Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
The irony nver fails to amuse me, how clever Misplaced Pages is at slamming a stable door, after a horse has bolted . The problem is that even then, they never secure that door properly, so as a consequence the new horses eventually bolts too. In a well run stable yard, doors would be properly maintained in a badly run yard it is botch and tie with string rather than buy new wood and some nails. Giacomo 07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm plagiarizing an idea someone else gave me, but ... admins have their noticeboard, crats have one, arbs have their place for discussion, but Wiki's most prolific content contributors do not. The community of editors who work to put top content on the mainpage are generally unaware when the FAs among the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" are being damaged-- either by POV pushers, style crusaders, trivia fans, or whatever. Why don't we start a content contributors noticeboard, and police it by removing all those childish admin squabbles to talk? It would give those who do know how to write content a place to address numerous issues that many admins aren't capable of or interested in addressing, 'crats won't take on because it's not their job, and arbs have been less than successful at addressing, partly because they don't do content disputes and partly because some of them just don't get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, for now, it looks like Malleus' talk page may be the clearing house ... I do hope he appreciates that something has come of the debacle that affected him :) Some examples of how this board might be useful come to mind (based on ... ummmm ... recent events and other):
Image review-- there are very few knowledgeable image reviewers, and I'm sick and tired of having to ping them-- it would provide a clearing house for nominators once all else is cleared on the nom, where they can request an image review.
RSN deals with basic reliability, but FA writers familiar with the higher standards per 1c don't congregate there-- it would provide a place for FA-specific RS queries.
Many reviewers support FACs that do not have RS clearance-- it would provide a place to notify other reviewers that more feedback is needed. Ditto for independent review.
Style crusaders cause lots of problems on FAs (see RelHistBuff, infoboxes, color, date-delinking, changes in citation style, etc ad nauseum). The MOS talkpage is a nightmare, so we could use a clearing house, and it would help us all know when inexperienced editors are causing deterioration in an FA. Recent style changes in an FA come to mind-- by the time the FAR was over, it was a fait accompli that could have been avoided if more FA writers had been aware.
The recent query at WT:FAC about size on Shakespeare could have gone to this board.
So, it occurs to me that we can make a case for the board being needed and useful. And I'd like the fact that we might be able to police it better than ANI, where every 12-yo Tom Dick and Harry can weigh in with uninformed commentary. We'd just move off-topic nonsense to talk, as we do at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Mmmmmm, I am thinking about what you say - it does seem very FA and FAR centred - good content extends far beyond that these days - I am far from being the only content editor who has turned away from it and created my own standards. What was the name of a proposed committee some time ago - I was asked to be on it, and all hell broke loose and the idea fell through before it got off the ground - even after I said I would resign - can anyone remember? I can't. Giacomo 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember the name either-- the Kirill proposal that led to his resignation, that I was also asked to be on. It was utterly ridiculous that it led to such a kerfuffle, and I seem to remember that Mattisse fed those flames (I could be wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd there are quite a few proposals these days to package the idea of giving people admin powers while bypassing the community consensus process which is RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Curious-- do people really think I agree with Jimbo most or any of the time? Also, Iri, puhlease !!! Counterweight to each other? What the hell good does that do Malleus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That if someone blocks him and there's not a good reason, someone unblocks him. Without wanting to presume, I don't think Malleus would argue with that; he's always been very clear that he's opposed to the lack of control over admins who overstep the limits, not admins per se. (The arguments for and against ACPD are all here in excruciating detail; they're really not worth having again.) – iridescent15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you agree with Jimbo only if he says Chavez is a jerk, any article about a Venezuelan issue which does not say so is POV, and eighteen year olds who party for days on end on islands off Venezuela's coast are conclusively nuns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Jimbo learned his lesson when he weighed in at Che Guevara. I recall agreeing once on a Jimbo issue (that he should retain some control over arb appointments), because I could see the slippery slope we'd head down if he didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Who, Chavez? He doesn't need to: he has an oil pipeline of dollars at his disposable-- one that used to belong