Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I'm getting close to the end of my time here I think. Two failed RfAs have had a corrosive effect on my attitude towards wikipedia's governance; not because of my failure, but because of their vindictiveness. There's clearly no will to change a system that I am increasingly coming to see as corrupt, and it's therefore correspondingly more difficult for me to continue working within that corrupt environment.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I need to take some time to think seriously about whether or not I want to continue working in a project that so clearly has very little respect for those who try to help build its content.
Hi, Malleus. Thanks for copy and structure editing the Ohlone article. I, a new editor, have recently finished a 300 page study of Ohlone/Costanoan ethnography and history for the U.S. National Park Service. It has given me insights which will allow me to make modifications and additions (with published citations) to a number of statements in the Misplaced Pages article that I believe to be factually off-the-mark. I am choosing to work a bit at a time, in order to maximize positive support from editors who have worked diligently on the article over the past years. Please drop by Ohlone again over the next few months, to repair my copy if nothing else.Middle Fork (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy to help. Out of curiosity I've been looking through most of the DYKs over the last couple of days, and I've found some of them to be in a quite shocking state. Not the Ohlone article, of course, but whenever I come across something I think can be eaily improved I just can't help but meddle. :-) --MalleusFatuorum14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, at least not as an article that's been expanded as Ohlone seems to have been over 50kb in size since at least 2007 and there's been no recent spike in visits to the page I'd expect if it had been on the front page, even as part of another hook. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Then how the hell did I stumble across it? I was certain it was when I was looking through all of the main page DYKs ... perhaps my memory is not what it once was. :-) --MalleusFatuorum00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
About this - it seems as if you are implying that you somehow trusted ArbCom before this time, and that they would need to act to restore your trust. I highly doubt that you ever trusted, confidence in, or had high expectations for ArbCom, or anyone at admin level or above. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Lol. I learned not to put yourself in a position where you have to trust others, and to compensate for those who are probably rigging the system. It makes things easier in the long run when it does actually happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I also believe that robust systems minimise their dependency on trust anyway, and I'm sick to death with this vapid "trust of the community" cant I see so much of. Was it Oscar Wilde who said "I can resist everything but temptation"? Robust systems don't present opportunities for temptation, bugger trust. --MalleusFatuorum21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Or, just make more hurdles. I like the idea of separating blocks and deletions. Having someone go through two different RfA systems with people judging two different sets of attributes would be nice. It would also take more time and slow things down (I like the idea of slowing down processes too, rushing allows things to slip by). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If I ruled the world I'd remove the block button from every one of the administrators, make it a separately assignable right, and make anyone who wanted it go through some kind of formal process to request it. Unfortunately though I don't rule the world, not yet anyway.
Hello, Malleus Fatuorum. I don't want to bother you if you are busy, but if you could have a look at the conversion therapy article and say how you think things are going, it would be much appreciated. I am trying to focus on getting the formatting there right, but I am finding that rather difficult, and any help or comment you could offer would be welcome. Born Gay (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick look through. When I saw that it was a delisted GA I wondered who had delisted it, and why, and when I checked I found that it was me. :-)
Anyway, from my brief look through the article is certainly in better shape than before, but I still don't think it's quite there yet for GA. This statement in the lead, for instance "The organizations respect the client's right to self-determination", seems both out of place and somewhat subjective. I notice as well that in the subsection on Richard von Krafft-Ebing there are a number of quotations almost all of which are uncited; all direct quotations must be cited to their source. Is it really necessary to have 17 citations at the end of the lead's first paragraph? Is this information not cited in the body of the article?
My final comment is to do with the expanded World trends section. I really can't see this working. How many countries are there in the world where this therapy is, has been, or will be employed? Will the info be kept up-to-date on all of them? Where there's something significant to say about the therapy's use in a particular country then I'd expect to see that at the point in the article where its importance is described. Good work so far though. If you've got any specific formatting you're having problems with then I'll do what I can to help you restore the article's GA status. --MalleusFatuorum21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting, and for editing the article; you've corrected a number of things I had overlooked. I'll take a look through the article's sources, and remove the reference to self-determination if I can't find a source for it, or replace it with something more appropriate. I'll also look up Psychopathia Sexualis again and find the page references for the quotations from Krafft-Ebing. Can these all be added to the one reference for this book, or is there a different method that needs to be followed?
I don't think the World Trends section is as problematic as you think. Several countries (Germany, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, France) have played a more important role in the development of conversion therapy than others, and clearly they should receive the most attention. The main thing that might be prolematic in the World Trends section is excessive detail for the other countries. If that situation ever arises, the information might be shifted to more appropriate articles. Keeping it up to date is not a problem in principle, since the sources required should become available when and if there are significant developments.
