ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Malleus Fatuarum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Malleus Fatuarum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements


Archive
Archives
Automatically archived every 28 days

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 24 — 2008-06-09

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents


Hello Malleus Fatuarum! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] January Newsletter, Issue IV

Delivered on January 5th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] March Newsletter, Issue V

Delivered on March 8th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] WP:GM Newsletter

Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on May 1, 2008 by Basketball110. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Analogy

I think I understand your sentiments about Majorly's apology. But do you see the logic in Chunky Rice's analogy? Unschool (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank no, I don't. Argument by analogy is notoriously unreliable anyway, but in the particular case of Majorly, both he and Kurt Weber were doing exactly the same thing in Majorly's eyes. It wasn't a case of "Oh, he's stolen my watch, I'll have to whack him with a baseball bat." It was a case of "Oh, he's stolen my watch, I think I'll steal someone else's." I really don't see the analogy at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied on my talkpage. Cheers my friend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't want the buttons?

In your last thread, you said "you don't want the buttons", and then blamed your wife (a common recourse of mine, I'll admit, similar to "Sorry, can't go out tonight gents, you know...the wife..."). An honest question, do you "not want the buttons", or do you "not want an RFA"? Two different animals for certain. Let me know if/when you start another thread to unbundle. I'll support an (un)reasonable proposal.. :-) That said, I think you should note that several of your compatriates (you know, article builders), are coasting through RFA right now. Tis the season for article builders. The pendulum will swing back to "Oppose, yes he has 47 FAs, but has he posted to AIV before?" soon.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do, let me know and I'll certainly swing in behind you again. I still think the last one would probably have passed - the dozen-or-so people who dislike you had all pitched in before the full weight of the Content Builder Brigade had a chance to comment (exactly the same thing happened last week to Risker, who eventually passed with 100+ supports). If you're going to run again, I'd recommend leaving it for a couple of days to make sure you don't catch any of the backwash from the firestorm of idiocy currently going on regarding Lara. — iridescent 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Iridescent. I was a bit stunned by the strength of opposition from a small number of editors I'd tripped over, and the influence that was having on the vote. Wasn't really prepared for that. If I do decide to walk barefoot over those hot coals again, at least I'll be able to do so a bit more philosophically next time. I haven't seen what's going on with LaraLove - I'll take a look shortly - but I recall that her RfA wasn't entirely plain-sailing either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To be truthful Keeper, I'm not sure. As my mother would say (she's a Scot) "a'm haverin'". I am thinking seriously about whether to go for another RfA or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Her Rfa stumbled, yes, but it passed. So would yours. I wouldn't be bugging you otherwise. If only I could canvass all those other article builders that see your contribs and know that you would never abuse the tools. I'll give up my own (as often purported by me) if you were ever desysopped. That's how much I know that you could not only use the tools, but deserve them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would gladly co-nom you, were you to believe such a thing would not amount to a kiss of death. I think you are guaranteed a ton of support, but I don't know how to advice you here. Been on any one side of any drama recently? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just it. Malleus is always on one side or the other of drama. That said, I'm convinced that, despite that, he would pass an RfA. As an admin, Malleus, you would certainly be more able to improve Wikipedia, if only because you can see deleted edits. I don't expect, nor would I want you to, start frequenting AIV. Bloody that, it's not your arena. But seeing deleted edits will only make your work that you do here even stronger. I'm talking about GA/FA. I'm talking about AN/ANI even. You need to think about this, seriously, this weekend. I'm going offline myself in abit, looking forward to seeing your response on Monday....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very flattered Deacon, and not a little touched by your offer. Even if I believed that a co-nom from you would be the kiss of death – which I don't – I'd gratefully accept it, such is the respect that I have for you and your contributions. Keeper is quite right though, I doubt that I would ever have a quiet three months prior to an RfA. Just off the top of my head, there's the Leonardo GA sweep topic a bit higher up here. Then only last night there was this. I am what I am, I ain't gonna change for the sake of a few extra buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That diff you provided is meaningless. It's an archived talkpage, WT:RFA no less (which is one of the most worthless talkpages out there). I'll step aside though. If Deacon and Iridescent are willing to co-nom, and if you really think you'll accept their noms, I'll be the first to be a strong supporter. I'd rather nom, but that's my own ego talking. Looking forward to your reply. Going offline for 36 hours....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, it refers to the Analogy topic, just a bit higher up.
I'd consider it a great honour Keeper, if you and Deacon would co-nom. Had it not been for your support during you-know-what, I might not be here now. I'm a bit of a visceral thinker though, something has to "feel" right for me, and that takes time, so a'm still haverin'. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've only just come on-line, and I haven't reviewed fully the above, however I will state categorically that my opposition to your last RfA was a mistake. Had I thought about it further in reagrds to my now (rather well quoted) net positive essay I would not have opposed. It's a mistake I am keen to rectify. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that encouragement Pedro. Tell you what, I'll go for RfA if you go for RfB. What do you say? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The absolute first thought that came into my mind > You show me yours if I show you mine! :) The serious thought that came after is what is good for Wikipedia?. You having sysop bits is far, far, far more important than another 'crat. You'd be able to help so much. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, you've missed the point — once you're a crat, you can promote him whatever the result of the RFA is! — iridescent 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, User:SonOfPedro is my ideal rogue 'crat appointment! Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Some nutter has opened opened a page about thee in response to your comment above. You're not in any rush to reach a final decision about acceptance, so if you think it necessary, take your time! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you want me to co-nom; if the above two are both planning to, three might look excessive. As I said earlier, you might want to leave it a couple of days, as you're associated with Lara in some people's minds, and Lara has (ahem) been somewhat controversial today. — iridescent 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely blown away Deacon's nomination, I hardly know what to say. I know that some oppose on the basis of too many co-noms, but you put your faith in me before, so I'd be honoured if you did so again. Hell, I'd like more co-noms than votes. :-) BTW, Lara thinks that I'm a dick anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Too many noms! Don't worry about it. If a lot of editors think you'd be able to help out further, so what. RFA is explicitly not a fan club, but we're all here to make Wikipedia better and the fact is that a lot of other editors believe you getting +sysop will do so. It's no popularity contest - it's about how we all want Wikipedia to improve - in terms of quality clean content - and you're an ideal person to help that endeavour. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol ... you know, if you accept and answer any time soon one of the first things they'll see in your contribs is the edit summary "bloody hell". ;) Seriously though, there's no harm in taking your time. Any co-noms that wanna get involved need time too, but as this is all being done on wiki, any co-noms should feel free to add themselves. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I ain't about to change any time soon, RfA or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've said my piece there now... — iridescent 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You have my full support too for this RFA, and I'd even be willing to co-nom. Pedro makes a very strong case that isn't easily dismissed! Like I said, folk can only say "no" - and what harm does that do? - none. Are you a better Wikipedian since your last request? - absolutely. Would the buttons help your work within the project? - I think so. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a very generous offer, but you're in the middle of your own RfA and I'd hate to see it affected by any backwash if mine went tits up with you as a co-nominator. Your support though, of course, would mean a lot to me. If I go ahead with this I'll be doing it with my eyes fully open this time, in the certain knowledge that there will some who genuinely believe that I'm not to be trusted with the admin tools for whatever reason. All I can hope is that there will be sufficient others who take the opposite view, and trust that I would never use the extra buttons to gain personal advantage in a content dispute, or anywhere else for that matter. Whatever happens, it won't be the ego-bruiser my first one was, and succeed or fail I'll still be plugging away just as before, with or without the buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>. I just added co-nom #3. I'm about to pee my pants I'm so excited about your future adminship. Malleus, whatever happens, promise you won't leave. You're too valuable. When you're ready, type "I accept", fix the time to be 7 days past you're acceptance, and transclude away. I'm so pumped....thank you so much Deacon and Iridescent for seeing what I see in Malleus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Steady on... Calm down dear, it's only a commercial! — iridescent 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm way to American to understand your "esure" reference, but still, I get it.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just gobsmacked, I really don't know what to say. I'll answer the mandatory questions tomorrow. All I'll say for now is that if I thought there was even the slightest possibility that I'd leave because of the result then I wouldn't submit to the process. Been there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. I'm offline for a coupla days. Looking forward to seeing it live, with lots of support. I'm planning on adding my support late in the game. And, please note, I really really like the extra tools. I just put in a public non talk page that I'd give mine up if you screwed up. Don't screw up. Consider it a proxy.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know this debate was happening & just came here (as usual) to ask for help - that describes the esteem I hold you in. I supported your nom last time & would happily do so again if you decide to go for it.— Rod talk 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone direct me to its GA review? (moved here)

I nominated 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra at GAN 9 days ago. Today when I logged in I saw it was promoted. However, I am unable to find its review. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel like reverting that right now. I do not call (from what I see from that diff) that a proper and thorough GA review against the WP:WIAGA criterion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd be right to revert that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I supposed to re-nominate it? I am confused. What am I supposed to do?KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it back into GAN as it was, and sort out the listing, so need for you to do anything. Here's hoping you get the proper review that the article deserves soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The apt thing to do. No problems! Me and my big mouth! Hahaha!KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you'd kept it shut you might have got away with the GA listing. :-) I noticed from the time stamps that the "reviewer" only spent about five minutes between flagging it as being under review and passing it. Pretty fast considering the article's length and detail. I had a quick look, and I don't think it should have too many problems though. Some obvious MoS things that ought to be fixed, but nothing major jumped out. So good luck, and thanks for being so honest! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for wishing me good luck!! Yes a proper review is what an editor needs. That helps in improving the article. Just hoping somebody will review it now that you have commented on the article. Coz some reviewers may wonder whether they can spot all those obvious MoS things that ought to be fixed!?! Or maybe I am getting a bit paranoid!KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk)
Oh, get thee behind me Satan! If it doesn't get picked up in the next few days I'll probably do it myself. --Malleus Fatuorum
As I am going on a vacation, I have withdrawn the nom. But (hopefully) if you are still willing to point out the glitches in the article please inform me on my talk page or the article talk page. I really need some good feedback. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bath Abbey GA comments

Hi again, Bath Abbey is currently a GA nominee. Although I didn't nominate it I'm trying to improve it in line with the reviewers comments on the talk page. As ever, it needs a copy edit & you are so much better than me at that - I would appreciate it if you had the time & inclination to take a look?— Rod talk 10:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help - I wouldn't have nominated it yet, but I'm doign what I can to help.— Rod talk 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To be truthful, I don't think it's ready, but I wish you luck with it nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