to the Venezuelan people, but which they gave up themselves by abstaining from voting (in case I've not been clear, they are the jerks, not Chavez). Can we get back to talking about a noticeboard now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to overcome the other points raised here before we think about a name. More ideas on how it would be used ... to overcome past MFDs et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Patience, cricket, patience; there's more than one way to skin a cat. Your goal is for admins to stop abusing lowly content contributors, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yo-man, I know you too well-- I was counting the minutes til you'd show up, and anticipated it when I posted. Notice I said "my" Spanish, nanenanebooboo! I covered it. I never saw a saltamonte in Caracas, but I did see lots of grillos (d'oh). Hence, I don't think of saltamontes in Spanish. Toma tu tomate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone else can go deal with ninnies at ANI, because I'm starting to get hot under the collar. They just don't, can't or won't see it. I'm outta here for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are so many who do that though, but as it happens so frequently it goes unnoticed. GWH is a classic example; a self-satisfied pratt who thinks that he's better than everyone else just because he's an administrator, and therefore feels he has the right to abuse any other editor he takes a dislike to, or one of his tag-team buddies takes a dislike to. MalleusFatuorum23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not unusual for even the most well-meaning of "judges" in all walks of life to be corrupted by power. That's why you need a Court of Appeal/Supreme Court. Not sure ArbCom really fulfils that role though. It shouldn't be a question of "is this admin so awful that we humiliate and desysop them after a month long case" but rather, we, in our collective wisdom, overturn this decison, etc etc, or tell one to back off from an editor or a situation. For all the talk of mops, admins do have de facto power. People with power have to be watched. Including me. (Mwahaha)Fainitesscribs00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I wasn't meaning corrupt in the venal sense. It's more a getting out of touch and thinking one is a more important person than one really is and becoming correspondingly over-sensitive to slights to authority and having an over-inflated view of the value of one's wisdom. Also - using "one" instead of "your". That sort of thing. Fainitesscribs00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that the Giano/Malleus point is conclusively demonstrated and proven, could we please re-focus on starting a forum where content contributors could discuss article issues and disruptive editors without the meddlesome childish antics that predominate at other noticeboards?
How would we use the proposed new forum?
What would we have to name it to get Giano involved, since he has sworn off of the FA process?
Could we define its scope to include issues at content review processes, like PR/GA/FA?
Could it cover some of what was accomplished at WP:1FAPQ, which brought together experienced content producers to help each other out?
As one of the less experienced high-quality content producers around here (my articles suck; don't take my word about it, feel free to look at them and verify it yourself), I realize that would probably leave me out of it. This might not be a bad thing. It is my hope that, in the somewhat near future, we might be able to get something going at WP:1.0 along the lines of what Sandy says above, although its focus might not be the same as 1FAPQ. Specifically, that potential group would be centered on bringing some of the worse of the 40,000 or so articles included in the next release version to B level or higher, and maybe developing some of the articles at the next-lowest level of priority thereafter. I know there is a good deal of content of some degree of importance to the project which gets involved in battles, and those articles and others would be one of the topics of this potential article development group. I figure I might be able to help out a little in finding references, and maybe copy-editing, if and when it gets started. But, if it does develop, its purpose would be somewhat concerted article development. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Your articles don't suck! Anyone who says "my articles" obviously cares about what they write and they certainly don't suck. That a few wanker-admins then scream "he said MY, he's claiming ownership" shows how little they write or, to be more precise, how little they care about what they write. WRT Sandy's question I think we need to form a union - The Union of Dedicated Writers (no pun intended to my many Irish friends) so perhaps not that - but "dedicated" needs to be the spirit, whatever the name. One does not have to actually "like" fellow members, but one must respect their dedication to the project - and we look out for each other. No one else here will,so we willdo it for ourselves. We have ben failed by the Arbcom, failed by Jimbo and faied by the Admins as a body - so now we organize ourselves. If the admins ban one of us - then we deal with it in a way that will force (yes, force) them to think again and enoough of us and the resultant bad press - we could have that power. Let's forget American "country folk" civility and concentrate on writing a first rate encyclopedia. Giacomo 