I only recently found out what formatting was, and while I think I will be able to get the formatting more or less consistent with some effort, I'm not sure that I can do it to the high standard required for a GA. I've already got the formatting basically consistent where books are concerned, but I'm fumbling with the rest of it (eg, citing the web, journals, and news). I just don't have a clear enough idea of what I'm trying to do here. I'm not even sure exactly what is meant by 'accessdate', for example, or whether the format information needs to be included for web pages that don't contain PDFs. I'm worried that getting this sorted out might require collecting information I'm not sure how to get (month of publication for journals and web pages, etc). This has become especially significant, since I'd like to get this part sorted out before dealing with the article's other problems. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you mean the formatting of citations, I understand now. The GA criteria are significantly more relaxed than the FA criteria with respect to citations, but I'd always recommend aiming high even at GA; saves time and effort when you decide to go to FAC. The "accessdate" is simply the date you looked at the web page; the idea is that if the link ever goes dead (and it will) it gives others a clue as to what you were referring to, and how to locate a copy.
My personal preference is to use the {{citation}} template instead of the various {{cite}} variations, that way you only have one template to learn. As well it fits nicely with the {{harvnb}} template for book/journal citations.
Specifically with this article for GA the Krafft-Ebing quotations don't strictly need to be cited to a specific page number, but they do need to be cited to something, a book or a paper for instance. Doesn't matter if they all come from the same source. If you're not sure how to do it then just give me a couple of the page numbers from whatever the source is and I'll put them in as an example you can follow for the rest. --MalleusFatuorum00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(butting in) If you think you might EVER want to go for FA with this article (or any article) I strongly urge putting page numbers in. They are pretty much a requirement at FA, and should be at GA too. There is nothing worse than going BACK and finding page numbers. Much easier to put them in as you write. Ealdgyth - Talk00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Even for books I thought I was pretty familiar with, trying to go back and find page numbers is a nightmare. That's one of the main things I meant by "aiming high". --MalleusFatuorum01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Malleus, I looked up the page references for Psychopathia Sexualis. There are eight direct quotes from Krafft-Ebing in the section on him, and the page references, in order, are 299, 299, 300, 299, 308, 306, 306, and 307. I'll try and find as many page references as I can for the other books used as sources.Born Gay (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, although it may not be apparent, all the information in the Krafft-Ebing section is intended to be sourced, to Psychopathia Sexualis. It's source number 31, immediately following the words "the individual himself." Born Gay (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've added all of those page numbers now to the Krafft-Ebing section; hopefully that's given you the idea of how to do the rest. My strong preference is to separate all of the books and journals into a separate Bibliography section, as I've done with Psychopathis Sexualis, even when the book or paper is referred to only once. --MalleusFatuorum15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Making sure you don't miss it
Kinda fast-moving thread (though it's slowed down some), so I figured I'd do what I could to make sure you saw my apology, given that rudeness wasn't my intent.EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, usually I don't care when people get pissed at things I say except for when I actually am not trying to be rude. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was fooling around with the PR of Battle of Bosworth Field, and some of the grammar struck me as odd.. but it may be britspeak. I dunno. Do you have time or any inclination to have a look at it? Thanks, either way... Ling.Nut (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It reads rather oddly to me too, so it's not a Br English thing. I think it's the unusual and rather clumsy constructions, like "Henry had entered the custody of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, in 1471", or "activities that were identified to be manly", neither of which seem even idiomatic to me; you get taken into custody, for instance, you don't enter it. Some of the choices of word seem, at best, archaic as well, like "desposal" in the lead, and "Although he was raised in Pembroke Castle for fourteen years since his birth ..." doesn't even make sense.