As I said before, don't panic at the way the opposes are ratcheting up; these are the people who've watchlisted it waiting for a reason to oppose, and the supports haven't had a chance to come in yet. Compare this and this. — iridescent 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm older and wiser now than I was last time. I fully expected to get a bunch of opposes. Heck, I could probably have drawn up a list. :-) Whatever happens this RfA will run to the end, and I'll carry on just as before succeed or fail. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI your March Archive points to your February one. Your archive is missing all of March.Balloonman (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that, I'll fix that now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
April too.Balloonman (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes my friend. I wish I could write more of value, but I'm sure you understand. Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm feeling quite sanguine about the process. I quoted somewhere from Rudyard Kipling's If recently, and that's exactly how I feel about this RfA. As I'm sure you'll feel about the RfB I understand you're about to undertake. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather knowing that poem (my father is a poet so I had little choice!) I'm wondering if ;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim

was your line - although the poem contains many similar gems. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same

Yours was good as well though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... I think you're a couple of verses out...
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken
And stoop and build them up with worn-out tools. — iridescent 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If Wikipedia needs a better motto than "We make the internet not suck", I'd go with that. — iridescent 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely good too. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Malleus. I wanted to comment here on your RfA, as I believe I am going with a "silent" neutral, as I am personally having issues with the effects of adding to discussion or neutral within the RfA. This is also somewhat of a message to Keeper and Pedro regarding nom/support statements, I'm sure they will see it here. I'm quite neutral to your RfA, I think I have had minor interaction with you on wikipedia, all of it likely positive. That being said, the reason I am not supporting is because of the civility issues, which I found without first reading RfA 1 or seeing the oppose votes this time around. I didn't have to dig too deeply. The reason I am not opposing, is because there is certainly a ring of truth to Keeper's nom and Pedro's support. They both do their best to make a strong case that there is no way you will abuse the tools. After doing my research on your diffs, I further looked at nom statements and sup/opp votes. Immediately I noticed Keeper and Pedro seeming to try to assure the community that your civility issues aren't large enough to make you a net negative. Why, then, do they need to be addressed in so much depth? Because of issues with RfA 1?

Looking further into your history, I see that there is a theory put out that your first RfA may have been unfairly derailed by early oppose votes due to civility/conflict resolution issues. Do you hold this belief, that those opposes were unfair, or inaccurate, or improper conclusions were being drawn? I'll be up front here about two things: 1. I have serious concerns with supporting a candidate who has showed questionably civility in the recent past, in a consistent manner. 2. I believe this issue can be outweighed by other positives and an ever-growing user can learn to overcome them.

And here-in lies my primary problem with supporting, and might explain my disagreement with Keeper and Pedro, two users whose opinions I hold in the highest degree. I don't think you believe the civility concerns that some users have are viable enough for you to consider attempting to improve yourself in that regard. In all of your quite long answer to Q3, you don't seem to acknowledge that you could certainly improve your talk page interaction. Many of the diffs given, which I don't feel necessary to reproduce here, don't have much of an explanation other than... well you could have handled those situations better. If I were to give support, at any time, I would need to believe the candidate agrees that while disagreements are natural and healthy to this whole process, incivility really never helps a situation.

So anyways, I posted this here because you certainly seem open to community input, and well, here's mine. My comments may represent what some others think, I don't know, but they definitely sum up my feelings on your request for adminship. Good luck to you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm certainly open to community input, but I've never felt under any obligation to agree with it. This "incivility" issue was bound to come up again, and it would be true to say that my attitude towards it has not changed, nor is it ever likely to change. If that makes me unfit to be an administrator then so be it. I'll not hold back from saying what I think just for the sake of a few extra buttons that I'd probably make very little use of anyway.
So you're quite correct in believing that I see no reason to "improve" myself in that regard. In point of fact I think that the "incivility" card is too often used as an excuse by those who are themselves "incivil", in a community-supported illusion that being "nice" is all that matters. I do understand your concerns though, and I don't think, given those concerns, that you have any option but to Oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. I missed your first question, sorry. No, I don't agree that my first RfA was derailed by early oppose votes due to civility/conflict resolution issues. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I hope you don't mind my adding my 2c. I have !voted neutral in your RfA, and my concerns are not about incivility. But I very much agree that "the 'incivility' card is too often used as an excuse [. . .] in a community-supported illusion that being "nice" is all that matters." It's disappointing when people focus on how you say something, rather than what you are saying. My answer, however, would be to try as much as possible not to give people that excuse. You can say what you think, and express strong opinions, without being rude. Of course, some people will still miss the wood for the trees (see the long discussion here). But by giving people as little reason as possible to accuse you of "incivility," you can be much more persuasive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that's good advice, and I'll try to take it on board. Thanks for popping by. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to oppose. MF I was serious when I wrote that I wanted to support you. I approached your RfA with the attitude that our exchange might have been an abnormality. You're contributions are invaluable and you have gained a lot of my respect over the past month or so. Unfortunately, I saw too much 'incivility' in your comments and your admitedly lack of any desire to change. This made it impossible for me to support. I do hope that you don't take this too personally as you are a HELL of an asset to the community---when you aren't being rude ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm off to bed in a moment I'm afraid. Sadly, I think the odds are long on this passing. The good news is that you'll still be here, either way. That's what matters at the end of the day. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'd thought that I'd get worried about the RfA, or take too much to heart whatever anyone says – good or bad – then I would never have signed up. I'm happy to have been able to provide the opportunity for people get a few things off their chests. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you are in Malleus, and I'll call round. I've even dug out some pins for the occasion! Seriously, its a surprise, but I hope you succeed, and I think some of the opposes are revenge and just plain incoherent (sophistry! You!! Don't make me laugh! Note that I did say that some would say "blunt to the point of rudeness", which is not at the point of rudeness or beyond it'.) Good luck.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did take exception to the accusation of sophistry, I must admit. The rest is just water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I did notice the subtlety in your "to the point of rudeness" remark, and I'd have to say that I agree. Does that make me a bad person? Not in my eyes, but others are perfectly entitled to think otherwise if they wish. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DDStretch, some of the opposes are getting absurd, I'm particularly thinking of the people talking about spelling!! Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Let them get it out of their system I say. Whichever way this goes I'll be losing no sleep over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Even now I think there's a good chance of it passing; your Sworn Enemies and the usual driveby trolls people who have legitimate reasons for opposing everything have all said their pieces now, and (assuming the usual 75% bar and a couple more opposers), a total of around 70 supports will get you through the hoop. — iridescent 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Time will tell I suppose. If it passes it passes, if it doesn't then nothing lost. I can see advantages in either outcome. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have exactly the right (relaxed) attitude to this RfA, and consequently, you and your nominators are not getting drawn into pointless extended arguments with the opposers, which is good. I hope the vote now moves forward into more productive territory. Geometry guy 01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen enough RfAs to know that disagreeing with an opposer is more often than not completely unproductive at best. People are entitled to their opinion, and I doubt there's anything I could say that would be likely to change it. Que sera, sera. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey MF. Shit man. Not exactly what I was expecting. I think Irid. is correct though, I think those that were watchlisting the RFA#2 redlink have all seen it pop on their screens, knee-jerked the O-section, and will now smugly move on. I'm very glad you decided to try it again, regardless of the outcome, which has a slim chance of passing yet. Very slim though, because RfAs that run the 50/50 line tend to garner a lot of "per _______" opposes from folks that don't read at the same level of depth as when there were less participants. One of my RfA overhaul ideas, that probably wouldn't fly) would be to limit comments (both support , neutral and oppose) to what they truly are - votes. No elaborations. 5 words or less. If you're username is five words long, SOL.  :). Have a drink for me my friend. I'm stuck at work for the next 11 hours, it's only 9:45 am in my midwestern world, I'm fully expecting you to be rather garbled before I even get to think about it :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I was quite prepared for a flurry of opposes, so it didn't concern me unduly. Anyway, it's not over 'til the fat man sings; last time I looked I only needed another 100 or so Support votes. :-) I'm really not too concerned about the result anyway. I think it says more about the RfA process than it does about me, so I'm content to let it roll on to its conclusion, whatever that might be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's going about how I would have expected it. But I too have to agree that the process isn't the best. When I review potential candidates I do so with two things in mind: A) will this person make a good admin and B) will this person be able to pass the RfA process. There have been a few people (Moni3 and Happyme22) who I think would be great admins, but wouldn't make it through the RfA process. (Happy is very close and at Sandy's recommendation is now a coachee.) But yeah, while *I* oppose, I know it's not the best system.Balloonman (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand why anyone would oppose, and I've got no doubt that in the vast majority of cases – including your own – they have done so in good faith. Heck, I might even have opposed myself! Come to think of it ... :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being a bit Dr. Pangloss in all of this, as E. L. Doctorow once wrote: "The problem is in separating common sense from common nonsense, and making uncommon sense more common." People can hold onto their beliefs for too long and cherish them greatly, and some others might even say these cherished beliefs become a kind of intellectual security blanket for people. It can take a great effort to help people become more inquiring and self-critical of their positions, especially when they are not as sound as they may think they are. Close critical arguing is one example of a tactic that tries to persuade people that there are problems in their opinions, and there are others, some of which are used by different people to different extents. The process of challenging poeple to be more critical in their thinking can be uncomfortable to experience for some, and, because of this, there is a tendency to see it as a kind of attack aimed at them, just because their cherished beliefs are so cherished. Thus it becomes interpreted as being uncivil on wikipedia. I am convinced that in every case, one need not assume an intention to be uncivil behind so-called bad behaviour; instead one can interpret the intention more as being means of helping people become more self-aware and better at thinking critically about matters. Indeed, to make assumptions about someone having bad intentions, or of engaging in subtle, deliberate, deceitful reasoning to deceive (sophistry) is almost always an unwarranted personal attack upon him, because the problem of identifying intentions with certainty is fraught with unresolved difficulties.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony of being subjected to a personal attack in an oppose in which I was accused of being uncivil did not escape me. Still, this is not the "best of all possible worlds", and RfA is not the best of all possible processes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I can make you a sig

I don't know you, but you seem nice and cool. I can make you a nice looking sig if you want.SimonKSK —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm quite happy with my boring old sig. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