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not creative with names but there is a WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Following a precedent would make establishment easier. The thing that would need to be clarified though is what exactly would a Guild of Content Contributors do? Maybe currently separate projects should be folded under it. But what are the parties here really interested in? My impression is a forum which would concentrate discussion on content contributor issues and give a stronger voice for content contributors as a group. Lambanog (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased with what we did with that and Guido, and your subsequent work on the plotters has been little short of amazing. It's an obvious choice for November the 5th, but that may count against it in the strange and bizarre wikiworld. MalleusFatuorum20:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm rushing to get all 13 in some semblence of order before the 5th. Even if I don't get around to re-writing the remaining 4 (I've made a start on Robert Keyes), they should at least be nipped and tucked. Parrotof Doom20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England
If you had the time and motivation would you cast an eye over the prose at List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England. I put this one up yesterday, and it has been suggested that this could be a candidate at FLC, but you know what my prose is like, and any copy editing (or other contributions) you (or anyone else reading this page) were willing/able to offer would be appreciated.— Rod09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You might want to prod User:David Underdown about this one. He seems to know an awful lot about church bells, and "number of bells and date the bells and organ were installed/removed" could be a good way to expand the stubbier entries. – iridescent09:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I do hope that Malleus has the time and inclination to do the copy editing (not much involved). It would help me too when I submit some parallel lists on which I am working as FLCs. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, perhaps later today or tomorrow. My enthusiasm for what wikipedia is supposed to be about is slowly returning. Who knows, one day I may even try to write one those FA thingies myself. MalleusFatuorum17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
A couple of small things, but small things matter with featured articles.
There's no consistency in "St." vs "St". I'd drop the full stop.
It seems strange to capitalise "Trust" but not "charity". I'd suggest capitalising neither.
Thanks from me too for the copy editing. It's good that you're still around and willing to help us ordinary editors improve Misplaced Pages.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If you and Rodw were wikipedia's "ordinary editors" then the project would be fortunate indeed. I've been through the lead and I'm fairly happy with that now. Just one question though: in the second paragraph we're told that all of the churches remain consecrated, but towards the end we're told that one has been converted into a private residence and another is used as a circus school. Are both of those really still consecrated? MalleusFatuorum16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a very interesting question. The comment that "all of the churches remain consecrated" is taken from the trust's website here. It is possible that a redundant church could be used for other activities (concerts, exhibitions, maybe even a circus school (!)) and remain consecrated. But a private residence? That's more difficult. I've recently joined the CCT, and I think they deserve an e-mail from me. I'll let you know the outcome (I agree it matters).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the St Thomas à Becket Church, Pensford is partly used as a private dwelling, but part (the tower I think) is still maintained by CCT - I don't know if part of a building can remain consecrated? St. Paul's Church, Bristol is used for "community activities" (ie circus & other performance) but not necessarily religious - so not sure about the consecration of that one either.— Rod18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
On a different note... linking of terms in sortable lists. I've had these debate before but never got a definitive answer. If the text is linked on first occurrence & then someone sorts by one of the columns that occurrence is no longer 1st occurrence - therefore I have linked several occurrences & passed FL eg all of the sub lists at Grade I listed buildings in Somerset. Perhaps there should be a guidleine for this?— Rod18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been advised (told?), that if a list is sortable, every word that should be linked once should be linked every time. I've done this on the lists I've submitted at FLC, and it's never been criticised — I suppose that if you sort, you never know which will turn out to be the first. So I link everything in the body of a sortable list, and wait to see what happens. What do you think? {No real harm done??) Oh, and I've sent an e-mail to CCT about consecration. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is ever perfect, but the article generally looks OK to me now; there will undoubtedly be some remaining prose problems, there always are, but they can be easily fixed. One thing though, are you aware of what appears to be a recent addition to the MoS, here? Specifically the requirement to scope column and row headers? MalleusFatuorum23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your eagle eyes and patient copy editing. I wasn't aware of the column & row header requirements, but have now done this as well. I'd be game to put this up for FLC now/soon, unless anyone can think of other issues which need to be addressed?— Rod09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In case you're interested in the outcome, I've received a reply from CCT about consecration. They say "(1) The church at St Thomas Becket is a private residence and was never in our care, it is only the tower that we look after. The church would have been deconsecrated before it was sold. (2) St Paul, Bristol is used as a circus school but it remains consecrated. (3) Guyhirn Chapel in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire is the only one of the buildings in our care that isn't consecrated but that is because it never was." I've sent this info to Rodw. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Have you noticed how certain people, like Baseball Bugs, are allowed to re-write ANI on a whim. I think I shall try to do the same, it's obviously allowed now - you must do it too. This is not the diff in question , allthough familar names, but the section is barely recognizable as the one our comments were pertaining too. Perhaps it's magic. Giacomo 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that editors like Baseball and his mate Camelbinky try continually to ram their version of "the truth" down everyone else's throats. And I've also noticed that the self-appointed leaders of the civility police allow them to get away with it. MalleusFatuorum18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Here, I am being "unadmonished" and here along with Malleus, seemingly left replying to thin air. Oh well, good to know it is now perfectly Ok to rewrite our histories in such a high profile place. Wherever shall we start? Giacomo 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
That works, even here in Stretford. I think that Stephen Fry may be the Oscar Wilde of his generation, although as a matter of principle I despise all public schoolboys, especially those who employed a tailor to make their prep school uniforms. MalleusFatuorum23:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
He Twittered the TFA for Gropecunt Lane, saying something like "Glad to see this on the FP of Misplaced Pages". For that alone he has my gratitude. Parrotof Doom00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gee, MF; we knew ye when you were just a wee boy with a hammer. ("He who must not be named" in my neck of the woods is *not* named Malleus!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I reckon I can get the remaining miscreants up to a reasonable spec before the 5th, but I'm rushing things and I wondered if you could have a quick read of this stubbish article and tell me if owt is missing? I haven't added anything about the Midlands uprising and Princess Elizabeth, but I can't quite see where to put it yet.
I may also propose a merger of John and Christopher Wright, as many of their details are shared, and there isn't much to say about Christopher. Parrotof Doom18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks very nice, I've only got three comments.
"... William Camden describing them as men 'hunger-starved for innovation'". Probably ought to explain who Camden was.
The image in the lead makes the infobox stretch down into the article a bit too far I think.
"At about midnight on 4 November Fawkes was discovered and arrested ...". I thought that it was just after midnight, and that the search had been deliberately delayed until the 5th?
Linked Camden, and I'll crop the image. The midnight thing isn't certain, Fraser says "around midnight on Monday 4 November or perhaps in the small hours of 5 November". Haynes says "Just before midnight on 4 November, Guy Fawkes had occasion to open the door to the under room. Whatever caused this - the furious barking of dogs close by perhaps, or the sound of a sword scraping the outer wall - Knyvett took advantage of the moment to order his arrest....king's bedchamber...it was there that Fawkes was brought before them for preliminary questioning at about four in the morning of 5 November." Nicholls - "In contemporary accounts of the subsequent search chronology varies slightly, but no more than one might expect given the scope for rumour and embellishment in so thrilling a tale (Gardiner, 114–37). About midnight Knyvett led his party into the cellar. They met Fawkes, fully clothed and in his boots, emerging from the room. Thinking him oddly dressed for so late an hour Knyvett had the suspect arrested, while his men hauled away the faggots and brushwood, uncovering thirty-six barrels—nearly a ton—of gunpowder."
When I go Elsan cleaning, to earn an honest bob
For a dirty digger* it's a scintillating job
Beans for breakfast, beans for tea
Makes the work more hard for me
If you could see what I can see
When I'm cleaning Elsans
...and that's just for unlinking his name? I wonder what he would do if you did something drastic, like... removed it entirely :O J.delanoyadds03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That actually shows a slightly larger file size than my results. Anyway, just wanted to see someone else's results. No further action required. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your request. Fainites scribs 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
