Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 24 March 2012 (→March 2012: fuck off). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There are many aspects of Misplaced Pages's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sometimes I over-think ...

	Also sorry
	I'm much better at doing the right things I've been shown than determining what is actually right. I will try to remember as well. My76Strat (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you and Pesky referring to? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. My best guess is that it is a response to your weariness at receiving frequent advice, but I could be completely wrong! Geometry guy 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what motivated Pesky, but I seized the moment as it occurred to me and I saw a chance to reciprocate. Metaphorically acknowledging that we, (Pesky and I) arrived at the same place, (supportive of your efforts) by different paths of reason. That's the skinny on mine. My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I get a pass on that MF? Or fail? Anyway; I wish tranquil wellness for you; going forward. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy's correct; I apologise for unwanted advice which you're heartily sick of! Unfortunately, having been teacher, parent, grand-parent and parent-substitute for a long time, the dishing-out of advice just becomes a habit. Pesky (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Eight solid weeks of being told what an arse you are, and how much better Misplaced Pages would be if you just fucked off can have a rather wearing effect. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe being told that your "contributions at RfA" are a "sad side show" will help you reach closure..., or at least better to understand the fidelity of the committee.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that rather an extraordinary statement for an arbitrator to have made. But then they're all administrators with a vested interest in the sanctity of RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Particularly after the criticisms of the Arbs (Hawkeye and Thumperward) for making remarks liable to interpretation of put-downs of you soon after using their administrative powers.

But the character uniform behavior was revealed by the election, during which my endorsement was accepted, and after which it was spurned, conveniently. (I could not imagine e.g. WTT, whatever our past differences, accepting a bad endorsement.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, I would never call you an arse, and I can't see how you "just fucking off" could really benefit the 'pedia. Being me, though, I find it really hard not to suggest tweaks here and there! . It never ceases to amaze me, though, how people (some Arbs, some Admins) can fail to see that they are doing the exact same thing, in different clothing, as the thing they're criticising others for. @Kiefer wolfy-wits, I actually think that if WTT had got in, he'd have made a very thoughtful Arb. I think the added responsibility would probably have brought out the very best in him. Regardless of your previous spats and so on, I'm so sure that he has his head basically screwed on right, and his heart in the right place. I've never known him (yet) to have actual ill-intent towards someone; we're all fallible, and I really hope that you and he eventually develop a strong cameraderie. I think the results could be amazing. It would be so good if you could actually meet in Real Life, share a beer and a pie somewhere relaxing, and talk a few things out (while under the relaxing influence of said beer). I have just the pub for you ... Pesky (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good that he's clerking. I think that I suggested that in my ArbCom Election guide, at least in draft, before I removed it to "stay on message". One hopes that he will pass on ideas to other clerks and the arbs, rather than just being a gnome. Also, he's been mentioned as a bureaucrat possibility---all good. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my price list

• GA review £5
• Peer review £7.50
• FA review between £10 and £25, depending on the number of commas that need to be moved around.

Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As a deafy, I ask "Comma gain?" Perusing your present rates, I might have to have a word with someone in the States. It would therefore help if you could provide a link to a decent currency conversion service. Would you not settle for a pint of Holt's Mild? Push me hard enough and I might manage to supply a pint of one of their lagers, but I do regret the passing of their mega-cheap (and palindromic) Regal brew. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Never tried their Regal, and I hate mild; I always have their Diamond lager when I'm in a Holt's pub. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The brewer at The Bull, Bridge Street, Fakenham once brewed an "entire" porter (a sour dark beer). I admired his bravery in producing a beer that tasted like burnt yoghurt, and on returning a few years later, when my tongue had grown back, I said as much to the barmaid. She denied there ever had been such a thing in her pub (and she'd only had had a week's holiday over the past ten years). Unfortunately, just then, the brewer was having his decade's worth of leave, and was absent the premises, so the question wasn't settled. Ning-ning (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bath Ales do a nice porter, and despite their name it does not have a soapy finish. At the recent Manchester Wikimeet, myself and A N Other each had a pint of Ilkley Moor Mild that had a distinct burnt taste to it. It had me reaching for my flat cap, roll-up and whippet but, alas, they were safely stashed at home. Since Malleus is a lager man, I have bottles of Trappistes Rochefort 8 & 10 lying around here. Feel free to take a virtual slurp ... and fall over. One day, I will get round to sorting out Joseph Holt's Brewery. It needs a fair bit of work but sources are available. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Answering your question

A volunteer, screened and approved by WMF, to be a public face of WP on the campus hosting the Peirce Edition project.

His edit rate has really increased at last check, perhaps meeting the rate suggested at RfA, which I had thought was sarcasm but now I can only wish that it were sarcasm. I fear that with additional Red-Bull afterburners, the Twinklers will destroy the space-time continuum, unless Dr. Who or Captain Jack Harkness appear.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or Kirk or Picard? Pesky (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have some interest in this

Ihde, Erin. "'So gross a violation of decency': a note on wife sales in colonial Australia." Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, v.84, no.1, June 1998: (26)-37. ISSN: 0035-8762. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments, please?

On this :D Pesky (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Windsor Castle

Hello. The thread we've both been contributing to at VP made me take a look at the list of FAs that haven't appeared on Main Page. I noticed that Windsor Castle is one of them. You seem to be one of three main contributors. I thought it might be a good option for Main Page on the day of the Jubilee and wondered what you thought of the idea. If you like it, I'm happy to drop the other two a line. --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The other two are probably the ones who wrote the article, as I certainly didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I chipped in with the odd minor edit, but the article is Hchc2009's. Nev1 (talk)