K, and good luck on your RFA!SimonKSK 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that Malleus's sig is simple and functional, while Simon, to be honest, it took me a while squinting to even read the letters in your name. Although it does look cool. I personally like the "regular" sig, I think it works easiest for everyone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, my sig is just italicized. I like the regular sig, I do. But, I like personalized sigs better.SimonKSK 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here's my old sig, think you can read that? SimonKSK

[edit] Your RFA

Best of you on your RFA -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like I may need all of the luck I can get! Ah well, life's too short to get worried about a little thing like an RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: An apology ;-)

I think we need to take this to mediation! I'm looking to ban you from Peterloo Massacre for your continued disruption there! :D --Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's understandable. I deserve to be punished for telling you that I didn't think much of the graphic you didn't produce, and were asking for an opinion on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-- actually I'd better mark this as a joke, otherwise someone might cite it as a genuine conflict!... It's a joke! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jza, you can block him yourself in a few short days...:-0. Ooh, sorry MF, too soon? Salt in the wound?  :) And good job marking it a joke, I'm relieved...I was just about to retract my noms for both a ya....:)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no wound to rub salt into, and I've got everything crossed for Jza84's successful RfA, even if he does intend to ban me from certain of his pet articles. JOKE --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And I was about to reinstate my oppose ;-) Balloonman (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you'd switched to neutral, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm. This is the behavior I was hoping to see. I think this is why I have claimed confusion with this RfA. I believe Mall wants/intends to act this way, but some of your responses (the one above to me) seem to contradict that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt that way about my response to you above. All I was really trying to say was that I fully understand why anyone would be inclined to oppose, and I wasn't entirely joking when I said that I might even have opposed myself. I recognise though that there's no argument I can muster that would be likely to persuade anyone who has doubts about my fitness, and in truth nor do I want to persuade anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me reading this again that there may be some misunderstanding here in Gywnand's mind. I was not apologising for anything, I was making a rather silly joke about the absurdity of one of the diffs that had been produced as evidence of my "incivility". So need for any confusion, WYSIWYG remains my middle name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. If anything, we've accomplished getting a whole bunch more editors visiting (and likely watchlisting) your talkpage.  :-) Sorry 'bout that....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's always been a fairly busy place anyway. Can't for the life of me imagine why. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request

It was suggested by User:Juliancolton that I ask you to help copy edit my current FAC, M-35 (Michigan highway). Any assistance would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do what I can. I'm English though, so you'll have to watch my spelling. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh... British spelling??? I know where I'm going with my CE requests for bishops now... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You know that I always enjoy reading your medieval cleric articles. And Deacon's too. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hubert Walter could use a good looksee AND some switching from Yank to Brit spelling. (hint hint hint) Im currently trudging through the complete lack of sources for the Anglo-Saxon bishops of Hereford. Whee. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
How could I resist. I'll give Hubert a good seeing to tomorrow if I can. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Any assistance is appreciated. User:Finetooth gave it a copyedit, but another set of eyes can't hurt, right? If you have any questions, just ask though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WYSIWYG?

It took me like 3 minutes to figure that out. The irony of course being that none of us can see you. So what we see (nothing), is what we get?  :-) My personal !vote for your "middle name" is DIYDDIYD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I daren't ask what that means, at least not before I've a beer anyway. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Apt. — iridescent 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you couldn't let him hang there a bit? I was ignoring him...:)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I ought to have recognised it. I think I might have chosen DIIC for myself. I've been told a few times on wikipedia that I'm a dick – apparently it's not uncivil to call someone that – so it's appropriately homonymic. Stands of course for damned if I care. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chester Cathedral

You may have noticed that substantial changes have been made to Chester Cathedral by Amandajm in the last few days. Initially I had high hopes, but now am a bit unhappy. It looked as though we had an experienced editor with good reference material and good ideas. Some of what has been done is good, but if this is the "end product", it has raised some problems if we are to take this towards FA (some of them are expressed on the talk page). I should value your comments at this (which may be an early) stage. In particular I am unhappy with "blanket" references (by which I mean to a book without the relevant page numbers - how on earth does one check the references if you have to plough through an entire book? This strikes me as laziness.). And some of the links are weak - I will have a go at improving them (but on holiday from Friday). Cheers, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We just crossed paths :-) I have echoed your concerns on the talk page. The article would get a hammering at FAC in its present condition IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on this. We've received a half-helpful response and I do not think all is lost! I am going to re-borrow Richards' book and cite where necessary. Incidentally I note your involvement in two other articles in which I have an interest. Bath Abbey merits much more on its current architecture and I think it was wrong to combine Architecture with History (see my comment on the talk page). I also see you are having trouble with Vox Humana 8' - nothing new there; likes to interfere inappropriately. Also keep up the good work on Manchester Ship Canal; this needs the improvement you are bringing to it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Amanda has finished what she intends to do? Oh dear! I would not accept it as a GA now. Off for a break; I'll have a look when I return. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so. I'm really not happy with the structure of the article at all now. Tour of features reads like a guidebook for instance. I think in some places there's just a little too much detail as well. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not the most comprehensive account of Chester Cathedral ever written. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the Tour although I do not mind the detail. But there is too much unsupported peacock stuff. Is music Ministry? There are short paras; too many sub-sections leading to an overlong ToC; repetition (things I have been slammed for as a FAC). Stained glass has a subtitle, then most of it is described elsewhere. No time to do anything at present. Have a go if you feel up to it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erk

Work for the bot, just as the FAC was closed.[1] Please use {{DelistedGA}}, and GimmeBot will convert them (he's doing them all routinely now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm pleased to hear that GimmeBot is consolidating all these various tags now, but I'm not a &($"&(£ mind-reader, if you'll pardon my French. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (The obligatory..) Thanks

Hello Malleus Fatuarum! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral. What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I will get back to you, but of course Malleus, you deserve a personal and special thank you for your support. Thank you, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Let this unsuccessful RFA not make you feel down. Keep up the good work in Wikipedia. Hopefully you may get some take back points from your Oopose votes and possibly work on them. It is actually sad when good contributors miss adminship but you know being an admin is NO BIG DEAL ! Cheer up and Have fun

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll guarantee it won't get him down. It's a great shame, but I agree with your summing up Malleus. Back to FA and GA my man. Pedro :  Chat  14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meh

I'll leave you alone about #3 for a while. ;), and I expect you to fight against me again when I start attempting to take a shot at vindication for you. The community got it wrong once again, and I'm not afraid to type that here. If I didn't think it would pass, I wouldn't have nagged. Thanks for taking it so well, I'm nothing but impressed. Let me know when you want to work with me on a proposal to unbuckle the toolbelt and divvy up the tools to trusted users sans RfA. (rollback works, why not "editor of protected pages?", and so on)... I'm convinced the only way to fix RfA is to get rid of it, start over. It's too entrenched, it's too political, it's rather contrived, and good editors (the ones that actually are trying to improve this place) can't get past it because they fight for their articles. Meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All that to say, do you want me to delete that ridiculous smiley face spam above this? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed, I truly am, I was looking forward to the self-oppose :( Balloonman (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I was soooo tempted, you can't believe how close I was. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you had opposed yourself, I would have reinstated my oppose with the note "Per Malleus Fatuarum". Balloonman (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
... and that would have given me the biggest laugh I've had all day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can give an absolutely copper-bottomed, full money back guarantee that there will never be an RfA#3, no matter how much nagging anyone does, ever. I had believed that I had two chances at passing an RfA, slim and none, but now it's clear that I've only got one. None. If there's some unbundling of the tools in the future, fine. But if that involves some kind of RfA-like process then I won't be wasting my time with that either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries from me. I won't nom again. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're thoughts below are the reason I pushed you as hard as I did. Spot bloody on. Have a beer on me. I'm no longer upset, as I'm convinced now that you are much better off sans tools. Not for Wikipedia's benefit (the admin team will be lacking without your insightfulness and contributions), but for your benefit, which is more important. I'm no longer upset about #2, and I will oppose #3 while wearing ice skates in a frozen magma filled cave in the nether world. Drinks on me tonight brother - Let me know if you ever need admin assistance on anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty close to opposing #2 myself, so I'd definitely be the first in the Oppose column for a #3. Well, right after Epbr123 anyway. :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
ROFL!!!! (and sigh...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(and drink)....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA non-spam

I don't intend to clog up many talk pages thanking editors for their comments in a process that most have probably forgotten about anyway, so I'll take a leaf out of the book of another editor I saw do this a few days ago, and thank everyone who took part here, in one place. I had no great expectation that my RfA would pass, but I thought that it might just be worth a shot. It was becoming apparent though that it was wasting not just my time but more importantly the community's time. Therefore I asked that it should be withdrawn:

Although I have said that I intended to keep this RfA open until the end, it has become clear that to do so would be a waste of the community's time, time that would be better spent looking at more suitable candidates. Also, the longer it goes on now, the greater the risk that I may begin to take the opposition personally, which would be unfair to those who have taken such trouble to express their honestly held opinions as well as potentially demoralising for me. Consequently, I would request that this nomination be withdrawn.

