I'll bet there are thousands of others who would counsel against ever using the phrase. And probably a fair number (myself among them), who agree it is warranted in some cases, but worry that many will use it when not warranted, and despairing of writing a set of rules defining when to and when not to, understand that it is easier to say, don't do that. Does MF know when to say it? Almost certainly. Does Randy form Boise? Probably not. So write me a coherent rule that allows MF to do it, but Randy gets a block. (As an aside. I worried I would regret joining this discussion, but the joke alone was worth it. More seriously, I'm fascinated by MF's nuance regarding the divide—not admin versus non-admin, but self-appointed policemen.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People have often claimed that I've got some kind of anti-admin agenda, but that's very far from the truth, just a shorthand way of saying I don't really understand what MF is saying, or I don't want to hear it. As for rules, there can be no rules to sanction comments taken out of context. To give one extreme example, it would be a criminal offence for me to order that someone be taken outside and hanged if that comment were not made at the conclusion of a murder trial in which I was the judge. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In full disclosure, I was greatly unimpressed with how Nobody Ent handled my requests here and here; if someone is to act as a metapedian, they should at least be held to high standards. To have someone who acts as a self-appointed guardian of our standards, without adding value otherwise, but who flippantly refers to their own cynical disclaimer when asked to correct an error, does tend to evoke contempt in me. --John (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of editors here who think they're the Guardian of something. I can take "support RfA per my [wikilink here] requirements" if it's someone who's been here since before Twinkle was invented, but every NPPer apparently must have a set of rules. And every other editor seems to want to weigh in on AN; it's bad enough already that ANI is flooded by wanna-be admins who chime in to confirm what's already clear in hopes of having their productive comments noted at the next RfA. I am less bothered these days by NE's comments (they have made some useful ones) than I was a year ago, but that's in part because I am no longer interesting in tracing discussions through edit histories.

    In general, yes, I'll take commentary from editors who've accomplished something, but some whippersnapper, like in the ban plump Jack discussion, not so much. I'm probably getting old. Speaking of old: I've been trying to help out closing old RfCs. That's a thankless job, and that's where we need some admins, not in fighting vandals. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Drmies for that statesmanlike comment. I must keep a look out for these useful comments you say you have seen NE make. --John (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Me too. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      [5] Nobody Ent 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that was one. :) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm. looks more like sweeping the dirt under the carpet to me. Why was Haldraker not sanctioned for that AN/I report alleging tag-teaming? Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your GA suggestions and corrections. I have responded on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll take another look later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed Coral Island here and left some very minor nit-picks before passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be right along. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just too ignorant. (Plus I'm a little sleepy, haha.) I thought I was doing it correctly; thanks for cleaning it up. Hey, whenever you move on to your next project, you'll see that you have to do some cleanup there as well... Drmies (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about having to do a bit of janitorial work, even though "the community" has resolutely chosen not to provide me with a mop, or even a small dishcloth. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always just roll me back. Hey, what I'm currently reading really needs some quality improvement on Wikipedia: Under the Volcano. I'll leave the island be--I think we've gotten as much out of it as we can; more work would require bringing in a chunk of books and a broader discussion of modern readings of the Victorian age, since that's where the coverage is at these days. It's kind of a shame that I couldn't find more on the publishing history: I'm sure it's there in some monograph or other and I may still look for that later. Nice working with you again, sir: I'm throwing in the towel for the night. Please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Malleus (she hates being called Mrs, I think that was her primary motivation for undertaking her PhD) is upstairs sleeping the sleep of the dead. We've done more than enough with the island, time to move on. As I said, I was never aiming for FA, just good enough. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded actually of a question her PhD supervisor asked me just before her viva. "How will you feel when she has a PhD and you don't?" I was a bit gobsmacked at first, so all I could say was that I'd be as pleased as Punch. But I've never felt any differently, as I've always had a thing for clever women. :-) Especially if they're tall, blonde, and it's love at first sight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm still (technically) married to someone tall, blonde, good-looking, with a PhD and ... and an interesting personality. And fifth of the WAGs with PhDs.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly know what to say, except that counselling won't come cheap. Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the NHS took care of that? Ha, here I am, white, middle-class, middle-aged, with a fucking Ph.D., a tenured professor, and my shoulder is fucked up--but I can't afford the co-payments for physical therapy. God bless America. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been editing warring at today's RfA over a personal attack against you. There is a discussion at ANI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bury the rag deep in your face, now is the time for your tears. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All opposition at RfA must be crushed, whatever the price. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really should not have been so hard to write, "I wrote poorly when I ascribed a psychiatric condition to MF, and I should have corrected it, especially when it was brought to my attention. Restoring it was inappropriate because of the appearance of a personal attack, which I regret, not having intended it."