Fair enough. I'll drop him a line. But while I'm here, do either of you think it's a good/bad idea? You're both editors whose opinions I value. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors dislike their articles appearing on the main page because of the extra maintenance it creates. My experience of TFAs is few and far between so I don't mind too much when articles I've edited find their way onto the front page. The Tower of London was TFA on 29 September 2010. Distance may be distorting things, but I don't recall it being too stressful and there were useful suggestions on the talk page. 71,000 people visited the article that day; if Windsor is to be TFA on the jubilee I'd expect the figures, and therefore vandalism etc, to be even higher. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To summarise: it's clearly an appropriate article, but for me Hchc2009's opinion would strongly influence whether I support Windsor Castle being TFA. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Hchc2009's choice, I agree. Ealdgyth seems to get an inordinate number of mainpage appearances, but I don't think she's entirely sold on the idea. I don't write that much myself these days, but I don't recall TFA as being anything other than a minor nightmare. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Hchc2009#Windsor_Castle. You two happy? I have no desire to go tramping on an FA I haven't improved! Would one of you like to raise it with Raul yourself? I have no axe to grind here - just would like to see it happen, rather than the day being marked with a ... --Dweller (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy if Hchc2009 is. There's no reason to raise it with Raul though, just nominate it at TFAR as normal. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MOO II

Hi, Malleus. Please improve Master of Orion II --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What did your last slave die of? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fractured skull. He didn't do as he was told. Pesky (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been meaning to get back to this, but it that's unlikely to happen this weekend, so I'm not sure when I will next be able to fit it in. Geometry guy 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Attack of the killer MOSmen

In the last days, I've had long discussions, tumbing from page to page, ever deeper into Hell, about

• renaming "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook" as "King Crimson album covers" and "album covers by P J Crook". (Of course, WP only has KC covers and no other art by her),
• "P J Crook" must be mispelled "P. J." because of the MOS, despite her use of "P J" professionally,
• had a vandal-template attached to my user name, which invited any administrator to "nuke" my contributions. (Elen soon explained that the nuclear option was only tactical, i.e., limited to recent contributions). (Thanks again for the support!)
• had my article on Roger J-B Wets rewritten to "explain" that his name is really "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets", abbreviated "Roger J.-B. Wets" (which is a pet peeve of Wets, in real life, where he has had his name legally declared to be "J-B") and that he is a "programmer", etc. I'm still waiting for Demiurge1000 to share his wisdom on this page.

Forget the beers! I Wanna Be Sedated! Pesky must have a horse tranquilizer to spare....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget the tranquilisers, get some of her mushrooms. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

... and read Misplaced Pages in Glorious Psychedelicolour ... Pesky (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I must admit

I did have a hearty laugh at that. Anyway, if it were me I'd gate it via a grammar quiz rather than edit count; anyone wishing to click the "block" button would be given a sentence with a blank, and must correctly decide whether "your" or "you're" goes in the blank before they'd be allowed to proceed. Admin captcha, if you will. It would also help cut down on blocking while intoxicated, I'd imagine. 28bytes (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall grab that one for my funnies stable. Of course, with some people, there's a far better use for their tie ;P Pesky (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make the world ...

... I just try to live in it. And change stuff where it can be improved.

Yup, in your ideal world, "the only good civility policy is one conspicuous by its absence." BUT ... that ain't gonna happen here. There's always going to be one. We're having some interesting, thoughtful and productive discussion over at WT:CIV, with some big hearts and good brains involved. If I had been putting together a working team to write something decent, you would surely have been one of my first choices. We need your points of view, and your intelligence, insight and excellent language skills over there. Bearing in mind that you're going to have to live with some kind of civility policy (and this goes for many like you but less outspoken), please will you join us in an endeavour to get something bearable and sensible in place? Pretty please? Mucho hugzies, offers of free beer, directions to the mushroom fields ... ;P Pesky (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look, ......but I couldn't finish. Everybody knows what it means, nobody will read it. It's too long and it will be unevenly enforced as before. I don't read anything I don't have to, I don't think many editors do. Most of it reminds me of school rules, it hardly treats editors as adults. If it can't be said in a couple of sentences it's not worth saying. I loathe this nicey-nicey stuff. It's a policy for the easily offended that's all. Sorry. J3Mrs (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not (personally) looking for yes-men (or yes-women) here. What we really need are lots of views from different angles, and your comments here show that you could be invaluable. I'm (personally) trying to get away from walls of text and more towards bullet points, do's and dont's, almost-soundbites, and getting stuff worded clearly, concisely, and simply, so that editors who have English as a second language, and younger editors, can understand it just as easily as people from Uni / college / further/higher education backgrounds can. If we can't all understand it, it's next to useless. If you can bear to have another look (lol!) with a view to more concise wording, that would be great. Pesky (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It might as well be left alone as the problem isn't what it says but how it's interpreted. Any self respecting adult is simply not going to wade through either text or bullet points. We all know what is and isn't civil, it's more about what some people get away with and what other others don't. I've got away with things and I've been subject to things. It's really a policy for the easily offended and those who like running to teacher. I can't see how it could possibly be anything else. It should say develop a thick skin or find something else to do. I don't want to go back to school rules thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll briefly poke my head in here to agree with J3Mrs. No normal editor will, or should be expected to, read through and memorize a list of bullet points regarding a topic as marginal to most editors' daily activity as this. Your proposal isn't aimed at typical editors, it's aimed at the half-dozen fruitloops who would actually waste their time commenting on WT:CIV. If I'm reading this correctly, you're seriously suggesting that not only should all editors be expected to memorize the personal prejudices of you and a couple of your friends, they should be subject to sanctions should they have an opinion that differs from your own, or do anything you consider "upsetting". I disagree with J3Mrs in one respect; these proposals would be laughed out of any self-respecting grade school, since teachers understand the concept that "people sometimes disagree". Your proposal is so draconian that in the very unlikely event it ever became policy, even the most hardline Defender Of The Wiki types would ignore it.