In a masochistic kind of way I quite enjoyed the process though; I think not expecting it to succeed made it much easier to be relaxed about both positive and negative comments. I do realise that it's the convention to use honeyed words on such occasions, and to promise to take even the most outrageous criticism to heart, to confess of all sins, and to give serious effort to a process of self-improvement that very often revolves around dubious practices as "admin coaching". Well, you'll see very little of that here, so if you're brave enough, read on. ;-)

  • EJF. Thank you for being brave enough to be the first one to stick your head above the parapet.
  • CycloneNimrod. Many would think it was the other way round, that you were foolish in your support. I thank you for it nevertheless.
  • Ealdgyth. Alas, RfA long ago stopped being a straightforward decision about whether a candidate would abuse the tools.
  • iridescent. What can I say, that's twice now, ;-) I thank you for your continued faith.
  • Pedro. Your support meant a great deal. Thanks.
  • Deacon of Pndapetzim. Ah well, at least we gave it a shot. Thanks for your very encouraging nomination.
  • Nousernamesleft. Thanks.
  • Jza84. I am infinitely more pleased that your own RfA succeeded today than I am disappointed that mine has failed.
  • Rod. Thanks Rod. I was a bit worried that the extra buttons might prove to be a distraction anyway.
  • Acalamari. Thanks for your honest appraisal.
  • Ecoleetage. Like you, I think I'd have made a bloody good admin, but now we'll never know. :-)
  • Juliancolton. Thanks. Many might have been tempted to oppose because of that perceived lack of admin experience.
  • Keepscases. Thanks for being one of the few people that has no problem with my attitude.
  • PeterSymonds. Thanks. It's a shame that RfA has moved so far away from being a simple discussion about whether or not a candidate would be likely to abuse the tools, but c'est la vie.
  • Nev1. If I hadn't at least managed to get your support, I think I might have been tempted to slash my wrists. Joke
  • DDstretch. Rational as ever, thanks.
  • Dean B. Yep, I certainly can be grumpy and stubborn, you got that right.
  • Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I can't believe that I've somehow managed to miss you as I've been rampaging around wikipedia being "uncivil" and rude to all and sundry. Ah well, I'm sure your time will come. In the meantime, thanks for your support.
  • Joshii. Thanks Joshii, time to get back to WP:GM now.
  • Siva1979. Thanks.
  • naerii. Sorry I made it so hard for you to make up your mind. And thanks for believing that I reserve my "brusqueness" for those long-standing editors who may perhaps deserve it, and that I don't bite newbies.
  • Majoreditor". I think I'll put your support statement into my CV.
  • ShoesssS. Telling it like it is obviously doesn't win many friends, or at least it's likely to win many enemies. But nobody ever said that life (or RfA) was fair.
  • Casliber. Acid tongue? Most definitely. Malice? Not even a scintilla of it.
  • dihydrogen monoxide. In the larger scheme of things it may not have meant much, but it meant a great deal to me. Thanks.
  • Peter Andersen. I only wish that more had shared your opinion Peter.
  • SusanLesch. Thanks Susan. Naturally I agree that I have impeccable judgement, but then I would say that, wouldn't I. :-)
  • Neıl. Saddened, but surely not surprised. I certainly wasn't.
  • Malinaccier. This "incivility" card is obviously going to dog me all the way through my time at wikipedia. I don't accept the charge, I have never acepted the charge, and I never will accept the charge. So thanks for supporting in spite of your reservations.
  • Dlohcierekim. One of the few positive things I've been able to take from this RfA is the support of editors like yourself, with whom I have tangled in the past, so thanks.
  • Sluzzelin. I pretty much agree with your analysis. I don't go looking for confrontation, but neither do I back away from it.
  • Keeper76. I'll deal with you later. To be serious though, I'm slightly worried that you may have taken this harder than I have. I kind of expected it, so it was no big deal. Don't let this one fiasco put you off looking for good RfA candidates, as opposed to crap ones like me. ;-)
  • Tanthalus39. Personality is OK, so long as it's a wikpersonality. I've already been offered wikicounselling and wikibehavioural modification.
  • barneca. If I'd tried to write my own nomination statement I couldn't have put it any better. Thanks.
  • Rudget. I want to say a special thanks to Rudget. He was one I'd have banked would be right at the top of my list of opposers, and probably for good reasons in his eyes. I look forward to being able to resume the productive editing relationship that we once enjoyed.
  • Sunray. Sure, I've crossed the line a few times, but not nearly as many times as some appear to believe. Mea culpa, I'm only a human being after all.
  • Polly. Stand by for some serious pissing! :lol:
  • Laser brain. Thanks. I'd like to stay and chat, but I've got a few more eggshells that need breaking.
  • Zginder. Put me out of my misery, please. Is there a right answer to your optional question? Or any wrong ones?
  • Queerbubbles. It means a great deal, thanks.
  • The wub. Thanks.
  • Noetica. Spirited and committed sounds about right. Thanks.
  • Ryan Postlethwaite. Thanks for setting out the reasons for your opposition so clearly. I really think that you made a good case.
  • Al Tally. Not sure what I can say really, but thanks for taking the time to pop in in vent your bad temper anyway. I hope that it least made you feel a little better.
  • Maxim. I don't agree with the accusation of "blanket opposing", but if it's wrong to expect administrators to be accountable for their actions, then I am indeed guilty as charged.
  • JayHenry. If you send me your address I'll send you an up-to-date dictionary, so you can check on the meaning of those big words like "sophistry". ;-)
  • Sceptre. Thanks for your input.
  • Wisdom89. I understand your concerns. All I can say is that I very much hope that you will continue to see me make what you consider to be "outrageous comments".
  • Epbr123. If you hadn't popped up with your oppose then I'd have thought that I was definitely heading in the wrong direction. No hard feelings from me though.
  • Icewedge. Did you spot the spelling error in "good faith querys" yet? ;-)
  • Koji†Dude. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. Doesn't make either of us wrong, bad, or "uncivil". It just means that we disagree. The day that disagreement becomes impossible on wikipedia is the day that wikpedia dies.
  • Sharkface. I would especially like to thank you for being the first to bring up the concern about my maturity, it really did make my day.
  • Spartaz. Another well-considered oppose, for which thanks.
  • Jack. Thanks for your input.
  • Gwernol. The day that I am afraid to tell Raul or anyone else, no matter how respected you may consider them to be, what I think I sincerely hope will be a long time coming. Because it would mean that I'm dead.
  • Húsönd. Fair enough. I don't get on with everyone either.
  • CrazyChemGuy. I appreciate your concerns. Perhaps you've seen my scorn for wikipedia's "incivility" threshold elsewhere?
  • Qaddosh. Absolutely agree with you Qaddosh.
  • seresin. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
  • Useight. No problem, you made some perfectly reasonable points.
  • Kodster. You may well be right, who knows.
  • Realist. The day that you see me make fun of anyone's spelling who isn't a native English speaker, then you should take me right to RfC. I think of all the opposes your's was the most hurtful. I have worked very hard on articles written by non-native English speakers to help them get through GA. Ask any of those editors whether I have ever made fun of their spelling/grammar, or ever been anything other than helpful.
  • SorryGuy. You were quite right to draw draw attention to my disdain for the RfA process. It's perfectly true that I think it's a kiddie's charter to take over wikipedia.
  • Orderinchaos. I still don't give a monkeys what you think. ;-)
  • Riana. No problem. I realise that I made a mistake in opposing whoever's RfA it was that I was called a dick for opposing.
  • Mike H. Fierce. A complete makeover is completely out of the question, so I'll just have to happy pissing into the admin tent from the outside, as Polly suggested.
  • GlassCobra. I thank you for your rational, well-considered opposition.
  • Dark. No worries. I'd have opposed myself if I'd believed it.
  • Cwb61. Yep, definitely short of experience, I agree.
  • Lankiveil. Perhaps one day I'll write an essay on the absurd abuse of the word "uncivil", unless someone produces a dictionary of wikispeak in the meantime.
  • RyanGerbil10. No need to challenge any of your firmly held beliefs Ryan, there will be no "later request".
  • Five Years. I'd have said "Abrasive at worst", but I understand where you're coming from.
  • MastCell. Your oppose was the one that gave me most pause for thought. You made a very good point, and one that I found quite convincing.
  • Tool2Die4. I certainly agree about the "serious attitude problems". I just don't agree that they're mine.
  • Asenine. Strong disagreement.
  • InDeBiz1. I get the feeling that I'm in a no win situaton with you. Here I go again, having the last word. :lol:
  • Rami R. Incivility is my middle name apparently, so you were quite right to be concerned.
  • Rlevse. Ryan made a good point, and so therefore did you.
  • Celarnor. Yep, definite "incivility problems", and unlikely to be resolved any time soon. As you can see from the entry just above this one.
  • Kralizec!. I agree.
  • Hiberniantears. I thank you for taking the trouble to write such a considered oppose statement. Your view that as I see no reason to "grow or change" then you see no reason to reconsider me in the future seems perfectly reasonable to me.
  • Master of Puppets. Your neutrality is quite understandable.
  • jbmurray. I will consider the point you made carefully.
  • Cameron. I agree that there are big issues, but I doubt that we would agree on what they actually are.
  • Balloonman. Thanks for switching from Oppose to Neutral. I found your reservations perfectly reasonable.
  • Dank55. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. I appreciate that you have the best of intentions, but I am determined that on this peceived issue of "incivility" there will be no compromise on my part.
  • Raymond Arritt. You made a very good point. I have absolutely no intention of attempting to develop what I believe to be the rather enfeebling skills apparently required to get through an RfA.
  • Spencer. As I said earlier, if I'd believed most of the claims made in the Oppose section I'd have been leery as well.
  • TinuCherian. As above.
  • Gywnand. Last but not least, my "silent neutral". All I can do is to apologise for causing you so much confusion. ;-)

And that's it. Once again, thanks to everyone who took the time to vote.


Out of all the RfA thanks I've received, I think this one has to be my most favorite of them all: most are just "thanks for voting", and that's it, but this thank you has more feeling to it than any other: the way you've addressed everyone above in your list, and responding to each vote individually with a personal message. You are welcome, Malleus Fatuarum, for my support: I am pleased that I had the chance to support you, and even though you've said you don't want to run again, in the event that you did, you would have my support again. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get anything except a simple "thanks". (without even a period! blasphemy!) Oh well, I guess I don't have enough personality. ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On a note which isn't quite as irrelevant, I note that you falt-out refused to go for a #3 above on any type of RfA process, and I completely agree. Now that I think of it, you'd be better off without the tools - I know I probably would, but closing AfDs really is addicting. One of the opposers mentioned that, I think. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I was rushing to get the first lot done before the European Cup Final. Many, many thanks for your support. Better? :-) On a more serious note, I really do agree with some of the opposers, and with what you just said. I've got no interest in closing AfDs, for instance, or engaging in hand-to-hand combat with vandals. A small subset of the tools to do some of the content-related things would be quite enough for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guy, If you decide to ever place your name in contention again, let me know! I would like to at least co-nominate. By the way, excellent way to say thank you to your supporters. ShoesssS Talk 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your very generous offer. But I really am deadly serious about there being no RfA#3. I'm content in the knowledge that the world of wikipedia administrators is too small to contain me. (PS. please don't burst my bubble by disagreeing with me. :lol:) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Malleus. I recused myself from participating in your RfA, but let me just drop by to say I think you have handled it all with great class and dignity. Well, done, cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it was made a lot easier by going into it with the full knowledge that it stood a snowball's chance in hell. I would have continued with it, but it was becoming apparent that it was diverting attention away from more worthy candidates, and it would have selfish of me not to recognise that. My only regret is that I didn't have the courage of my own convictions and vote Oppose in my own RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've got a blisteringly brutal Oppose statement prepared in the event that anyone should be so fool-hardy as to nominate me. Though perhaps even that is being overly-optimistic. :-) Take care, and remember the really important thing here-- creating good articles, at which, obviously, you excel. Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we related? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I gave you a 3k byte message on this RfA where the hell is mine? I did vote... silent neutral. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going down the list from top to bottom. I haven't got to the neutrals yet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubert Walter redux

Hey, not trying to be a bother, but if you're done with the CE, let me know? I think he's about ready for FAC, and just want to make sure you're done. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick run through so far, I'll take a more thorough look later today and let you know when I'm done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed one, the other one I think you misread the names in the sentences. The sentence says that Warren thinks that Walter or Geoffrey FitzPeter wrote the work, not Glanvill. So it's pretty clear to me that Chrimes does agree with Warren that Glanvill didn't write it. (grins) I did propose a better wording to rid the world of more probablys Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I did misread it, yes, and I think your proposed rewording is a significant improvement. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For the wonderful job of fixing my spelling, dealing with my purple prose, and all around helpfulness with Hubert Walter. Never fear, I shall pester you again.... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee, if I'd known that a simple barnstar would get such good service, I'd have given you ones long ago... wow! Thanks!