The article content seems good, but there are an awful lot of rough edges in the prose. It might just be good enough for GA I suppose, although if I was the reviewer I wouldn't pass it until at least the worst of the prose issues were fixed. As with so many other articles, it needs some serious tlc from a good copyeditor. --MalleusFatuorum12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked up on deposal, only to find it's a correct 14th century term. The author self-identifies as Singaporean, so the prose might be a confection of Singlish and medieval English... Ning-ning (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked on "desposal" too, as it seemed to stand out like a sore thumb. It's not in the OED, although that does list the verb "despose" as an obsolete and rare variation on depose. --MalleusFatuorum12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look and cleaning up the writing. I am aware my writing, though considered competant in my country, is not up to snuff for professional standards. Any corrections and pointers for improvement are greatly appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope you didn't take any of my comments personally. I couldn't do even a fraction as good a job as you've done in any language other than English. I'm please to see that Graham has agreed to help with a copyedit; you'll be in safe hands with him. --MalleusFatuorum23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well he's not in safe hands with me! Too many arcane discussions over sources, and the upstanding nature of English Heritage; not enough fact checking (e.g. the fate of the Princes in the Tower), reverts my edits with a claim that they're from primary sources (I have medieval scrolls next my keyboard??). Can't work with that editor. Ning-ning (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he's done a lot of copyediting. What Jap needs is an editor who knows a bit about the battle or can get to the written sources (and not just the online stuff and general history books that he's using). Ning-ning (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just realised that Jappalang has got confused between primary and secondary sources. As he's using tertiary sources which he thinks are secondary sources distortions are creeping in. I mentioned I could probably find some proper secondary sources, but now he wants me to go take photos instead (and has instructed me on the correct copyright tags). Ning-ning (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In a way that's also a small part of the problem. I never had any intentions to spend so much of my time copyediting anything, which is a largely thankless task anyway; just moving a few words around as it's been put to me in the past, anyone can do that. Perhaps I'm just at a low point in one of my biorhythms, time will tell. --MalleusFatuorum19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well you'll get no shortage of thanks from me - you reword things I've written in an entirely agreeable way, and have actually taught me quite a few things about grammar I didn't know.
Maybe you should just go out on a mountain bike like I do, risk a few broken bones and a few grammes of skin - it certainly seems to make my life easier :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It's spring. Surely even in England it gets springish, right? (I'm remembering your comment about "weather" on Sandy's page.) Go hike/bike/find a beach. I'll be right here, staring at my mare, chanting "foal, foal, foal" ... Ealdgyth - Talk21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It keeps raining here. I feel almost British. Rain, rain, rain. Muddy paddocks, muddy horses, muddy yard. Blech. Here I was hoping someone was having better weather... Ealdgyth - Talk22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Picture yourself in a boat
That scene from The Natural with the team psychiatrist who lectures the losing Knights about picturing themselves on a boat, gently rocking, rocking, rocking, comes to mind.
Barring any logical factors, let's say I can remain relatively unstressed because of my proximity to beaches that look like this. By that line of thought, this tiny image should shed all kinds of light and joy into your life. I, for one, would miss you and your copy editing and other edits that improve the riffraff. However, I understand the need to get the hell away from that thing that brings you down. I appreciate what you do, but I also appreciate how you feel. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would leave brownies, so that you would have a nice happy stomach while lazing away in the boat, my doctor has forbidden me to eat sugar for now. I have zero willpower, so the sight of brownies would make me head to the nearest donut shop. But I am thinking brownie thoughts at you anyway. Wikibreaks are very, very good, as long as you don't forget how to find your way back :) Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be; I'm not afraid of submitting to a checkuser if that's what you're asking, I've got nothing to hide. My only reservation is that I'm not certain I'd pass Moni's "trusted by the community" criterion. --MalleusFatuorum23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the checkuser criterion did not cross my mind for a moment: in my view a checkuser for you would resemble the massive wastes of time I have to deal with in my day job. I do believe you are trusted by the community: in particular, I believe you are trusted to be critical of Mattisse. I believe she also understands that your criticism is meant with the best intentions. Geometry guy23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked under "mentoring" in the dictionary and couldn't see anything referring to ammunition or pointy metal things. --WebHamster23:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest I'm no mentor, except in the sense of "Watch what I do, and make sure you don't make the same mistakes". Or "I tried that, and it didn't work out well". Bit like you really. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, a community is what? A group of people. I can list at least 15 people that trust you. That is being trusted by a community, no? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I find the deceit that there's a community here to be quite hilarious. The best that could be said, I think, is that there are many communities here who manage—most of the time—to coexist in an uneasy truce. --MalleusFatuorum22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Given your history on this project (especially multiple failed RFA's) I suggest you re-think making comments like this, especially given that you either misread, misunderstood, or ignored the actual discussion. Take the time to aim before hurtling insults at editors in good standing; the only adversarial comments in that whole exchange came from you. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing uncivil I could see is "as well perhaps growing up a bit". The "perhaps" shows that it is not a complete idea and the "growing up" could be a supportive comment that everyone would need, as I doubt all of us are old giants, so there is always room for growth. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Blaxthos, maybe you should heed your own advice before pooping templates and warnings all over the Talk pages of "editors in good standing". --Laser brain(talk)21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Pedro, I demand to see anything useful on this talk page (besides all of my amazing posts on this talk page). :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Those who know me know that "Fuck yes" is a very rare "Strong support" from me at RfAs. I am not uncivil. Swears on their own are not uncivil unless blatantly directed at one person in my opinion and I have never, with profanity or otherwise, attacked another user or been uncivil. Please do not outright accuse me of such. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me tell you frankly Blaxthos that I consider your comments to have been uncivil both here and in the exchange you are referring to. Unlike you though I don't go plastering warnings and templates on the pages of those "editors in good standing" who have no interest in your opinion on what constitutes incivility. --MalleusFatuorum22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking through your talk page is rather revealing Blaxthos. You're apparently a one-man crusade against incivility. How many editors would you estimate you've managed to antagonise with your prissy warnings? Apart from me, of course. --MalleusFatuorum22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The group that frequents this page, I think all will find, are unsympathetic to the Civility Police and their cause. Expletives are not automatically uncivil. So someone saying "FUCK YES!", while it might offend one's delicate sensibilities, it's not uncivil. People really need to learn the difference between incivility and offensive comments. No one here has the right to be unoffended, so suck it up. لennavecia18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm not as "unsympathetic to the Civility Police" as some (but then I don't frequent this page, so..) but there's uncivil and there's bad mouthed - very different. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad mouthed would be the phrase. CIVIL has too many on wiki connotations that have no relevance to real life for me to be bothered with arguing. However I doubt if most people, on being offered a cup of tea by their mother, would reply "fuck yes" and think they held a civil tongue. Pedro : Chat 19:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, I've not fallen out with you again have I? Please, Pedro, be reasonable. I did change my "fuck yes" to "fudge yes" for you if it makes you feel better... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
People can be very quick to get hold of the wrong end of the sticke here on wikipedia, and ferocious in hanging onto it despite all the evidence. Let me make it very clear that it was not me who voted "Fuck yes", and I very much doubt if I have ever voted "Fuck yes", or ever would. --MalleusFatuorum19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries, but this thread will get archived in a few days, and there will be many who will only skim through it looking for the "evidence" they want to find. --MalleusFatuorum19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Fuck yeah!
This user believes that fuck is the most versatile word in the English language.
I've been a great defender of the word "fuck" when it's used appropriately as an intensifier, and I'm not in the least offended by seeing Garden's "Fuck yes" vote. It needs to be used sparingly though, else it loses its impact, and there are certainly occasions when it's best avoided altogether, as Pedro pointed out above. I can fully understand that more delicate flowers may prefer to close their ears to such profanity, but I simply don't give a fuck. --MalleusFatuorum20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there was a book or similar entitled "on the use of the word fuck and the English language" many years ago. And indeed, the thrust was that the versatility and impact of the anglo saxon is slowly degraded with every use. Cunt is apparently the only truly impactful English swear word these days, and yet many forget the origin - I believe Malleus you did some seriously stunning work on one of our island's more aptly named streets in this regard? My take has never been that "fuck" = "UNCIVIL" in wikipedia world but in the real world .... It is really is hardly a word one would use over dinner (unless perhaps dinner was in a whorehouse (acknowledgments to Blackadder) . Maybe our American cousins disagree and yet another cultural difference can be set to rest. M - apologies for using your talk over this and Garden apologies for my poor phrasing. Pedro : Chat 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I do take some pride in Gropecunt Lane, even though I didn't do all that much to it really. I had serious reservations that FAC reviewers—many of whom are American—might be offended by it, as their sensibilities do seem to be a little different from ours. In the end though Parrot of Doom and I decided to plough on regardless. :-) --MalleusFatuorum22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought we'd been fannying about with it for long enough ... wait, I'm beginning to get a feeling of dèja vu. --MalleusFatuorum23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it has to be said that you don't just sit there flapping your lips... unlike some of the, errrr, errrr 'gropes' at RFA.--WebHamster23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You know what hammy? If you ever retire again I'm going to come round to your house and kill you. Slowly. Got that? --MalleusFatuorum23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
← I've just received an email from one of the wiki admins, Hugh Jaynus. He respectfully requests that you all get back to serious work here, and make an effort in future to conform to a more professional demeanour. And if you don't I'll get blocked. --MalleusFatuorum20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
All the more reason for sysops to have more roughage in their diet, otherwise that happens and they get full of shit! --WebHamster21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please request renaming to "Master of all know Universes". Once you do that, please include this with your rationale: "Opposers are hereby given notice that the penalty for opposition to my will is annihilation." I can just assume that the ArbCom case to follow would be absolutely hilarious. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That could work(ish). As I'm sure you know, there are two different kinds of GARs now, community and individual. I think this article does fall short of the GA criteria, and questions were already being asked about whether it really ought to have been listed anyway. Immediate delisting is frowned on though, except in the most obvious cases, and often causes unecessary friction, what I think I'll do is open an individual reassessment myself, with the review incorporating relevant points brought up at the FAC. If the issues aren't addressed in the following few days then I'll delist it. I've watchlisted the FAC, so when that's closed—I'm assuming it'll be withdrawn—I'll open the GAR.