Although I haven't been following this (or anything) in any kind of detail, it seems that all your (Pesky's) comments on this topic have a distinct whiff of "cult leader explaining revealed wisdom to the masses" about them; you seem to think your particular prejudices are inalienable truth, whilst anyone who happens to disagree with you is a poor misguided fool who needs to be bombarded with patronizing nonsense until they give up in disgust and leave you to play with yourself. (Since AFAIK my sole previous interaction with you was your taking a very carefully worded post of mine based on years of experience of the interactions between Misplaced Pages's hardcore editing community, Misplaced Pages's casual users, Misplaced Pages's dispute-resolution processes, the WMF, Arbcom wearing its "de facto provisional government when consensus fails" hat, and the external critics of Misplaced Pages—and unilaterally "summarizing" it into sanctimonious, unworkable and objectionable bilge—I'm uninclined to give you much benefit of the doubt here.) – iridescent 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I offended you; however, I find your comments here to be extremely offensive. Where did WP:AGF go, in all of that? Pesky (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I note you said "If I'm reading this correctly...". I don't think you are. I never suggested, for example, that anyone should be memorising anything. I'm also having real trouble working out what you think is draconian. Pesky (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the responders here are missing the point; first off, Pesky was curious what Malleus thought, and he has yet to weigh in. Second, the responses I am seeing here are exactly why such a policy should be developed, vicious ad hominem attacks against an editor making a good faith effort are out of line. Third, Pesky is one of the most sincere and straightforward editors I know on wikipedia, and really does not deserve to have her good faith suggestions dismissed as "sanctimonious, unworkable and objectionable bilge." Finally, having spent a LOT of years as a teacher, this sort of thing is PRECISELY what shows up in many schools -- statements by nature general, but applicable to multiple situations, thus taking away the excuse, "gee teacher, I didn't know it was against the rules, there's no rule that says I can't push Suzie into a mud puddle and call her a green zit-face." Civility is also known as acting like an adult, and targeted deliberate incivility should only be applied with common sense to those who lack a clue. Adult behavior is something in quite short supply here. Montanabw 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Iridescent's statement, which is a clear statement of the spirit of existing policy (which is often misapplied).

An unfortunate consequence of the other proposals (and TPC's critics at WP:Civ are worse ) is that they would strengthen the ability of administrators to block editors for incivility that does not reach the level of personal attacks or disruptive editing; such a change in policy would need an RfC to have legitimate weight.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Like Montanabw, I would have preferred an acknowledgment of Pesky's good faith from Iridescent and perhaps thanks for keeping Iridescent's suggestion "in play", but I am sure that TPC is a robust editor who is secure in her own worth and secure in the knowledge that she has earned our trust, respect, and affection, so nothing more need be said.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I did weigh in, above, to say that what I want is to see the civility policy abolished; it will never be anything other than a stick to beat other editors with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

... that's actually one of my main goals in trying to get the damned thing sorted out, to get it fair and reasonable, and equally applied. I'm trying to get something in there which will stop the hypocrisy with which some people use the policy as a weapon. I don't know if you've looked at any of it, but the following was one of my ideas:

Rules of Enforcement

1. Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times

   This means never reporting any editor for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate! And also never piling-on in support of sanctions when someone else makes a report for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate!

   Be sure to take into account all the relevant history; never make snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation

2. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action

   Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do

   Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, etc.)

3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case - cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.

That third one was actually Fluffernutter's. EotR is aslo helping to rein in some of my more wacky moments. (And I don't consider either of them to be fruitloops ;P )

@KW; I'm not as "robust" as you seem to think! Sometimes things like what Iridescent said really, really hurt. Stupid, but true. It's not since December that I've felt so comprehensively misunderstood, or face-slapped for trying to make something better. Pesky (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times doesn't sit well with me at all. One person's fairness is another's injustice and so on. Our judgement is often clouded by the fact we're human. We get angry, we forget things. Brains just don't work in a way that makes that section possible...I've gotten annoyed over things I've done myself, had an argument about it and the such, only to realise later (sometimes much later) that I was being a rotten hypocrite. That's like asking people to be perfect, or God. Never going to happen. If there's a civility policy, it has to make allowance for the the fact that people are human. No amount of sensible wording is going to make us all act fairly all the time. :P Bunnies! Leave a message :) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By bringing this to the talk page of an editor who has said he is not interested, don't you think you are rather proving Iridescent's point? I took the trouble to read it all and well....... I'd let it drop, it isn't worth it, as nothing will change, well certainly not for the better. J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What OohBunnies said. Your proposal as it stands is to make it sanctionable for anyone to act in a way which could upset anyone, which even the hardline Civilination types would consider unworkably draconian. There are only two ways in which a civility policy could actually function within Misplaced Pages's unique (and uniquely problematic) internal culture; either the 'common law solution', of abolishing the formal policy altogether and approaching each case in terms of impact on the project; or, an intentionally inflexible formal policy with as little wiggle-room as possible. Both would be so vigorously opposed by the half-dozen people who WP:OWN the civility policy (that figure isn't plucked out of thin air), that neither would ever be accepted unless the WMF imposed them from above. As Malleus and OohBunnies both say above, the proposed bullet-list of platitudes is an open invitation to gaming and abuse. (How exactly are you to judge what someone else would or wouldn't "find acceptable if someone said it to their nephew"?) FWIW, I find it vanishingly unlikely that EotR is actually supporting your proposal, given that she has Arbcom experience, and knows full well both how unworkable it would be and just how strongly "perceived incivility" correlates with "personal grudge". (As previously mentioned, when That Case opened at Arbcom I gave Malleus an accurate prediction of the voting numbers based purely on the personal attitudes towards the various parties of the arbs active on the case. What in a friend is a "strongly worded opinion", in an enemy is "gross incivility". It's been mentioned many times before, but the internal politics of Misplaced Pages are generally determined by who can round up the most cronies, and who can avoid upsetting anyone important.) – iridescent 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Iridescent: Ah, OK, I think I understood that better. (btw, Iridescent, I'm a HFA person, so Isometimes just can't get it unless it's explained differently. I do try, but I often fail.) I now see what you meant by the "draconian" thing; I obviously worded that idea very badly. Something does need to be done to make the thing workable, anc clear, and non-gameable, though. What we currently have is chaotic, and chaotically applied. Can you help with wording, re-wording, brainstorming, whatever is necessary to make this thing right?

@J3Mrs, I'm putting enough trust in Malleus to be aware that I'm really trying to make something better, not be uncivil or annoying to him. When you want a policy as clearly-written and unabiguous as an FA is, there are a few good, sound people whose input is invaluable. Malleus is one of them.