I'm like a dog with a bone once I get my teeth into something Ealdgyth. But feel free to revert anything you think changes the sense of what you were saying, I shan't be upset. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

A bit delayed, but calling people "wikilawyers" is a highly uncivil thing to do. Please take note of our policies requiring civility and no personal attacks. Given that you've recently been less than civil with ST47, resulting in him leaving the project, and then chose to attack me for warning you, I'll be giving you this last warning regarding your incivility. If you continue to be uncivil, make personal attacks, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an outrageous caricature of the truth.[2] You can stick your block where the sun don't shine, I'm no longer willing to contribute to a project run by petty-minded individuals such as yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hrs as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. for personal attacks.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, you blocked him 4 and a half hours after the alleged personal attack? In what way was that preventative? I thought admins were not meant to issue blocks as a "punishment" - was Malleus disrupting the project at the time at which you blocked him? EJF (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If the block against Malleus was justified, how come the prior incivility against him (and others) by ST47 went by without similar action on Swatjester's part? Without further explanation, one might be tempted to think that double standards are operating here. This ignores the point that EJF suggests: that the reason used for blocking was in itself not really justified given the elapsed time involved. So, I think this action does need further urgent explanation.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Malleus Fatuorum, and I've barely reviewed the block, but principle #9 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango comes to mind: "An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves". Just a thought. - auburnpilot talk 23:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the block (I'm not an admin). It looks like a long time (at least 12 hours) after some possibly uncivil behavior by Mall, Swat came here to warn him not to continue (although it had stopped). Mall responds a few hours later in an upset manner, but makes no other edits. A few hours later, Swat blocks him for this. I'm just not seeing how this was anything but punitive. If Mall continued his incivility elsewhere after warning, then that would have been viewed as disruption and a block may have made sense. I'd like to see an explanation from Swat on this, if possible. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This block was inappropriate; it has all of the marks of being punitive -not preventative. Also, per the Tango ArbCom Auburn mentioned above, admins shouldn't be handing out blocks for insults against themselves (a thicker skin is necessary). The warning was late and the block was also too late to do any good. I would lift it myself, but my time here is limited -and I may not be around to follow through in the event the unblock was for some reason challenged. Unblock, R. Baley (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked MF. While there have been plenty of times where it might have been appropriate to block him---he can be a real... um... he knows what he can be ;-) THERE ARE TIMES that he fully deserves to be blocked for civility reasons, but I do not feel that at this time it was appropriate. As the blocking admin was notified of this discussion and hasn't commented, I'm unblocking now.Balloonman (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for lifting the block Balloonman, but I appear to have been autoblocked as well, so I still can't edit. Is that another part of my punishment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest Swatjester review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango thoroughly. Kudos Balloonman. Malleus, you need to apply the {{unblock-auto}} template (or email an admin with your IP if you don't want to make it public). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've lifted the autoblock; try now. - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, AuburnPilot, normal service has now been resumed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his user talk page, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on this page, on ST47's talk page, etc. My warning and message to Malleus Fatuarum stands. MF, you are obviously well aware of your civility deficiencies, enough that you make light of them publicly. Perhaps instead of making light of them, you ought to fix them. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility is a problem for MF, but this type of block is not the proper response. Blocks for civility are to be used to stop ongoing civility problems, not as a punishment for past transgressions. If you think something needs to be done, you could take him to Arbcom... I think a strong case could be made against MF. While I have grown to like MF, he does have civility issues.Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This was a preventative action against his ongoing, admitted, well documented civility problems. Taking it to arbcom is not how this works. I warn him, he chooses whether to comply or not, and if he continues the incivility like he did, he gets blocked. Filing an RFC and the rest of that process would do nothing to prevent the problem of his incivility. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You may are misrepresenting what I have said repeatedly in the past. It may be your opinion, Balloonman's, and perhaps of many others, that I have been "uncivil". That is not, however, an opinion that I share, and I have certainly never "admitted" to having a civility problem. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. I also note that you applied no sanction whatsoever as a result of ST47's egegrious rudeness to me and others. As I said, it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree - how come no action's being taken against ST47 for this or this which were far less civil? — iridescent 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Because he quit Wikipedia. What sanction would there be? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
He has patently not quit Wikipedia - his last edit was two hours ago... — iridescent 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm misrepresenting nothing. From your own words above: --Rami R. Incivility is my middle name apparently, so you were quite right to be concerned. Celarnor. Yep, definite "incivility problems", and unlikely to be resolved any time soon. As you can see from the entry just above this one.-- You're not excused from being civil just because you view the problem to be with Wikipedia.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one thing's for sure. I see that I need to be more careful when employing rhetorical devices such as irony and satire, out of respect for those editors who do not have a sense of humour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<od>Malleus, sorry I missed your latest "adventure". The fact that balloonman, of all editors (you know, the editor that co-certified your RfC a month ago...) was the one to unblock is proof enough to me that your block was ridiculous. Sorry I wasn't around to unblock you myself. Hope you've had a good laugh over it, or at least a few beers over it. Battle scars, tis all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See, you're away for only a few hours and I get myself into trouble again. :-( I do appreciate Balloonman's part in this episode, even though he does still think that I ought to be taken to Arbcom. Ah well. I was initially angry at what I perceived to be the hypocrisy and double standards behind the threat to block, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest now. Wikipedia has what, 1,500 or so administrators? It would be stretching credulity to believe that they were all fully conversant with blocking policy, or that none of them ever used their tools in furtherance of a personal agenda. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Although, I will say, that of the 1500 admins (only 1000 active), we are all allowed and completely capable of errors of judgement. We are also all allowed to not view our actions as errors of any kind. Swat did what he thought was necessary. Several admins and editors said WTF after he did it, and then quickly undid it. It's why there isn't one singular entity that makes all these decisions. I've made bad blocks, so has balloonman. Adminning, in that sense, really sucks. I'm glad you're "moving on". I assume (or at least, hope to assume), that you'll hold no ill-will against Swat, as he did what he thought appropriate at the time, was found to be wrong, and would likely wish to move past this as quickly as everyone else. No need/reason to harp on it, agree? Bad block != bad blood. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. Who's Swat? What block? :lol: Of course I agree. I always have, and I always will, take people as I find them. No hard feelings from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's the Malleus that I'm madly in love with (which should make you uncomfortable, and should make me seek counselling...) Ok, I can go back on holiday now (or, in my world, I can go back on vacation now...). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, I beg to differ, I've NEVER made a bad block ;-) Balloonman (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
MF, I don't think you ought to be taken to Arbcom---otherwise, I would. I do, however, believe that you have opened yourself up to the chance that somebody could do so and would not have a difficult time making a case against you. There is a difference between ought and could... what I did say above is that the block was not the appropriate response (it was not preventative, but punative.) IMHO, the appropriate step for swat would have been an RfC, Arbcom, AN/I something other than a block hours after the fact.Balloonman (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry to have misrepresented what you said in that case. God knows, I complain often enough about people misrepresenting what I've said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You complain.... never!!!Balloonman (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair cop 'guv. There are lots of things about wikipedia and its culture that I don't agree with, but this incident has somewhat reinforced in my mind a comment made by jbmurray in my recent RfA, that I need to be more subtle in my criticism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

SHAME on you, Malleus. I hope this little incident has taught you your lesson: Wikipedia is most assuredly not a place for unceasing, hard, excellent building of articles and occasionally making the project a little easier through the expression of humour [sic :-)] and sarcasm. NO! Like all respectable organizations, it is a place for the unchecked and random abuse of power by a few in authority. :-) Now, if we've got that straight, I am having my first experience with FA review with the Anna May Wong article. A reviewer has suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong that it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it. If you feel up to venturing out of your general subject area, I'd be very happy if you could take a look and maybe provide a comment or two. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I reply let me share with you one of the things that I find grates with me about wikipedia. Rubbish phrases like "my bad". Bad is an adjective for Christ's sake, not a noun.
Now I've got that off my chest, I do know what a tough gig FAC can be, and it should be a tough gig. I'll happily do what I can to help, but tomorrow/today depending on your time zone, is a holiday here, so I'll be doing holiday things. I promise though that I'll see what I can do once the holiday is over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... an anti-"My bad" stance is fairly controversial, and may get you into more hot water... (Though I, too, am anti-"my bad", and, in fact, hate the phrase so much I'll use it to be about as intentionally annoying as I can be without getting into trouble with the authorities.) Tomorrow is a holiday here in the Colonies too. No rush, and thanks for the consideration! (I'll take all the "my bads" out of the article before you get to it. :) Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're in the clear. I had a good look through the Anna May Wong article earlier, and I didn't find a single "my bad". I'm not quite ready to support it yet, so I've left a few comments. Nothing major though, just a little bit of clarification. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for the useful comments, Malleus. Also, thank you for making all the changes you did, rather than just "Opposing" based on quote-mark placement. I've tried to address all the concerns you brought up. One tricky point remains which I will try to take care of later in the day. Oh, and thanks for overlooking my habit of ending every sentence in the article with, "know what I'm sayin'?" :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah-- I see you've "supported" Thanks again! I'll still try to work on that troubling sentence though. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, the article is too good to oppose over a minor point or two. Nothing in this life is perfect, and nor do we have a right to expect it to be. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Georgi Kinkladze - a request