Again, another lost opportunity for RfA reformers and administrators to show principle and even-handed enforcement of civility and NPA.

However ANI, apart from the apologetics for attacks on you, had its reasonable moments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we up to one ANI report a day this week? Surely the assholes must soon get the message. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting stat for those who blindly claim that I'm a malign influence at RfA. Apparently my vote agrees with the outcome 71% of the time,[6] not far behind the saintly Newyorkbrad's 73%.[7] Unlike Newyorkbrad though I do have the courage to vote oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That tool shows me at 68%, although I'm actually at 83%, half supports, the rest split between oppose and neutrals (which are just opposes wrapped in moral support). It even showed I opposed myself. I obviously don't want to get rid of opposing votes, but I would by lying if I didn't say I think there needs to be more formality and structure. If done properly, it would only reduce the drama. I do get tired of the overly threaded comments where it quickly gets off topic, something you have seen happen to plenty of your comments. Obviously I don't want to get rid of opposing since I do it half the time, but I still want to see some changes. I just hope you don't think everyone that wants change has nefarious motives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, quite the reverse in fact. I want to see change myself, radical change, but I've given up hope of ever seeing it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at 80.6% with the herd, despite having the courage to be neutral sometimes, and oppose 22.7%. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not conducive to radical change I've discovered. Large, comprehensive changes will simply never happen. But I am active at chipping away at that problem, and many others, with an end goal in mind. The current system is drama filled and political enough that it is surely scaring off good content creators from running. Even small steps to improve the system would be better than none. No different than writing a good article, it takes a lot of small steps and fine tuning along the way. But you have to be willing to take incremental steps and let others warm up to the idea of change. I can tell that you (Malleus) and I aren't afraid of radical change, but most humans are, in all things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baah. (Is that what an English-speaking sheep says?) (Or: I'm remarkably good!) Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent not only closed the discussion just when it was getting interesting (i.e., the administrator was being criticized) but he also censored "by administrator GiantSnowman" from the header. I don't recall white-washing names from ANI reports occuring for non-administrators.

Giano commented some months ago about the quick-closings of any discussion of administrator misbehavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer - drop this. MF clearly doesn't give a damn, why are you so concerned? The AN discussion, both of us were informed we could have behaved better - you are creating drama (again) for no reason. "Administrator misbehavior" refers to mis-use of tools - something I didn't do. Yes I was criticised, but then so were you - if anything, you've come off worse than me. Move on. I have. GiantSnowman 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in reporting 3RR for ce edits (or most other edits), and I typically would let a revert by you stand on an article where I am not the major contributor. A lot of this is subjective. I am not quite sure what you were fixing for that "Phillips" reference in The Coral Island; the net effect was to revert one of my not-so-interesting ce edits. Churn and change (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're rabitting on about with vague threats of 3RR, but whatever it is go do it somewhere else. I do not expect to hear any more from you, either here or elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, following this edit, I looked into AutomaticStrikeout's RfA. I see you've made a total of 23 edits to the RfA, which is 10 more that even the candidate (link for ease). As I believe a number of these edits have been verging on disruption, I believe you have made your point on the candidate and I believe it is fairly clear from the comments that they are unlikely to pass, but rather get good feedback, I am enacting this remedy. Please do not participate further in this RfA. Should you believe I am involved in this case as I have already voted neutral on the RfA or for any other reason, I am willing to have this decision reviewed. Worm^TT(talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]