There are loads of ways of failing, but in order to make the damned thing better, how can we make it succeed, , instead of thinking of all the ways it can fail? Please help. Something needs to be done, and it seems as though most people either don't care, or don't dare, to "grab this bull by the horns and rethink the whole civility issue, because all we have right now is anarchy and chaos." Pesky (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you come up with, until it's applied evenly and fairly (read "all users" as opposed to "editors," as I can see some Admins arguing that since they aren't titled editor the rules don't apply) nothing will really work. And since I've seen no real inclination to apply rules to everyone equally, any policy (no matter how carefully crafted and worded) is doomed to failure or abuse. Sorry, Pesky. I think you're trying to do something really good here, but the existing culture really works against you on a number of very fundamental levels. So long as authority figures (real or perceived, just to avoid claims that admins aren't authority figures) ignore or flaunt rules it encourages others to do the same.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My biggest bugbear with the whole civility thing is the unequal application of it. But then I have this obsession about injustice. In my book, "all editors" means all. Without exception. Rules which are unequally enforced aren't rules; they are the oppressive tools of a tyranny. Pesky (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}Unequal application is hard to eliminate completely, any person will tell you that the real life law always works better for some people than others, in real life there are dramatic differences in application between rich and poor and (in the USA anyway) white and non-white, etc. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have real world law or wikipedia policy, it just means that it's a social contract that is under never-ending modification. I don't think a civility policy can ever be set in stone or applied perfectly, but that doesn't mean one should not be created. The problem, as always, is crafting something that understands the difference between Malleus' now-infamous example of calling a couple of male admins the "c-word" which was used as a trout slap and cluebat against people who probably needed such a slap, versus (just as an example) the editor who called Bishonen a variant on the "b-word" with a clear intent to bully the user and create a hostile environment. A good policy would have a mechanism to tell Malleus that he's being a flaming a--hole when he's crossed the line without banning and blocking him from doing what he does best. Yet, at the same time, the truly disruptive editors who seldom contribute anything useful at all and seem to spend all their time on the drama boards need to be blocked swiftly and efficiently instead of being allowed to feed their egos by running tendentious, endless arguments over a half-dozen policy talk pages. Montanabw 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On a point of order, it was only one editor, not two, and I had no idea then or now whether that editor was an admin or not. What started the trouble off was my perfectly innocuous observation that some administrators were dishonest cunts, which I find it hard to believe that anyone could credibly deny. Things just spiralled out of control after that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In any statistically significant sample of humans, some of them are going to be dishonest cunts. Ask KW. I suppose the only question remaining (for the purists) is whether that subset of humanity is a statistically significant sample. Pesky (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Altrincham

This is a note to let the main editors of Altrincham know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Altrincham is a market town within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. It lies on flat ground south of the River Mersey about 8 miles (13 km) southwest of Manchester city centre, 3 miles (5 km) south-southwest of Sale and 10 miles (16 km) east of Warrington. As of the 2001 UK census, it had a population of 41,000. Historically a part of Cheshire, Altrincham was established as a market town in 1290, a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade, and there is still a market in the town today. Further socioeconomic development came with the extension of the Bridgewater Canal to Altrincham in 1765 and the arrival of the railway in 1849, stimulating industrial activity in the town. Outlying villages were absorbed by Altrincham's subsequent growth, along with the grounds of Dunham Massey Hall, formerly the home of the Earl of Stamford, and now a tourist attraction with three Grade I listed buildings and a deer park. Altrincham today is an affluent commuter town, partly because of its transport links. It is also a centre for sport, home to Altrincham F.C. and an English Premier League ice hockey club, Manchester Phoenix. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I jixed it. Nev1 (talk)

You did. I thought that the Sale thing was bad enough, but I suppose that one gets used to being metaphorically screwed here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But I never did, which is perhaps why I got screwed more than most, and why I now contribute almost nothing. Let Newyorkbrad and his acolytes write whatever they can, I'm beyond caring. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm pestering, but I'm doing it in a good cause, and because I care

The other reason(s) is / are what you said earlier:

* Better would be to fix the Misplaced Pages concept of civility and apply it consistently to all editors, which is the only possible good outcome I can see from this case. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree to abide by any properly written and consistently enforced civility policy, but right now we have neither. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  

• Absolutely agree with the observations made by Pesky. Someone needs to be mandated to grab this bull by the horns and rethink the whole civility issue, because all we have right now is anarchy and chaos. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty please? Especially with the "properly written" bit? Pasting across form my talk: I'm absolutely convinced that, in all policy pages, the writing should be as simple, clear, and non-verbose as is humanly possible. Policy pages that read as though some pompous post-grad lecturer with zero charisma has written them are just plain irritating when they should be written in a way that one would describe the policy to (for example) a favourite nephew. (Or someone with ESL, etc.) Pesky (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC) ] Oops, I did it again. I posted this before reading the comments up above :o( . No incivility was meant here, really. I just think you;d be possibly the best person to get the wording absolutely right. Pesky (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How about considering this as a civility policy, Pesky:

• Editors ought to treat each other in the same way as they would like to be treated themselves. No sanctions are applicable for any breach of that.

It's simple, realistic and easy to "enforce". Trust me, it wouldn't produce any worse results than what we have now. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, RexxS! I've been sitting here thinking that "do onto others as you would like others to do onto you" would be a pretty decent civility policy...or at least that's what my parents tried to convince my siblings and me of... :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Love it! I still like the idea, though, of someone like Jorm coding-up a computer-to-brain interface script which would automatically install BeNice™ software into the human who clicks on the link to the civility policy – it would make life so much simpler! Pesky (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Being "nice" doesn't always get the job done. I remain firmly of the conviction that the civility policy ought not to be one of the five pillars, and it ought never to have been one of the five pillars. In fact it sticks out like a sore thumb amongst them as the only one not addressing the product; the only sensible course is to delete it. Of course I know that won't happen, as nothing can be changed here, which I made the grudging comments you alluded to earlier. The bottom line is that so long as administrators such as Georgewilliamherbert are emboldened by any civility policy that gives them the scope to block other editors it will not be enforced across the board. Even Jimbo has himself not infrequently made comments to or about other editors that would likely have resulted in at least a warning had other, non-admin editors made them. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what needs to change. (By being nice, I really being being unhurtful, btw.) So – how do we go about getting the thing forcibly equally enforced? You're right; you must have some good ideas! Anyhoo, I'm off to bed now (got woken up by mother three times between 2am and 6am ... sigh.) And which one in the pic are you? Pesky (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one sitting in front of the empty Stella Artois glass, in apparently animated conversation with Iridescent. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recently saw this on a T-shirt, and it made me think a bit:

• We are all born with hearts of gold
• But we grow old - and hearts grow cold.