Some enthusiastic praise of your abilities brings me here. I am looking for some copyediting help on Georgi Kinkladze. It recently failed FAC, prose issues being the main factor. It appears that having written most of it I can no longer see the wood from the trees when it comes to proofreading. Anyhow, I have opened another peer review for the article, your input would be most welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for helping with the MoS situation! NancyHeise (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement on my talk page. I love the William Safire quote on your user page - too funny! NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] added a couple

Let me know if my contributions were what you were thinking. Remove/change them if not.  ;) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I could make a few additions to that page myself ... ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Malleus would let you - go for it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Be my guest Deacon. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll leave it to you for the now so that the tone and style aren't wobbly, and if there's anything you missed by the time it's grown to adult size, I'll add then. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tone? Style? Heck, I best get my butt outta there...Malleus - fix/delete anything you see fit to. Including that last sentence that ended in a preposition. And also including that last sentence, which was a fragment...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSpeak

I could probably add a couple myself. I was thinking of an English-to-Wiki Lexicon myself. For example:

  • Encyclopedic
    • English: Comprehensive, complete, thorough, exhaustive. Example "Dekkappai's knowledge of Japanese erotic cinema is truly encyclopedic. You can't name an actress, film, or director in the area he doesn't know. Malleus Fatuarum, on the other hand, knows nothing about the subject. His knowledge of the subject is most assuredly not encyclopedic."
    • WikiSpeak: Limited, censored, excluded. Particularly with reference to subjects of which the writer disapproves. Example "'Japanese erotic cinema?' Huh? Porn, you mean! NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC! Delete!!!" Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Trolling
    • English: To search (for), to draw out, to entice; by extension, to disrupt the operation of an online community.
    • WikiSpeak: To disagree with someone with a higher edit count than you. — iridescent 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're allowed to add these to the page directly. I've certainly helped myself to the early/easy ones. :_) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I created a shortcut WP:WIKISPEAK. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way-- I hope it was obvious my examples above were purely in jest. My knowledge of the subject is no more encyclopedic than an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject would be anything to brag about. :-) Also, I am quite confident that Malleus' skin is thick enough to withstand my joking presumption that I know more about this particular subject than he does. He's possibly tough enough to accept this statement even if I'd made it in earnest! Anyway, WikiSpeak is a great idea, Malleus. I know I've come across several, and I'll contribute them when they come to mind. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good think you said that Dekkappai, I was just about to block. Mad with power, am I. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for joking I know more about Japanese porn than another editor. Story of my life. :-( Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Civility: The state of being in agreement with me.
  • Assume Good Faith: Just admit I am right and be on your way. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You do realize Dekkappai, that these are being added to the page, without your permission, and without your signature? (OK, to clarify, Iridescent added them with your sig, then I removed the sig) Add'm yourself, then you'll be in the page history! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah-- I'll go there then-- wanted to give Malleus the option of using or not and copy-editing. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After recent grief on this site I have to admit this is excellent relief. No doubt the MFD for it is just round the corner .... ;) Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. No MfD is my prediction. Perfectly harmless bit o' fun. No swearing (yet), and no editors named (yet). May it live long and prosper...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Gurch has some valid concerns on my talkpage. What do you think about adding a humor tag? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just replied on your talk page. I've got no objection to adding a humor tag; I guess I thought it would just be obvious, but there ya go. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You forgot....

Man, the Devils Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce...the true inspiration for the wikispeak page :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to have to admit that I wasn't familiar with The Devil's Dictionary, but now having looked at it I think that you make a very good point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a rather common book which often inhabits local libraries and is a good chuckle. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Thanks for your comments on the article I am working through FAC. I have tried to address all of your concerns and have taken a few pointers from WP:COPYEDIT. How does it look to you know? Are there any other areas which I can massage to make it flow better for you? JRP (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow, and hopefully feel able to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [3] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I already did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malleus

Go here. Let me know when you're done, I'll re-delete it. It's only Ddstretch's comment though, not the whole guffaw....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that was certainly a well-reasoned contribution from stretch. To be perfectly honest I'd forgotten what all the hoo-hah was about in the first place. As they say, when you get older you lose three things: your hearing, your eyesight ... and I've forgotten what the third one is. Re-delete at your leisure. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's long gone. As I said before, anything you need from an admin standpoint...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sp.

That's gladiatorial, and thanks for giving me a new word to use during my afternoon business meetings. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many thumbs and not enough fingers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being a friend! NancyHeise (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humour
At the risk of you mistakenly thinking that I hate you (or that I'm under 14), this worthless bauble is for User:Malleus Fatuarum/WikiSpeak, which made me cry with laughter. BencherliteTalk 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I can't take the credit for all of it though, quite a few others have contributed their insights as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just adding to that, thank you for creating this page -- it's hilarious, worthy of a barnstar, and the thing just keeps getting better. One of the funniest pages to appear on Wikipedia for a long time ... but I admit I'm a fan of that old sardonic cuss Bierce. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Seeing how, um, strenuous some people can be about RfA's is making me re-think what I read and said during your recent RfA. You certainly seem like the soul of reason in everything I've read recently. I don't have any preference myself, and it's above my pay-grade to decide, but if GA reviewers want to establish a review process of their own, so that more clued-in people can be doing whatever raking-over-the-coals is required, I would definitely support that. I will also be happy to support you in any future RfA you may wish to subject yourself to. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that GA reviewers want to do; I've only been doing GA sweeps and commenting at the odd GAR since the great green dot debate. Perhaps once a clearer picture emerges of what it is that GA wants to be, then I might go back to GA reviewing. I'm afraid that the signs for the future of GA as some kind of FA-lite don't look good to me at present though.
So far as my RfA is concerned, well, it's clear that the process and I are incompatible, so there's no future RfA on the horizon. Wikipedia's notions of incivility just make me laugh if I'm perfectly honest. If you look a little higher up this page you'll see that even using a term like "wikilawyer" is considered to be "grossly uncivil", even when it's addessed to a law student who runs a web site called WikiLaw. It's very tempting sometimes to abandon the project to its army of child administrators. But not today. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TGAR Barnstar

The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
Dear mate, you rightfully deserved this Barnstar for your hardwork, tireless copyedits (as per native British English) and professionalism shown towards the GA project all these while. I hope to see more quality reviewers like you in future, so that well written articles not ready for FA status yet, can be fairly assessed, improved upon or deserved a decent mentioned. I wish to see those involved in the GA project continue to be true and steadfast in their efforts like you, so that there's wide acceptance and recognition by more Wikipedians in associating with the 'little green dot' in future, similarly like the 'FA Star' now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I'm sorry to see that you're still having trouble with the Sembawang Hot Spring GA review. Hopefully it'll be sorted out soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To encounter repeated unfortunate situations like my case, the folks here will aptly exclaimed in Hokkien: "Si bey suay!" (Equivalent to 'Damned, what rotten luck!') No worries mate, just that my retirement from this GA drive, which I undertook for SGpedia since Sep 2007, will be further delayed. Fyi, I got another outstanding GAN currently going thru' a review (by another female American) without much fuss or major headache. Once both are successfully cleared, I'll submit my final nomination next - 'Early Founders Memorial Stone'. I hope to hit my target total of 15 GAs before I call it day & ride towards the sunset! Then I can savour my daily cuppa of tea without any long wait and worries anymore. A-m-a-z-i-n-g grace, how sweet the sound (or taste!)... 8-) Aldwinteo (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help!

