::::::Fair enough. Obviously I'll never agree with the policy currently being enforced, but equally obviously I'm not in a position to change it. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. Obviously I'll never agree with the policy currently being enforced, but equally obviously I'm not in a position to change it. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, wow. This whole day was great. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] | [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:58, 3 May 2010
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
I took everything I had back to the library, but it was really more about the plot than Fawkes anyway. I can see nothing but a battle over this article; this V for Vendetta rubbish has already got me warned by an all-powerful administrator for trolling, disruption, tendentious editing, and God knows what else besides, so I think I'll leave it. MalleusFatuorum19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pyrotec. Fairies are much better for your mental well-being than computer programming languages. Of course I'll be happy to take a look at Scheme and let you know what I think. MalleusFatuorum20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now a GA. Interestingly I've seen those photos before. I went to a series of lectures on Psychical research at Paisley in the late 1980s (or possibly 1990) given by Prof. Archie Roy. Unfortunately, its not mentioned in his 1990 book: A sense of Something Strange. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many say that the fairies are the most famous photographic hoax of the 20th century, so I thought they deserved at least a half-decent article. Thanks very much for your review. MalleusFatuorum21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scheme is indeed something to degrade the brain cells, but perhaps worthy of a good article in the end. I just dropped by here to say I'm glad to see MF editing again also, but I was a fond Scheme hacker many years ago... –SJ+22:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Again
Hi Malleus, I was working on the oodles of taxonomic concerns on the review page and I came up with some new information. I have been working here and I was wondering if you could quickly go through some of the wording before I throw it in the article (don't mind the big red letters concerning the ref tags, I am beyond caring about that kind of thing). This would be massively helpful to our efforts. Thanks so much.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a bit of a marathon for you and your fellow students; I'm full of admiration for your perseverance. I've had a bit of a hack at your text, but if I've wrecked the meaning of what you were trying to say then just revert it. MalleusFatuorum23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bank Hall. Currently at GAN, and will probably be quick-failed as it stands due to glaring problems—which would be a shame, as behind the uncited statements and header-for-every-section there's actually a very good article. I've never heard of the place so can't do much, but you (and/or the other Mancs watching this page*) might be able to do something for it. – iridescent22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] *Yes, I know Chorley isn't technically in Manchester, but it's near enough.
Someone's obviously put a lot of time and effort into that, but it's equally obviously not going to get through GAN. I've never heard of Bank Hall either, but hopefully someone will be able to help. MalleusFatuorum23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit request
Hi Malleus, I hope you don't mind this request but, if you have the time, would you mind looking over and copyediting No Line on the Horizon? I'm looking to nominate it soon at FAC, but it's failed twice before. You provided such fantastic feedback on "City of Blinding Lights" when it was at FAC, and your assistance really made the biggest difference in the article's promotion. I just honestly can't see anything that could be improved since I've looked over, read, and edited it so many times before, and my eyes are very stale when it comes to the article. If you have time, could you help me out with a copyedit before I try a third nomination? Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm struggling to find the motivation to do anything on wikipedia, much less copyediting. I'd pretty much decided to jack it in, and when the bog turtle gets through its FAC, hopefully soon, I may still do that. Who knows. All I know is that my enthusiasm for this place is running on empty. MalleusFatuorum00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I hope that your motivation and enthusiasm returns soon (you are one of the premier editors on here, and the most refreshingly honest one that I have ever encountered), and I suppose that the article will still be there should that be the case. I hope your FAC goes through well. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm
Is this an appropriate response? I would have thought that blocking someone for sockpuppetry, one would at least know who the person being blocked was a sockpuppet for. Parrotof Doom07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think blocking the account was the right thing as its only edits were trolling. While I agree that it's probably someone's sock, I think filing a request at WP:SPI would be interesting. Nev1 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been less contentious, but the account does have the marks of a sock account. Proof would be preferable though, so I think I may file that SPI. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you do, Nev. I'm all for a bit of common sense sometimes but I'm surprised that a hunch-block can be explained away with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders. Parrotof Doom22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you're free is good for me; I'll be busy (again) this weekend so I won't be on too much, but I will try to get to any more concerns. Thanks for your review! ceranthor20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other concerns should be addressed. "Enigmatic arc" indicates that the volcano is part of the strange arc which is separated from the other Cascades and appears to be different from all the primary volcanic ranges in the area (the Cascades and Basin and Range). Best, ceranthor22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and I don't know why. I'm a friend of Fred's (it was criminal how he was treated), and absolutely not a fan of Peter's. Keep fighting, if for nothing else than to piss him off, and thanks! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"
"Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities"? Looks like logic wasn't one of Hammerstein's strong points. Ning-ning (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you leave John alone and act a little more civil in the future? All I have seen from you on his page are smart-ass remarks made at him personally. Do us all a favor, and get over whatever childish grudge you have towards him. –Turian(talk)16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you go looking for someone else to patronise and irritate the Hell out of? John is the archetype of the rude administrator complaining about the incivility of other editors while being conspicuously blind to his own. That's not a "childish grudge", it's a sign of the sickness at the heart of the admin corps. MalleusFatuorum16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but admonishing me to justify your actions will get you nowhere. Interestingly enough, if you had an actual argument, I am sure you would have done something more than just be a pest yourself. Get over it, get over him, and ignore it. Your current behavior is atrocious. –Turian(talk)16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have an opinion, and I have an opinion of your opinion that does not mesh with your own. Get over yourself and go play somewhere else. MalleusFatuorum16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turian, are you fucking kidding me? You're going to be all high and mighty, threatening to "visit ANI", while chastising the user about... being civil? Get the fuck over yourself. (anyone else, check the undid edits for what I'm referring to) Tan | 3917:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Turian has finished commenting at Tan's talk page as well as yours, so I hope that this whole debacle settles down. Why'd this start in the first place? ceranthor21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting enough, but certainly not worthy of such a conflict that it needs to involve exchanges of explicit words and rueful bickering ;). It certainly isn't helping that you guys are arguing over such a petty thing. ceranthor22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't give a flying fuck what the discussion was about. I didn't need to. All I saw was your uncivil behavior towards him, and I see your continued insults here. Old habits die hard, eh? And ceranthor, I know you just became a sysop, but insulting other members over and over is not a petty thing. –Turian(talk)22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you jumped feet first into a discussion you had no idea about. Do you really think with the benefit of hindsight that was a good idea? Your hero John insults other editors on a regular basis, why not call him on it? MalleusFatuorum22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Ceranthor, Turian might start flinging around threats of having your sysop bit removed, too. What a joke. Tan | 3922:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stop calling him my hero. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't in a mob.
2. This is a discussion about your behavior, not about Johansson nor John.
3. I have seen your insulting behavior for a while now, and I got a little tired of it.
4. I said I was going to bring the attention of one sysop's rights. Your piss poor of an argument is starting to get annoying. –Turian(talk)22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turian, fuck off my talk page. You are boring, ignorant, abusive, and a generally obnoxious presence. Now go take that to ANI and see if I give a fuck. MalleusFatuorum22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave Turian a warning and advised him to not post here, prior to Malleus' last above.
I would like to encourage everyone else here to try not to escalate to hostility so quickly and come find an uninvolved administrator to try and calm things down when someone's provocative and in your face.
As Turian removed the warning, then posted here with further attacks after being told by Malleus explicitly not to post here, I have blocked him for 48 hrs for disruption, personal attacks, and harassment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I'm sorry to see Turian blocked for 48 hours over a minor spat. The way to deal with editors like Turian is to deal with them, not to block them. Wikipedia needs to become a little more robust, and a lot less precious about "civility". MalleusFatuorum22:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not his first block; nor his first recent block, unfortunately. He's been talked to about it, warned, blocked, talked to, warned, blocked.
I appreciate that you disagree with the policy as we're enforcing it, and regret that an example of that popped up on your talk page given your objections to the policy, but this really went from non-constructive to actively destructive and disruptive very rapidly and he's indicating he'd have kept escalating had I not done that.
Fair enough. Obviously I'll never agree with the policy currently being enforced, but equally obviously I'm not in a position to change it. MalleusFatuorum22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