Thanks, Malleus ... I'm just wondering if we can find a more efficient way of dealing with similar when they appear at FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, do you think one of us should draw this discussion to the attention of the GA reviewer, JHawk88? By giving the article such a superficial review he's just set the editor up for a double disappointment. If this were on my Talk page, I'd contact the reviewer without a second thought, but this is your Talk page so I think it's your call. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus: I think your approach the best way to proceed. Changes of GA status need a review, I believe, as GA does aim to provide suggestions on how to improve the article to meet the GA criteria.
It could be useful to establish a clearing house at GAR for unsuccessful FACs and FARs which are or were GAs, so that they can be reevaluated against the GA criteria. Geometry guy21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As an aside I also think that forging this kind of working relationship between FA and GA could only be a good thing. --MalleusFatuorum00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It would be very easy to implement as well. All that is needed is to add any unsuccessful FAC which is also a GA into a maintenance category. (Either the article talk page or the FAC discussion page could be placed in the category - that's a minor detail.) I could then instruct my trusty friend VeblenBot to list this category, as it does with community GARs, and arrange for this information to be automatically added to appropriate locations such as WP:GAR and the GA tasks box. Geometry guy16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Something like that, or similar, could be very useful ... mentioning the CIA article at one of the GA talk pages wasn't successful, and as Karanacs and I come across these cases, we really can't/shouldn't be initiating the GARs. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten all about that. Ah well, the subject deserves its place in the sun; perhaps it'll even have improved a little by this tomorrow. --MalleusFatuorum00:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Paulinus survived mostly unscathed. I got to fix references, when folks add in stuff willy-nilly, as well as getting hit by the great AWB fixers who insist on removing blank lines in the editing (I prefer the blank lines, it makes it easier to see things when in edit mode)... all in the joys of main page day. Now he can go back to slumbering with few page views. Ealdgyth - Talk00:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No hurry. I just returned from the U of I library with 25 more books to digest and about 100 articles in various forms. I'll be busy for a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I imagine your question is triggered by my comments at the ANI thread discussing DougTech's block/ban/unblock. I quite simply view that indef block as a thinly disguised trick to get rid of an unpopular editor, and the demands for contrition rather sicken me. --MalleusFatuorum01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not have any problem with DougsTech in general, and I have a history of opposing his detractors. I support his RFA participation. I think I've been saying something very uncontroversial: that people are blocked to prevent continued disruption, and a commitment to end the disruption is grounds for immediate unblocking. Is that really a position you disagree with? I'm not the people you're upset with. -GTBacchus01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, I'm not in the slightest upset with you, and I'm a little puzzled as to why you apparently believe that I am. I have to say though that your various pronouncements in this topic do not always appear to me to be consistent, but that may be as much down to my misunderstanding as to your lack of consistency.
Well, I'm under the impression you're upset with me because your posts have seemed very critical of what I've been saying. You said that the "kindest interpretation" of my words was that I'm voicing a "desperate scraping of the barrel" for excuses to "silence" an editor. I hear those as criticisms, and unfair ones, I would say. I think I've been quite consistent, and I am very willing to explain my position, in as much detail as necessary. I think we should let DT particpate in RFAs as he wishes, but I think that he should agree to follow WP:NPA, just as any other contributor is expected to. Until he violated it (rather egregiously, IMO), I had nothing at all against him. Is that a "desperate scraping"? -GTBacchus01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't care one bit about "contrition", I will never mention it, and I agree that such is sickening. I agree with you. I think contrition demands are terrible. I would be very happy to see an agreement from DT not to engage in further personal attacks, and that's the only thing I've been suggesting in that ANI thread. If that's a "demand for contrition", then I'm a lungfish. -GTBacchus01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually - I'll stop after this post - I don't think I've ever seen DougsTech voice an opinion with which I've disagreed. Ever. I really don't think I'm an example of someone trying to silence the guy. I'm his cheerleader, until he stoops to making personal attacks. -GTBacchus01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the threading of my replies made it seem that I was suggesting that you were the one demanding contrition, which was not my meaning. It is though, difficult to interpret a comment (not made by you) such as "We generally expect blocked users to understand the reason for their block before we unblock them, so as to make sure that they will not continue with the conduct that caused their block" as anything than a demand for the heretic to recant. --MalleusFatuorum01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just unclear threading. I saw you saying that you, unlike I, don't have a crystal ball, and I saw you referencing my "moral high ground" statement to him, and I saw you characterizing my position as being overly punitive. Maybe I misunderstood, and you were directing those comments to someone else.
When I block a vandal - which I've done many times - it's for one reason: prevention. If such a vandal indicates that they'd like to contribute without vandalizing, then I unblock them. Does that mean I'm conditioning their unblock on "recanting"? I don't know, maybe so. What's a better way? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to deal with your points one at a time if you've got any concerns. For instance, my "crystal ball" comment was prompted by this: "if he won't agree not to engage in future personal attacks, I don't think we should unblock him. It's not about Ruylong now, it's about the next person he decides to kick while down, and then the next one, and then the next one." Have demands been made that you don't engage in any future "personal attacks"? You also said: "That's different from saying he'll refrain from doing it to the next admin who's de-sysopped." Why would you apparently assume that "personal attacks" on desysopped admins are any worse than "personal attacks" on regular editors? --MalleusFatuorum01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't assume that attacks on desysopped admins are worse than attacks on others. Not at all; not remotely. I'm not sure how you get that out of what I said. It might be better to ask what I mean that to assume I mean anything as ugly as that. I repudiate it so utterly. If I ever think that, shoot me.
I mention desysopped admins in particular, because DT has made it very clear that he is engaged in an attempt to get "bad admins" desysopped. That tells me that he's got a bee in his bonnet about "bad admins" (which is also what his RFA opposes are about), and he has given us an example of how he reacts when one is de-sysopped. I think his reaction was terrible, and likely to undermine anything good about what he's doing. I told him so.
If I have engaged in personal attacks previously, and if someone asks me about it, I will be quite willing to apologize, and to assure them that I do try to participate in this site in a way that is respectful of everyone involved. If someone needs assurances that I won't be attacking people - no problem. As an admin, I consider myself a servant of Misplaced Pages, and I am absolutely willing to provide assurances regarding my intentions. Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. There is in my mind, and I'd like to think also in yours, a vast difference between blocking an established user and a straightforward block of a vandal. For instance, if you block an IP for 24 hours for repeated vandalism, he's back in a few days. Not quite the same punishments handed out to regular editors though, who do not have the protection afforded by the administrator's cloak of invulnerability. --MalleusFatuorum02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do see vandalism only accounts, and IP vandals, as very different from established users. In this case however, I see an established user who has explicitly declared his intent to get admins de-sysopped, and I see that as different from most other cases. I'm willing to support his aim, unless he's going to make it personal, and to be obnoxiously rude to those he considers "bad admins". At that point, I'd like to know that he's not going to do that anymore, because it's terrible. "Once bitten, twice shy", as the saying goes. -GTBacchus03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"I see an established user who has explicitly declared his intent to get admins de-sysopped ..." I'm fully prepared to believe that your heart's in the right place, but you're really not expressing yourself either clearly or consistently. DougsTech's aim isn't to have every admin desysopped is it? I thought it was only the bad ones; who could have a problem with that, except the bad admins? --MalleusFatuorum03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Um... "get admins de-sysopped" ≠ "get all admins desysopped". I did not say, nor did I imply, "every" admin. I would never say such a thing, because it's absurd. I guess I assumed nobody would go with the absurd interpretation, when there's a sane one sitting right there. Namely: that he declared his intention to get admins desysopped.
If I'm feeling celebratory, and decide to go out to a bar, and say to myself, "I want to get people drunk," because I want to buy my friends drinks, and make them drunk... does that mean, "I want to get people drunk"? Hell, no. If I want to "get things done", does that mean I want to get all things done? Hell, no. Nobody talks that way. -GTBacchus06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I don't "have a problem" with him wanting to get bad admins de-sysopped. I support that, whole-heartedly. However, it is relevant for me to mention it when you ask why I specify personal attacks against de-sysopped admins in particular. Those are the ones against whom he has a (VERY ADMIRABLE) grudge, and that's the category of person against whom we saw him make a (VERY UNADMIRABLE) personal attack. Therefore, it is relevant to note that de-sysopped admins seem to be the target of his incivility. It is also reasonable to expect him to do it again, since it's the mission he's on.
That you would leap to the conclusion (a) that I think he wants "all" admins de-sysopped, (b) that I think de-sysopped admins deserve special protection, (c) that I have a problem with his opposition to bad admins... absurd. None of these conclusions is justified by anything I typed, except by the most tortured and ridiculous of interpretations. If I were to mean any of those stupid, stupid things, I would say them. I did not.
Your skill at reading between the lines - even at simple reading comprehension - is abysmal, and yes, I have taught English composition for a living, and yes. I have been paid for my copywriting, and yes, I have worked as a text editor for the BBC, with no complaints, in any of those contexts. You have been bringing some serious preconceptions to your reading of my words, and those incorrect preconceptions are impairing your ability to understand English. Think about that.... and before you reply to me, read again, and check whether I actually said anything you think I meant. So far, everything you've thought I meant, I didn't say. At all. Think about that. -GTBacchus06:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bacchus, please stop with your confused rambling. If you think that I'm likely to be even the slightest impressed or intimidated by your claims to a competence that you clearly do not possess then you are delusional. --MalleusFatuorum15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm disengaging now. I'm going to communicate with people who understand things I say. I can find them quite easily. -GTBacchus17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually like and support his project of taking out bad admins. I think it's great. I love seeing bad admins desysopped... but I won't gloat about it, and I will disagree strongly w/ anyone who does. That's really all I've been saying, and I'm a bit puzzled that you keep suggesting that I'm saying these ridiculous and outrageous things. Special protection for bad admins? Do you know who I am? I've helped take out several. -GTBacchus03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how anything above indicates that. In my experience, many people have given me feedback that my written communication is clear and satisfactory. It is clear that this is not the case for you, and I'm sorry for all the misunderstandings.
I can't say that I've ever experienced quite this, where someone believes that I'm saying nearly the opposite of what I'm actually saying, over and over and over again. I have no idea what you'll think I'm saying now, so I should probably shut up. I'll try to remember in the future that you and I don't share a language, and I'll be very careful if I say anything around you. I apologize again, for what you might imagine I just said. -GTBacchus06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Calm down. I favour making admins more accountable and easier to remove, but DougTech's actions on Ryulong's (? sp) Talk page were tactically dumb beyond belief. I've commented at WP:ANI on the bad smell this case is likely to produce. --Philcha (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it would be good to have established editors who seek to get admin desysopped. Thankfully, we have community approval of such people, which includes ArbCom. They happened to do exactly what their job is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine - formatting
Unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The triple apostrophes that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings. The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows:
* the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title;
* primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.
There's nothing in the MOS that I could see that supports the use of semicolons to produce headings. Would you mind explaining your reasoning, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Using the section markers causes Notes and Bibliography to be added to the table of contents, which is just noise. This article and many others uses the style of References that you are objecting to, and which it had when it was promoted to FA without any objections being raised there. The MoS's pronouncements on section headers are not relevant in this specific case. --MalleusFatuorum12:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi- I've got an original of the 1842 Manchester Ordnance Survey one inch map- would scans of any particular area be of any use? Ning-ning (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the area on the border between Stretford and Sale, around where the the A56 crosses the Mersey. Does it cover Salford as well? If so a scan of Chat Moss would be good. --MalleusFatuorum15:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Covers quite a wide area. including Salford and Chat Moss. Can't see the A56 on it though :) Ah yes, Watling Street- Sale's a small hamlet. Should have the scans done by Monday. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The Sale map is here ] and a closer look at the Watling Street crossing is here ] . Date on the margin is 2nd June 1843. The whole map is made up of four "quarter sheets" mounted together, with the margins trimmed, covering the area NE corner Shaw Hey Moss, SE corner Combs Moss, SW corner Little Leigh, NW corner Roscoe Low. Top left sheet is No. 88 SW (Huddersfield)- I've checked the edition of this, and it's either state 1 or state 2 with a date of 1843, which means that probably the other three maps are first or second states. I can't confirm this until I work out what the map numbers are, but the date of printing is most likely 1843 or 1844 (the 1842 date is on one of the other sheets). More tomorrow! Ning-ning (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Manchester ] LHS and RHS are two different maps, and the join doesn't match exactly. Ning-ning (talk)
How much is there to scan? The links above look pretty interesting. Do any of them, particularly those south of the city, indicate the presence of turnpike roads, or toll gates? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Physical size of the map is about 2 foot 6 by 2 foot. Toll gates are shown by "TG" , the letters being a milllimetre in height. Roads don't appear to be named, except where they have Roman names. but the major roads and some of the smaller roads are distinguished by heavier shading on one side- I've got a vague memory that that's how the turnpikes were shown. The J. B. Harley series of books on the Old Series contains a comprehensive key which would give the answer. Ning-ning (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Me and all...
Just been checking some bits I missed, not being an avid reader of the drama boards other than the woeful ongoing muddle that is RFA. I missed your recent go, and I'm sorry I did. It wouldn't have made a difference but I'd like to have added my support - and if you want to know what I'd have put, I'd be happy to supply both versions...
I've come across your stuff in enough places enough times to impress; as for that Opps lot, t'would be best left unsaid here. Now having seen such a downhearted message here, I wanted to say something. I'm not on IRC (never will) nor WR (I'm considering it now, given my feelings about the way things are/are going. What do you think re?).
Anyway. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Plutonium. It's over 18 months since my last (and I do mean last) RfA though, but the experience still rankles. Especially when some poncey pre-pubescent herbert who's not fit to clean my boots comes round here shrilly whining about "incivility"; some days all I can see is the breathtaking hypocrisy and dishonesty that's become systematic here.
So far as WR is concerned, take a look for yourself; you don't have to register to read what's happening. Even though I don't agree with everything, or perhaps even much, that's said there, I think it acts as an entirely healthy counterpoint to this site. Criticism here is suppressed in the name of the false god of "minimising disruption". --MalleusFatuorum18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
...for lurking at the Allocator GAN. I hoped you were still around, and it's reassuring to see that you were and would (I'm sure!) have chipped in if there was anything getting past me. As I mentioned before, these articles aren't really my area, and though it does me good to get out of my comfort-zone once in a while, it's still nice to know that you concur with the GA pass. All the best, EyeSerene17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'm an incorrigible meddler anyway. :-) I did have serious doubts about the article initially, particularly about the accessibility of the lead and the modified reference code example, but I'd say that the improvements made since then have been verging on the spectacular, and it now well deserves its listing. It's good for us all to stretch ourselves by leaving our comfort zone every now and again, and I think articles often benefit too, from a fresh eye. Heck, I never expected to become one of the UK's leading authorities on medieval English bishops, for instance. :lol; --MalleusFatuorum17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, find a niche and scratch it :D Congratulations on the front page today btw (I'm assuming it's one of yours) EyeSerene18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had it watchlisted too, but my trigger finger must be slowing. Not a single revert all day :( Incidentally, I've greatly enjoyed browsing your talk-page, and you might be interested in a supplier of lab equipment we used at uni (it afforded much simple amusement to a bunch of bored students) EyeSerene18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
← I just saw that you blocked an editor after (s)he'd vandalised the SSEM article EyeSerene—I didn't realise that you were an administrator! Coming from me that's high praise indeed. Don't worry, I won't be holding it against you. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, thanks - that's actually one of the most encouraging things that's been said to me about my use of the tools :) Glad I was finally able to make a miniscule contribution to SSEM's upkeep too. EyeSerene09:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the subject deserved it, and the exposure has even improved it slightly. At least now the Yanks know that they didn't invent the computer. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
that other place is so great and able to be a source of criticism, how come the cowards there have ignored the fact that DougsTech had a one week block moved to indefinite with a community "consensus" lasting less than a day or any time to really get feedback from the community and yet the guy he was disputing with can say "eat shit and die" in two edit summaries and get off without a problem? I guess it doesn't serve any of their agendas, as standing up for the little guy and fighting is something few actually care to do anymore. I honestly believe that if I would go to Jimbo I would get something more appropriately done. That is why I can never trust that other place. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not, if they stay silent on things like this. Look at the hypocrisy towards FT and plagiarism and yet no notice on WR about the recent RfA dealing with it. Also look at the real members of the community that care about such things make an appearance and seek to have it corrected properly without the drama. Obviously, the "necessary" system is broken, and there are just people like me running around here trying to do what is right without support, obnoxious threads, and such attention. I guess people are too busy trying to figure out how to bash Coren over a porn site instead of looking at problems that affect the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pulled ripcord...
Hey, Malleus. I'm not sending out a bunch of thankspam, but I did want to thank you in particular for your comments at my Rfa. I very much appreciated you "parachuting in" to respond to other commentary. Your opinion is definitely highly respected -- by myself and others. I mean, honestly -- may your parafoil always deploy. Cheers. — CactusWriter |06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this comment. If you could point out when I have ever acted in a manner that was not civil I would gladly address this manner. Once you point out an example that is. Chillum16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done --Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)