I do not understand what is not addressed on the RCC FAC? Please help me to understand. I am working with Xandar to address TufKat's comments. All other comments have been addressed. Xandar and I are fully complying with all commentors or giving valid reasons why we can't in some instances. I guess I do not see the elephant. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony is the elephant in the corner. With a strong oppose from him you can't hope to get through FAC. The best that most of us can hope for is a reluctant and often churlish striking of an oppose. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think this is true. I am sure that there are articles that have passed FAC without Tony's support. Moreover, his support is not usually "churlish." See here for a recent example. It's true that he sets high standards for prose, and in response an article will usually require multiple copy-edits from multiple editors. That's certainly the case with the VNQDD article. But that's fair enough, I think. In the case of RCC, however, I'd say that the attitude of the article's proponents has put off those editors, such as myself, who would normally help out at this stage (as I did with VNQDD). When I tried concretely to help and directly edited the RCC article, Nancy and others reacted with alarm and extreme ungraciousness. Again, Nancy should look at (and ideally participate in) other FACs, to see how things normally work. VNQDD is a good example. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we have a slight difference of opinion on this matter. Which is fine, but my opinion remains unaltered. To be precise, I made no comment about articles that have passed FAC without Tony's support; I was discussing articles that had passed despite his opposition. Can you find many of those? Tony does indeed often make some useful suggestions, but he does so in an overly combative way, sometimes forgetting that he is simply expressing an opinion, not laying down the law on a "professional standard of prose", whatever that's supposed to mean. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's my view (as always for what it's worth): there's a range of tone among those who regularly contribute to FAC. Tony is often brusque (which I think is more accurate than "combative" or "gladiatorial," as you said earlier). Karanacs is probably the most consistently expansive and most obviously considerate. Most others are somewhere in between. But you shouldn't get distracted by issues of tone. In this case, as SandyG observes, both Tony and Karanacs (as well as others) are currently opposing the nomination. It's also notable that FAC reviewers aren't stick-in-the muds who stubbornly stick to their opposes for no good reason. Tony's not the Kurt Weber of FAC. Again, see VNQDD, which is hardly an isolated example, where Tony (and here, for instance, Laser brain) are prepared to go back to an article and re-evaluate. Again, that's how FAC is supposed to work, and how it normally works: nominators and reviewers working together to ensure that featured articles represent Wikipedia's very best work. The fact that in this case the process has somewhat broken down is not due to the reviewers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Whenever any process breaks down, the fault is never entirely on one side or the other. Shades of grey and all that. At the risk of going off-topic, have you considered the significant number of editors who have quite simply given up on the FA process, and why they took that decision? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no doubt that there are ways to improve FAC. But again, any assessment in the process should take into account the way it typically works (I've been suggesting VNQDD as it's an FAC in which I recently participated, but there are plenty of other examples) as well as the the exceptions (such as RCC). Meanwhile, beyond identifying Tony as "the elephant in the room," what are your observations? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps they could best be summarised by what I believe to be the fundamental difference between FA and GA. To paint an undoubtedly and admittedly unfair caricature, FA is perceived to be adversarial whereas GA has a more obviously collaborative nature. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. How could that perception be changed? What if we had a period of discussion before any opposes or supports are registered, as at FAR? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Changing anything on wikipedia is a task that would challenge even the patience of Sisyphus. Which is a pseudo-intellectual way of saying that I really haven't given the matter much thought. Perhaps a move towards something more like RfC? I don't know, need to think about it more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never been involved in RfC, so don't know about that. Perhaps you could explain, when and if we have the post-FAC discussion. Again, I should say that on the whole I think FAC works pretty well, all things considered. In my (admittedly fairly short) time hanging around FAC, I've never seen one like the RCC one. (I am sure, however, that there are other examples where things have not gone so well.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to defer further comment until the RCC FAC closes, but this is a most curious response, and I believe it's unfortunate that you missed an opportunity to give helpful and constructive feedback to someone who approached you genuinely seeking help on a FAC that currently has nine opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You mischaracterise the situation for whatever reason. I believe that I have given all the advice that I can in this matter. It may be that you don't agree with my advice, and it may be that I don't agree with yours. But that's life I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hope we can discuss later (although depending on the timing, there's always a chance I'll forget). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you remind me if I forget? I always have one conversation or another pending until a FAC closes, and I mostly forget when other events overtake them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I will hold out for the FA director to see that it is clearly an FA. If I thought that we had to go through Tony to have our article even considered, I would never have brought it up for nomination. In fact, if thats the way things are on Wikipedia, (which I doubt) and I have to have his personal approval for the next FA, I will not even consider wasting my time and money on the next project. People who are article builders should not be required to submit to rude FAC reviewers and the most important FAC reviewers should be required to practice some higher level of professionalism. The RCC article is being watched by a lot of editors who will be very discouraged if it does not pass, especially if it doesnt pass just because I didnt do enough sucking up to a certain very rude FAC reviewer. Maybe the FAC criteria should be amended to inform us of that factor so we can save ourselves from wasted time and effort if we are not the kind of person who does that.NancyHeise (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I do understand how you feel, and I continue to wish you good luck with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, you might be heartened to see this or look at the FAC history of this article. Persistence is the key in getting articles to pass... but the key is also to embrace the help others offer. I know that the FA I wrote wouldn't have made it there without help from others... and the one I helped out with recently had a lot of input from others. RCC is a contentious subject, I would place getting it past the politics on par with getting Ronald Reagan to FA status. Maybe even more challenging because more people are going to watch RCC than RR.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I am willing to persist in making RCC or any other article an FA after what I have experienced with this FAC. This was a profoundly negative experience for me and I am amazed at the swiftness of the FA team to come to the rescue of those whose words and actions were clearly provacative, antagonistic, and unhelpful to bringing the article to FA. There seems to be a clique of people who stick together at the FA level that inhibits free thinking and article improvment. There is also evidence that some reviewers intimidate others to the point that no one will tell them if they are wrong, even when they really need to hear it. If I thought the FA process was fair, I would continue to pursue FA's but if I have to go through the approval of the present FA team to get there, I will pass. NancyHeise (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, again... the "FA-Team" has nothing to do with FAC. Anyone can review at FAC. Indeed, I have been positively encouraging you to do some reviewing, as I think it would be of great benefit, and help you understand the process. In fact, I only came to the RCC FAC in the first place because I had an article at FAC, and felt it was my duty to help out on some FACs. I wrote some quick comments on a number of the FACs that had been sitting around for a while. I only got caught up in this one in particular, because almost immediately my comments were called "silly," "irrelevant," and so on. Needless to say, none of the comments that I left on other FACs at exactly the same time received anything like that hostile reaction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
JB, the FA-Team did everything in its power to prevent the possibility of the RCC article becoming FA. That is my sincerest opinion. It is nice that you all have each other to turn to but it turns off other editors who have to get through your clique to do anything worthwhile on Wikipedia. Your group is an obstacle to genuine improvement on Wikipedia that will continue to turn away article builders. NancyHeise (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, I don't know how many times I can tell you... The "FA-Team" had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with this FAC. I do not have a "group." The fact that you fail to assume good faith of reviewers is a great pity, and a leading cause of the problems you've been having. Again, please read what I've said above (and also many times before), as well as what others have been trying to tell you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, Malleus, I just saw SandyGeorgia's post in this section a little further up where she reprimanded you for not helping me. She is totally wrong on that comment. I want to clarify for your talk page that you have been very helpful and encouraging to me throughout the entire process. I wrote "help!" at the top because I did not know what you were talking about in your elephant comment and I understand now what is happening here. I thank you for making that clear to me. NancyHeise (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Heart Barnstar To Malleus, For your sincere kindness and help through a difficult FAC process. Thanks :) NancyHeise (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia was perhaps speaking more generally than just in response to comments made here, as I have never been shy of offering my opinion. But I thank you for exonerating me in this particular instance nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser :-) Kinda hard to imagine anyone (myself included) "reprimanding" Malleus; discussing your perceptions once the FAC closes are another matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Many have tried, but few have succeeded. Or at least, if they did, then I didn't notice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy! How dare you! You almost brought a little tear to my eye with that barnstar. ;-) The RCC thing has been difficult, but the FA star doesn't really mean all that much in the grand scheme of things anyway. Just ask yourself one question: is the article better or worse now that you and so many others have taken an interest in it? Many articles get broken on the back of the FA review process; the reason I suggested withdrawing the nomination wasn't only because I thought that certain opposes would be a deal-breaker, but because I also think that sometimes the reviewers get it wrong, and to continue pandering to their various whims results in an article in worse shape than the one that was nominated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, it's only a web site

Let's calm down people, and remember the words of a wise man who once (yesterday if I remember correctly) described wikipedia as "A sandcastle on the shore of the sea of time. Within play-dramas on miniature stages, the actors argue over the exact position of each grain of sand, unaware of the approaching tide." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I just had to add that hyphen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, the reason I wanted it to be FA was specifically for that reason. Less people are going to destroy an FA than if it were not an FA. On a controversial topic like RCC where there are some people who just hate Catholics and this article is the top article for Wikiproject Catholicism, it was advantageous to the whole project to get this top article up there. At least then you have the central hub from which you can build the rest of the wheel (Im not saying there isnt already a lot of wheel already out there - I am amazed at what already exists). NancyHeise (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony has been continually sneering, rude and abusive throughout the FAC. He has made entirely negative, vague and dismissive comments without any justification. Moreover he has insisted on making unwarranted and totally unjustified attacks on, not only the writers of the article, but also upon the editors who have indicated their support of the nomination, accusing them without any evidence whatsoever, of dishonesty and collusion. He then tops this up by trawling through the supporting editors, criticize one for his English language skills on the page, and then, seeing a message on his page, and without checking his facts, he made further false and completely unfounded accusations against the nominator of the article! Now that his accusations have been proven false, he refuses to apologise! yet people here still back him up. This behaviour is outrageous and Tony needs to be reined in before these actions make a mockery of wikipedia. If articles can't get through FA without this sort of thing happening, the entire process has been subverted and made a joke. Tony needs to be reined in here and changes need to be made. Xandar (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some excitement

Seeing as A215 road may have been too exciting for some people to stand, I've given something a little less thrilling to Wikipedia. Any comments from you (or the assorted cleanuppers who lurk on this talk page) more than welcome. I'm actually quite pleased with this one; as you (almost) said in your RFA, anyone can write an article about something interesting, but it's more of a challenge making a viable article on a truly boring topic. — iridescent 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just saw that, and I was about to comment on your talk page. Pleased to see you haven't lost your touch. :lol: I'm disppointed with myself over that RfA for a number of reasons: I didn't oppose myself and I didn't make it clear that whereas anyone can write about an interesting subject, it takes a special kind of genius to bring to life an article about an abandoned railway. I'm still childishly pleased with my bog article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with em-dashes, then? — iridescent 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing — but they shouldn't be spaced apparently (like this one is). It's a mortal sin. If ever you find the will to live slowly draining away, then the WP:MOS is probably best avoided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How can anyone fail to be thrilled by any article which cites a book called Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate? (The real shock to me was that I wasn't the first person to borrow that from the library.) — iridescent 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are funny. And oh my goodness: I used to take the A215 every single day, and to know it like the back of my hand. Egads. So colour me excited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who added...

the def for Wikipedia n.? I can't find it in diffs. I saw you move it, but who added it? Absolutely spot on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who added it. I had a look through the diffs myself to try and find out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The culprit is caught — iridescent 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglesey Central Railway

(crossposted to assorted user's talk pages, if you're thinking this looks a bit familiar)
While looking at WP:GAN for other articles to review (I don't like nominating things without reviewing one if possible), I've come across Anglesey Central Railway. Looking at the creator's history, all they've worked on is this article and articles related to it (aside, bizarrely, from Characters in Asterix). While I can't in all honesty pass this at the moment – it has serious structural failures, as well as bending the MOS to breaking point – this is so much better than a new editor's usual "my favourite band" starting effort that I'd really like to get this one through the GA hoop. (IMO there's enough sourced content there to get it to FA.) I'll have a go at cleaning it up, but you're generally much better at the "nuts and bolts" side of things than me; would you mind having a look at it too, as I really think this looks like an author who should be encouraged. (What I know about Welsh railways can be summarised as 1) they're railways and 2) they're Welsh, so I don't think I'll be much use in content-adding.) — iridescent 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At a quick look that doesn't look too bad to me. If you take the review on then I'll pitch in and help with some of the nuts and bolts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the only glaring problem (a section title that didn't describe the section) and passed it. Although it still has problems, it undoubtedly passes the "I know more about it than I did before"/"I believe what it told me"/"I know as much now as anyone could reasonably want to know" tests, which are all that the GA criteria boil down to. — iridescent 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anahim hotspot

Hello Malleus. I was wondering if you could review the above article for me and tell me if its good enough for GA status? I would have done it myself, since I have virtually no contributions to the article, but I nominated it. Thanks, ~Meldshal42 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've opted to do the review. I'll post up my detailed thoughts on the review page within the next 24 hours, but on my first quick read through the article I'd suggest that you double check all of the references, to make certain that they support what's being claimed. For instance, "This in turn has re-raised the antipodal pair impact hypothesis, the idea that pairs of opposite hotspots may result from the impact of a large meteor." Apart from being a non-sequitor, as the subject being discussed immediately before that sentence was tectonic plate movement, the reference provided says nothing at all about the antipodal pair impact hypothesis so far as I can see. Also, where a book is being cited, the full publication details ought to be included, not just a link to google books. My first impression is that the referencing is going to let this article down. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm gonna get to work on them tomorrow. ~Meldshal42 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN: Union Jack