• — Ched :  ?  20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  That's completely contrary to my own experience and everything I believe in. Older people have a duty to fight to change things, as they have far less to lose than the youngsters, and often the time to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In theory I would agree, but in practice my experiences have been less encouraging. Sometimes people just get tired, and lack the exuberance of youth to carry on the challenges. Change can be a wonderful thing, yet it often comes with a heavy price tag. Perhaps it's just a matter of getting a second wind, and trying once more. Either way, I'll consider your views as always. (hopefully you got a refill on that empty glass :-)) — Ched :  ?  20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did, everyone was very generous. Quite took me aback really. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you all having fun! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a disconnect sometimes that leads to many problems here. I'm quite certain for instance, to pick one example out of the blue, I'll think quite differently about Rexxs the next time I meet him online. What I'll remember is a very congenial person with whom I had a discussion about nitrogen toxicity, and who very generously bought me a Stella. How could I possibly fall out with him? Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That photo is timestamped 15:41. I was there at 13:00 and left ca. 19:15. I might try an orange juice next time. But then again, I might not. Anyways, the pic clearly shows civility in action and without a policy in sight. Has anyone else spotted the paper money lying next to the empty glass yet? Try doing that at the other end of the East Lancs Road! And I can assure you that MF is absolutely surrounded by admins there but there are no red cards being shown ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who may not know, Sitush is the handsome tall chap in the white shirt, standing in the background. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said to you Simon, I really was apprehensive about the reception I might receive, but I was frankly gobsmacked. I hope that others such as J3Mrs might be encouraged to come along to the next meet, but without a ready supply of alcohol .... Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The art cafe cannot fit us in. There is a suggestion (gaining support) that we might try the Abercrombie next to Bootle St cop shop. It would be good to have more bodies, and even better if we could increase the female contingent. No-one has to drink alcohol in city centre pubs nowadays: they all do coffee etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's an improvement. I'm certain that J3Mrs would be amenable to a little bit of persuasion from a smooth talker such as yourself. I've already taxed my powers to the limit. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Oi, J3Mrs, get your arse over to the next Manchester WikiMeet - there's pint of mild in it for you". Will that do? Ah, I missed the "smooth" bit: Hi J3Mrs, if you fancy a gab and have the time, you will find yourself among friends and, should I actually get some work in the interval, I'll buy you a glass or cup of whatever it is that takes your fancy. If I do not get some work then I am pretty sure that someone else will do the honours. We're not a bad bunch, you know, and it will give you a chance to humanise what can be a somewhat impersonal environment. If you are bothered about walking into a strange place to meet strangers then I will email you my mobile number and you could let me know when you arrive, which would at least save you from wandering around looking for people carrying copies of a newspaper and wearing A Liverpool FC rosette/flower or whatever. I am very deaf & cannot hear on the phone, but that idea seemed to work for Malleus and Richerman. The ever-evolving details can be found here. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just look for a fat bloke with a midlands accent wearing a Misplaced Pages T-shirt, probably with a beer in his hand. ;) Having a phone conversation with someone who can't hear you doesn't strike as ever so productive! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Stand at the door and one-bell. I've just noticed that Malleus refers to me as "handsome". I think it was Disraeli who said something like "Flattery will get you everywhere, and when it comes to royalty it should be laid on with a trowel". In this instance, I'd simply advise that a certain person takes a trip to Specsavers. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I blame it all on Rexx, he's a bad influence. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The bit above about how there is sometimes a 'disconnect' between online and offline personas and personalities is very true. There are Wikipedians I've met at meetups who come across in person very differently to how they come across online. Sometimes you get on with someone both online and offline, sometimes it's only one and not the other. It can work both ways. Sometimes people who are really nice in person go all Jekyll and Hyde when they get back behind a keyboard, interacting with anonymous people on the internet. Sometimes people who are really easy to get along with on Misplaced Pages can find it more awkward to interact in person (though that is more understandable because of the differences in communication methods). To take just one example, it is much easier to block some anonymous screen persona, than to do the same to someone you've met in person (or to argue with, if you want an example that doesn't involve blocks). If you know someone, you are much more likely to warn them, or try and persuade them to do things differently, than to reach for a block button or shout at them. Seeing the other person as human and being willing to talk with them, is something that is usually lacking when civility issues (or any other issues) are raised. It is sort of a combination of AGF and common sense. But this sort of thing can only go so far, as ultimately this is an online medium, and not all the meetups in the world will change the fact that what happens here is done by messages and actions typed out (usually) through a keyboard, and not by talking around a table, so you have to have a way of dealing with the tensions that arise from online interactions. It would be interesting, though, to see if people do change their perspective in some subtle ways after having met other Wikipedians in real life. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it changed my perspective of Malleus. I've never had a problem with the guy and indeed encouraged him to turn up. However, having met him at a meet I am now aware that should I choose to start bawling him out then he has absolutely no chance of catching me up if ever our paths should cross in the real world and I choose to run. Therefore, I am reasonably safe :) But I guess that just reinforces your point in one way or another. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I gave up running many years ago, so you can say what you like. Watch out for ambushes though. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll add you to my list of prospective ambushers. That list is becoming quite long, what with death threats for stuff that I have done on the India-related articles etc. On which note, one of the more inventive diatribes aimed at me in that sphere today. Rather than the usual mother- or animal-based sexual insults (or both, in one sentence), this one told me that I would have to give my face back to the zoo because the baboons were missing their backsides. The limits of the human imagination know no bounds! - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you invest so much of yourself in the India articles, and it's a shame we only got to discuss that for a minute or two. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Next meet, if you are not mobbed by admirers etc again, and if you catch me before my lipreading goes AWOL. There is no simple explanation, aside from the obvious "someone has got to try to get a grip on them". I dabble elsewhere, as you know. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two famous musicians in your presence. Spot Andres Segovia and John Lennon sitting around the table. Is the lady User:Dana boomer? She looks nice! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You all look nice. I would love to have been there. Who's everyone else (in both pics)? And when can y'all come down to my part of the world, as I can't get up to your part of the world? I can think of few things more fun than sitting around a pub table with a whole group of philosphical nerds Wikipedians; apart from maybe a WikNic in the gorgeous New Forest with a whole group of .. yes, those. btw, this is me ;P Pesky (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is probably best not to out people, although HJ Mitchell should be easy to spot if you compare the pics with the one on his user page. I know that it seems daft, given that they attended a public event and were willingly photographed, but they should be allowed to make their own mind up. Are there no Wikimeet arrangements down in your, erm, neck of the woods? There is nothing to stop you proposing such a thing and there are plenty of people who would probably assist with advice. HJM and RexxS may have some useful things to say, since they appear to get around a few of these things. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope everyone decides to out themselves, heh! I'd like the idea of a Wikimeet really close to me (i.e. not in one of the big towns here ...); WikNic on the Forest combined with local beer at The Rising Sun(also does excellent food at sensibly low prices), would be fun. But I don;t have time / energy to organise anything; someone else would have to do it! And you guys from up there could have a weekend break down here and play on the beach ... Pesky (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The lady is nice, but all I can say is that she isn't Dana boomer. Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Must be the lady who does a lot of work with FP candidates then! I wasn't aware you lived as far north as that Malleus, I thought you were somewhere in Oxfordshire or Notthinghamshire or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm "Cheshire born and Cheshire bred, strong in the back and weak in the head" as the old saying goes, now living in Manchester. Not really Cheshire bred though, as my mother is Scottish. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm proud to be a mongrel :o) btw, Malleus, you're pretty much exactly how I imagined you. Pesky (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to identify myself - I'm the one you can't quite see on the far left of the photo(above) with a green and white striped shirt (or maybe turquoise - don't ask me, I have a red-green colour deficiency). Obviously I was considered far too good looking to be allowed on the team photograph :) You will, of course, Have recognised Malleus and Iridescent already by the finely-chiselled features and well-honed abs. Richerman (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I saw you better in this other pic. You look nice, too! Pesky (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one - there's my cover blown! Richerman (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I thought you must have seen that one! I like Iridescent's smile. Pesky (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John de Gray ... again....

Okay, I whacked again. Let me know if I disturbed any of your comma placements... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've messed up any of my beautifully positioned commas I'll ... I'll ... I'll just put them back. :-) I'll take a final look through the whole thing this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's much more likely that I've strewn commas with willful abandon liberally throughout ... I am American, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Americans do seem to have a peculiar fascination with commas. But as my English teacher used to say, "If in doubt, leave it out". I hasten to add that he was talking about punctuation in general, and commas in particular, before I get any more post-modernist feminists dragging my sorry arse to AN/I again. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think studies have shown that it is all related to WWII rationing. In England, commas were desperately needed for the war effort, and Brits learned to make do with few, or even no commas at all, for weeks at a time. Meanwhile, the U.S. has always been blessed with an abundant natural supply of commas, and did not need to ration them, even at the height of the War. Comma rationing was a socially-learned phenomenon; GI's stationed in England for any length of time, and returning to the States from Europe after the War, tended to use 34% fewer commas than those who stayed behind, or those who fought in the Pacific. These trends, once ingrained in the public consciousness, take on a life of their own, and can persist for several generations before they disappear completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me of an analogy I used to use when I was teaching object-oriented programming, and trying to explain the difference between instances of some class, or indeed whether more than one instance was ever needed, such as rationing the integer "1", and if it wasn't, then what was the real difference between an instance and its class? Smalltalk has much to answer for. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

An abstract discussion? GFHandel ♬  21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good; a discussion that can't be instantiated, but still exists. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the book titled "Eats shoots and leaves." Commas matter (grin). Montanabw 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I always preferred the story about the escapee from the asylum who assaulted a group of women engaged in laundry duty and then made his escape. "Nut screws washers and bolts" --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's very good. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

roflmfao! Here's where I want a cute little animated gif ... Pesky (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else remember this old primary school punctuation exercise? "John had had Jane had had had had had was the correct answer". Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yes! Personally, I like commas. Especially the Oxford Comma, with those pretty frilly edges to its wings ... Pesky (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the easy version: try "John where Jane had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval". Geometry guy 06:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John, where Jane had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval. :D Adding: alternatively, "John, where Jane had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval". Pesky (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added this time, but I tried REALLY hard to keep the comma usage down... how's it look? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

GA for Flixton, Greater Manchester

I gave the article GA. Can you let me know how you think I did with my first review? Everything seemed really straight-forward and simple with this one, but I want to make sure I did it right. INeverCry 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is worthy of GA status, but it's not obvious why from your GA review. You need to keep the discussion focused on the review, not on individual editor's talk pages. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to copy and paste all of that onto the review page? I'm so used to not wanting to "put someone out there" in regard to problems or issues with their articles, if you know what I mean, but as that's just part of the process, I'll be sure to follow your advice for my next review. INeverCry 02:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest linking to your various discussions in your GA promotion rationale. But it's best to keep everything together, in the review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a link to the POD talk page discussion on the GA review page. Btw, I've been cleaning up and adding images to some of Ottava's old articles on the works of Leigh Hunt etc. It looks like there may be quite a few that he never got a chance to polish up, so I'll continue to go through them. I'm thinking there may be some that are potential GA material with a bit of work. INeverCry 02:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Ottava; in my opinion his ban was disgraceful. And the way his appeal was handled way beyond that. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I figure that such great work deserves to be continued. Since Misplaced Pages is more about the contents than the people behind them (supposedly), continuing and building on his work is something of a resurrection. I'd like at some point to be able to post a new GA based on one of his old articles on his user/talk page. INeverCry 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't about the contents at all, just ask any of the civility warriors. Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wha? Misplaced Pages is about content? Gee, here from my recent experiences, I apparently thought is was all about ownership and POV-pushing, augmented by repeated trips to the drama boards. Montanabw 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this content of which you speak? I'm confused.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What we have here are content editors, malcontent editors, no-content editors, bad-content editors, and very few contented editors. Or something like that. Pesky (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

At least there don't seem to be many incontinent editors.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

? Pesky (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

Hi, Malleus; if you have a moment I wonder if you'd take a look at Pilgrim at Tinker Creek at FAC. In my view this is a decent article that is dying of neglect in the FAC process. Maybe an astute comment or two would kick-start the review back to life? Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, after I've done my chores for the day. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: others have suddenly appeared, so no particular urgency now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess why "they" appeared: because they saw this :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe at FAC

Dunnit here --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I've got it watchlisted, so you won't be all on your lonesome. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While I was sleeping there was a recommendation for a further copyedit, and by the time I was awake, you had done it. Wow! Many thanks. The review seems to be going OK, apart from recommendations from Johnbod that are beyond my (very) limited abilities. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be going pretty well, so I think you can afford to feel quietly confident. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ottava article

The first article I'm looking at for possible GA of his is The Tragedy of Tragedies. I've added a few details, but your opinion/advice on it would be a big help. Can you take a look? INeverCry 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I will, but I won't be able to get there before tomorrow evening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that could become a good candidate for a GAN, but it still needs some work. Do you have access to any of the sources cited? Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All I have is the Cambridge Companion to Fielding, which gives 4 pages on The Tragedy of Tragedies. If you can give me suggestions as to what's lacking, I can see what can be got out of the CC. I have 3 other CCs for the period, but they mention everything of Fielding's but Tom Thumb. INeverCry 03:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anything missing as yet, but there often things that need to be clarified during a review. It would be a good idea to enlist Ottava's help if you haven't already done so; you can find him easily at Misplaced Pages Review. Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of explanation needed in a couple of places. For instance, the article makes the point a couple of times that Fielding rewrote Tom Thumb to "unify the type of satire ", but how many types of satire are there anyway? The comment by Pope in the Variorum section – "the Circumstance of Tom Thumb's killing the Ghost" – is capitalised in such a way as to make it look like it might be a direct quotation, but it isn't shown or attributed as such. Another reason for needing access to at least a few of the sources is to check that the wording doesn't follow the original too closely. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I took your name in vain

over here. This guy has just got into a stew over at AN/I; he's a newbie, probably got a ton of good stuff to offer, and I've recommended you as a bloody good teacher for when the dust has settled a bit. He jumped head-first into a civility spat and got a load of people's backs up, but I can see his point and why it ended up like that. Adding: I've emailed him with a bit of damage-limitation advice, and given him an open invitation to my talk as well. Pesky (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for your detailed, nay, heroic copyedit of Spanish conquest of Guatemala and for all your support and advice during the FA nomination. It was very much appreciated, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wet, wet, wet

Good day Malleus - I hope you are well and in good spirits. I wonder if I can ask another favour of you? The Suðreyjar are mostly wet (well except Sundays on Lewis) but their early history has emerged from the depths at Kingdom of the Isles. The article has a complex history, with moves hither and thither, but it seems to have settled down at last. I think the topic is deserving of recognised status, but before I trouble the GAC reviewers I'd value any comments you have on the following issue (or indeed any others you may spot).

History articles of this kind sometimes struggle to avoid paras such as "Harald son of Magus killed Magnus son of Paul, who was then succeeded by Paul son of Harald" etc. Kingdom of the Isles does suffer from this, but the presence of tables here and there does I think mitigate the problem a little. The tables also allow for further detailed comment on some of the intricacies of the succession (see e.g. Kingdom of the Isles#5.3 Kings of the South Isles). On the other hand, embedded tables of this nature add to the length of the article and (arguably) diminish the space available for further detail being added about the "kingdom" rather than its rulers. The paucity of sources mean that information on this topic is weak, but see e.g. Scandinavian Scotland#Religion, culture and economy.

Given the above my question is then - do you think that the encyclopedia is best served by the article remaining in roughly in its present form, or might it be better to split it into an article and a separate list of rulers? Ben MacDui 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Had to laugh. I came straight here from absurd goings on here and read the "Anyone who uses humour..." comment. Sadly, still relevant.

PPS It must be tedious to keep your GA Reviews list up-to-date. Perhaps you should create your own Wikiproject template and have User:JL-Bot/Project content update it for you?

I don't do many GA reviews these days, so it's no great chore. I've been a bit busy elsewhere today, but I'll try and take a look tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - no hurry at all. Ben MacDui 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great article, but I'd definitely spin the embedded tables out into a separate "list" article; they really intrude on the narrative. BTW, two of the ISBNs don't seem to be correct: Downham (2004) and Wolf (2007). But you probably knew that anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your copy edits and above comments. I fear you are right, but hopefully separating them won't be too complex. All the best. Ben MacDui 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank God!

For agreeing with me re Olivia. I was more than a little shocked to see her as a possible selection for April Fool's Day. Aside from the fact that I have no intention of seeing the page trashed on April's Fools Day, I simply cannot imagine what's foolish about the page. But then TCO thought it was a joke, so maybe that was a month of my time wasted. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't understand it either. It sounds like just a bit of fun, but believe me, being on the April 1 main page is in reality no fun at all. The number of times I've been accused of misogyny since this article appeared maybe two years ago just beggars belief. And it indirectly led to my recent ArbCom case; stay well clear. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like the tiniest bit of fun to me - probably in part because of seeing what you've gone through. And honestly with the atmosphere the way it is around here these days, the last thing I'd want is a TFA on a high profile day - and one that's not meant to be a joke. Anyway, thanks for saying something - though Pigeon photography is the clear choice. Still if Olivia is suggested on another year, I'd continue to object. I'm sure they can think of another time to run it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're safe for this April 1, so sweet dreams princess. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hello,

I randomly found your user page and seeing that you have reviewed a large number of articles made me feel it was fine if I asked you to review GA nominate Bloody Thursday (2011). It was nominated last January. Also, do you think it would be better if I improve it further and nominate it for FA? Is using Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a major source problematic? Mohamed CJ 17:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem per se, but it is for me, as I don't read Arabic and can therefore have no idea whether the sources support what's being said, or whether they've been plagiarised. I'm not suggesting they have of course, but I'd have no way of telling. That so many of the sources are from Al-Wasat (and in Arabic) may well be a problem for other reviewers as well.

Given the length of the article I'd probably be inclined to skip GAN and head straight for FAC. Before then though I'd definitely see if I could find alternative sources in English for at least some of the material, and I'd take a long hard look at sections such as Executive and Other. Bulleted lists tend to be frowned on somewhat at FAC, and those two stick out like a sore thumb, sandwiching as they do the Legislative section, which is written as prose. You also ought to try and find a copyeditor; sentences like "Mahmoud Makki Abutaki was a 22-years old Bahraini male ..." won't cut the mustard. It should of course be "22-year-old Bahraini male". And why is his name italicised? Once you've tidied the article up I'd suggest stopping off at peer review before tackling FAC. Right now, I'm very confident the article wouldn't pass, but there's no reason why it couldn't after a little bit of elbow grease. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at this article in greater detail and made a few copyedits, but it still needs a great deal of work before it meets the GA criteria, so much in fact that if I were to undertake the review I'd fail it straight away. I'd suggest that you withdraw the GA nomination and try to enlist the help of a copyeditor whose native language is English, perhaps via the GOCE. Once it's been cleaned up I'd suggest a peer review before trying GAN again. Without wishing to sound discouraging, there's no way this is even close to reaching the FA standard at present. Sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was asking if the source was considered a WP:RS. Verifying can be done with Google translator, but I agree that it's better to use other references where possible. What changes do you recommend for bulleted lists and the prose in Executive and Legislative sections? You don't have to be sorry, this is my first attempt and I know it should contain a lot of mistakes; that's how people learn. Your help is well appreciated ;) Mohamed CJ 08:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Al-Wasat would be considered a reliable source, and indeed perhaps the only source for some of this material. The BBC had quite a bit of coverage on the events in Bahrain, so there may be something useful on their web site. As for the bulleted lists, I suggest converting them to prose. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you've got several quotes in the lead; the rule is that direct quotes must be cited wherever they appear, even in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins/PoTW

If you, or any other editor believes that there is a case to be made against PoTW's editing in respect of the Jim Hawkins (or any other) article, there are appropriate places to raise the issue. I agree that notable subjects should not get to dictate whether or not they have an article on Misplaced Pages. However, the WP:CONSENSUS in this particular case is that the notability is borderline. Whilst I see notability as a black/white issue, others see it in varying shades of grey. There are times when one has to accept that one's opionion is in the minority and bow to consensus. This is one of them.

If you would withdraw your !keep vote and allow a WP:SNOW closure, then the article can be salted, which is something I would be prepared to do myself. FWIW, I'd support a topic ban for PoTW on the subject of JH should that be requested. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not withdraw my vote, as I think what's going on is quite improper. Deal with the problem, which is clearly PoTW. Malleus Fatuorum 07:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mjroots, the rest of the AfD makes it clear that MF's was not a minority view. I note also that your comment here comes twenty minutes after Pigsonthewing's unacceptable remark about MF's "monstrous ego" (not reliably sourced--an NPA as well as a BLP violation), and I wish you had said something about that as well. MF, please let me apply some balm to a wound that must undoubtedly hurt you: your ego is just the right size. I can't say that for everyone--and Mjroots, I'm not referring to you; you know I usually agree with you on just about everything, especially windmills. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a different Andy. 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected--so let me rephrase: "Mj, I wish that et cetera." BTW, I find it interesting that besides John no one else saw fit to comment on Andy's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wot, don't I get partial credit? 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You get half a point for "crap", certainly, but I was thinking of warnings on the user's page--like a real warning. Thanks 28. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

However it resolves, that AfD is a textbook case for the need to be very careful with SNOW closures. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point there Dweller. It looks like the debate will just have to run its full course. MF, no offence taken re you not withdrawing, I accept your right to argue you position over this issue. PoTW is being dealt with by uninvolved editors over at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you imagine I might think that my refusal to withdraw my vote would be offensive to you? And if you truly accepted my right to argue my position then why did you come here in the first place with your improper request? If anyone should be offended it's me, not you. Clearly, as subsequent events have shown, my position is by no means a minority one. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The debate has moved on a long way since I posted here and at AN this morning. At the time, you were the only !keep following my change. As others have backed you up, and I also agree that the subject shouln't be able to dictate to Misplaced Pages over the existence or otherwise of the artice, it now seems that the best course of action is to allow the debate to run its course. My request above was not intended to offend you, although I don't think that such a request was improper. You were free to act on the request or ignore it, whichever you felt fit. Had my request been acceded to, then fine, but it was no big deal if you decided not to withdraw. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The other way to think about it is that I might have been the only one who was right, not as you did, the only one who was wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability might indeed be black & white, but even if it's demonstrated, it doesn't force us to have an article. We can always delete notable topics, if we consider that it's not helpful to the project to have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for you ;P

	Wolfly hugz for you
	Just for putting up with me so good-temperedly, so consistently, despite how pestersome I can be, and how much I poke you! I really do appreciate your patience with me. Take a trip down to the Forest and I'll buy you probably the nicest real ale in the world :o) Pesky (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that wolf used a tongue cleaner before it licked the guy's nose. Ning-ning (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. It's a well-known fact that dogs and cats spend almost half their waking lives licking their genitals because they know that, sooner or later, they're going to get a chance to lick your face. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, they just do that because they can ;P

Interesting fing, though ... humans get coated, furry tongues. We may be the only animal which does. Canines, felines, equines, caprines, ovines, bovines, and every other species of animal whose tongue I've looked at all have quite remarkably clean and healthy looking tongues, pink from tip to root. (Except my boa, who has a black tongue.) Pesky (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow

The FA was a shame, but thank you very much for your points. I got 2 supports (minus yours), better than the first one! — M. Mario (T/C) 10:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was too quick to support, didn't check the sources carefully enough, but we could do the work that's needed and make it third time lucky. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the kind of changes that need to be made. Are you up for it? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ship canal

I thought you might enjoy watching this Parrot of Doom 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, apart from the smarmy Stuart Hall's commentary. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)