G'day mate! One of your fellow country folks I think, has recently nominated the above for GAN. u may be interested to take a look & help to copyedit the article if nec. Fyi, my GAN task for SGpedia is finally completed now, after the mentioned 'Early Founders Memorial Stone' was passed successfully recently. u may ask what drove me on in this solo mission for SGpedia all these while? The truth is, I was greatly inspired by one of your country great men since my younger days - William Wilberforce aka 'Yorkshire Terrier' (by his detractors) - for his oratorial powers, unwavering sense of mission despite poor health & depression, in his life-long struggles on the abolition of slave trade against the House of Lords in Parliament in the 18th century. Coincidentally (or act of God), he was also an acquaintance of John Newton, a slave-ship captain turned Anglican priest & author of the soul-touching hymn, 'Amazing Grace'. Amen -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish the nominator of that article the best of luck, but it obviously needs quite a bit of work yet to get through GA. Anyway, does this mean that there will be no more tales of British colonial derring-do from Singapore? If so, that'll be shame. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll be taking a much deserved break next (a relief to many!), & afterwards, login every now & then with my usual cup of tea in hand, to check for any vandalism or messages left by any dudes brave or foolhardy enough, to approach this old Staffy for advice or intervention mate. Will focus more on other WikiProjects on Buddhism, military history, heritage & geography of other countries, but on a much smaller scale & intensity in future. I hope fellow SGpedians, a rather small group here - mainly students or undergrads, National Service men & young hot-headed adults (See their profile here), will learn & take the cue from me to pursue the GAN or FAC aspirations for SGpedia in the long run. Ironically, I've long studied & am fascinated by the history & exploits (courtesy of the East India Company) of your country from young (the other is China & India), but I have yet to step on the soil of England, the home of the famous Manchester United & Liverpool FC! Fyi, I nearly went over to London to further my studies years ago, but I finally opted for Australia due to costs & distance. While at Oz, I met lots of the sailing-mad neighbouring Kiwis, esp the senior ones, where many were formerly Brits who chose to reside in NZ upon their retirement. Really missed the good old times having Earl Grey, 'Billy tea', & lamingtons with these fun & easy-going folks Down Under. Sigh! That's why my folks & frens here mentioned that I'm more 'Westernised' in my thinking & ways at times. If time & commitments allow, I hope to visit London & its countryside one day, to see first hand historical or heritage sites like Westminster Abbey, Whitechapel, 221B Baker Street or the Imperial War Museum etc, that I've read or research so much about it previously. Maybe such visits will inspire me to write a few native UK articles then. ;-) Aldwinteo (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June Newsletter, Issue VIII

Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

I agree with your view about admins and senses of humor. :) I think it's a quality that more admins (and people overall) should have. :) Acalamari 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still smarting a bit over this to be honest, so probably best I don't say too much more in the Ali'i RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I agree with you most of the time, Malleus, just not on this one. But even though I'm opposing, I want to say that I think you "oppose the opposes" too much in RfAs - not that I care that you're doing it, but what it does is make the opposition section longer and more noticeable, more intriguing to read. In my recent RfA, I had to quietly tell a few people to STFU because they were defending me - and in the process, hurting me. At least that's my opinion. I know you; if you don't agree, you'll let me know :-) Tan | 39 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not happen to share your opinion on this particular issue though, and so I shall continue to respond when and where I see fit. I'm sure you'll understand. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I guess I do. I was trying to tell you you're cutting off your nose to spite your face... but like you care. Ever read The Long Walk by Stephen King? You remind me so much of a character in it - the tough guy - that I find myself mentally calling you Collie Parker. Tan | 39 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Collie Parker sounds tough; I'm not tough, I'm just uncompromising. I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and I'm not prepared to be diverted from that for the sake of some wiki popularity contest. I'm just me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna May Wong‎

Many thanks for all your help, Malleus. I really believe your input and support helped put the article through a successful review. This was my first encounter with FA review, and it probably gave me more stress than it should, so I'd also like to thank you for the outlet for frustration your Wikispeak essay provided at this time. Happy editing, and cheers! (And if you're ever working on a Japanese porn article-- you know who to come to for help now!) Dekkappai (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pendle witches

Hi, I saw a book in Salford Local History Library on the Lancashire witch trials today witch (sorry!) may interest you. It was a thin paperback printed in 1979. Unfortunately all their books are reference only, but I see you can buy it quite cheaply at http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/cot/BOOKS069513I.shtml Richerman (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll check it out. (I really must finish off that Pendle witch trials article.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ali'i

I just noticed some of your comments in the discussion section over there. Just want to say that I agree with the sentiment that, at this point, there is virtually no evidence that an RfA is anything less than a pure vote. While I don't know if it should be this way, it is becoming downright deceptive to non RfA-regulars when we discuss how the vote goes down. Unless a vote is in bad-faith or its a joke, it holds just as much "weight" as the most well explained and researched vote. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Until someone can show me an RfA that passed at 51% or failed at 91% then I will continue to believe that "consensus" is mere wikibabble. On a somewhat related topic, I'm also against people voting things like Strong Oppose, as if that's supposed to weigh heavier in the balance than a mere Oppose. My rather bad faith assumption is that such vehemence is designed more to influence other voters than it is to spread any light. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. For a while, I didn't care, but now I'm wondering why we insist on telling people it isn't a vote? I agree AfD isn't a vote, as there are numerous examples where opinions were properly analyzed... but this just doesn't happen in RfAs. It's actually harming the project to keep going around telling people that crats are weighing votes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would quite like to see your addition here. I was trying to think of who in particular I would like to see views on RfA, and your name popped up immediately. It may be time consuming, but I assure you if you answer it, I will read and think about your responses. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My view on the RfA process may melt your Internet connection. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think I requested it? :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Review

Thankyou for trying to participate in the RfA review. Please understand though that to submit your answers please follow the process below (copied from the instructions). This ensures that all answers are grouped and categorised together.

To participate in the review, please create a subpage in your user area to hold your answers, by clicking Special:Mypage/RfA review, Once you've done that, add the following text: {{subst:RFAReview}}, to your usersubpage, and it will generate the questions on your subpage, as well as code it for use once you've completed your responses.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages here and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the project's talk page.

Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that I was on the wrong page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I just wanted to drop you a note instead of blindly reverting. I've been making a few slipups lately and didn't want to make more. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisit old comments

Tony is the elephant in the corner. With a strong oppose from him you can't hope to get through FAC. The best that most of us can hope for is a reluctant and often churlish striking of an oppose. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Before attempting a response, I need to understand what you're saying (subsequent comments make it unclear):

  1. FACs aren't passed over an oppose from Tony?
  2. Prose opposes "count" more than others?
  3. A "strong" oppose from Tony is a deal stopper at FAC (emphasis on "strong")?
  4. Or, from your further comments, your concern is not Tony's oppose at all, but the tone of his opposes?

Also, some data to back up your position (or combination of the above) might help shed light on your concern.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Number 3 best sums up my opinion. I make no bones that I do think Tony's inevitable opposes over stylistic differences come over as being unnecessarily abrasive, but that was not my concern. I have not collected data on how many FACs have been promoted in spite of a strong oppose from Tony. Have you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I haven't looked for data because I don't need to: I have a direct line to the half-brain of the person who does the promoting/archiving, and I know her thought processes :-)) Would it surprise you to know that "strong" in front of anyone's declaration means very little to me (an oppose is either actionable or not, and "strong" is relative, different editors use it differently, it's not helpful to me at all)? Also, Tony doesn't always get back to revisit his opposes, so I look at the consensus among several editors re prose when he doesn't get back to strike. Has there been a case where Tony didn't strike after other editors said prose was fixed or a ce was done? I dunno, not worth trawling through archives, since I know how I process FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I will simply say that in this particular case of the Roman Catholic Church article, which was the context for my comment, then I believe that events have proven me to be correct. I do accept though that that article's FAC was rather unusual in many respects. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think you were correct? Do you not consider POV or sourcing concerns equally (or more) significant than prose concerns? Do you not consider the preponderance of opposes more important than one individual prose oppose? (Or am I misunderstanding your statement again?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you ask, I think that most of the sourcing concerns were invalid, and that the POV concerns were simply pitting one POV against another, not an honest attempt at achieving a neutral POV. I remain deeply unimpressed by opposition along the lines of "Oh look, I found an error; there must therefore be many more that I haven't found yet". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
But back to the statement you made about Tony; how do you consider you were right about one prose oppose, when there were a dozen broad opposes on many other issues? That was what I meant about missing the opportunity to help Nancy better understand the process, instead of giving her the idea it was all about Tony, or all about prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple. Did the RCC article pass or not? It was clearly going to fail, no matter what Nancy did, hence my advice to her to withdraw the article. Like it or not, it remains my opinion that once the elephant in the corner has shouted "Strong Oppose" you might as well switch the lights out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, well, we seem to be going in circles around the original statement, and I'm still not entirely certain I understand your POV, so I'll summarize mine. A 1a oppose carries no more weight than another (e.g.; 1b, 1c, 1d). A "strong" in front of any declaration means almost nothing to me. An oppose from Tony is weighed against other prose reviewers. And the misunderstandings that Nancy and Xandar had about the FAC process were unfortunate; I wish you hadn't furthered incorrect impressions when you were presented with an opportunity to clarify how to effectively deal with a FAC without filling up 700KB of debate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a circle, a straightforward disagreement. If I ever see an FAC pass despite a strong oppose from Tony then I may review my opinion. Until then, one person's "incorrect impression" is another's "reality". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As I told you, I don't take "strong" into account; has no meaning to me (although I can think of policy cases where it might provoke a speedy close, such as BLP issues). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong: both Jbmurray and Maralia went through after Tony's oppose, and you supported the prose as well. Article passed, rest my case. More significant is the lost opportunity to steer Nancy and Xandar towards a better outcome rather than giving them info that might have furthered confusion and adversarial tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I simply gave my opinion, and my opinion has not changed. Probably best we let this go now, because it looks increasingly unlikely that we will agree. I will simply say that the adversarial tone did not come from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -