Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:10, 15 October 2012 view sourceSphilbrick (talk | contribs)Administrators178,894 edits →Incivil remarks: I fully understand← Previous edit Revision as of 16:11, 15 October 2012 view source John (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,640 edits →Incivil remarks: ctNext edit →
Line 379: Line 379:
:*:Wish all you like, ain't gonna happen. If "the community" behaved itself then I would have no reason to tell ignorant and rude transgressors to fuck off from where they're unwelcome. Let's try to remember what sparked this incident shall we, and maybe wonder why Nobody Ent sat idly by while another editor was being serially abused for upholding Misplaced Pages's copyright policy? ] ] 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) :*:Wish all you like, ain't gonna happen. If "the community" behaved itself then I would have no reason to tell ignorant and rude transgressors to fuck off from where they're unwelcome. Let's try to remember what sparked this incident shall we, and maybe wonder why Nobody Ent sat idly by while another editor was being serially abused for upholding Misplaced Pages's copyright policy? ] ] 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::: I fully understand, that's why I tried to emphasize that it wasn't a request. I do see what sparked this, and agree it could have been handled much better. Frankly, your response was remarkably measured given the baiting. ::: I fully understand, that's why I tried to emphasize that it wasn't a request. I do see what sparked this, and agree it could have been handled much better. Frankly, your response was remarkably measured given the baiting.
::*Happy to clarify your first bullet point SPhilbrick. Criticising others' behaviour is always a risky area to get into, and it works best (by which I mean it is more likely to effect a change in the person's behaviour) where there is mutual respect. I do not claim to speak for Malleus but I imagine he may share my mild contempt for sanctimonious pen-pushers like Nobody Ent who regularly lecture others, hang out at the noticeboards, but never apparently contribute anything of value towards the work we are doing here. I recognise we all have our different strengths and areas of expertise but there is a point at which you have to wonder why someone with no wish to write wants to spend their time working on an online encyclopaedia. You certainly have to wonder what he thought it would achieve writing his ungrammatical little "warning" here of all places. --] (]) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:11, 15 October 2012

"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement
Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Molon labe!

Woodstock Library

Thanks for the feedback on the Woodstock Library article. Happy to address your concerns ASAP. Would you mind perhaps striking or capping resolved concerns so it is easier to differentiate between resolved and unresolved problems? Your time and assistance is much appreciated--I look forward to having an improved article to showcase to MCL staff. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, THANK YOU for your many improvements to the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to offer it as a model then it ought to be a good model. Have you considered reducing the clutter in the text by converting to list defined references? Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am thrilled with the current state of the article and think it makes a great model. Thanks so much for your help, seriously. I always appreciate thorough reviews. Actually, embarrassingly, I am not sure what you mean by list defined references, or if I do I don't recognize it by name. Could you offer an example? I want article to offer best practices, but at the same time provide the best learning opportunities (AKA don't make it too hard on the newbies!)... --Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll convert it and you can see for yourself. If you don't like it for whatever reason you can always revert me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from potentially tidying up the citations I'm going to leave the rest of the review to your official GA reviewer; I'm just an interloper. I'd be interested to know how your presentation to the library goes next week though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I will be needing another GA reviewer. That sure didn't go as planned... Please let me know if any of your concerns related to the article still need to be addressed. Thanks so your assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reviewer was a malevolent idiot, no shortage of them here. Renominate the article at GAN and I'll pass it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure you have the authority to pass the article given your contributions to the article. According to GAN, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." That being said, I cannot make that call and I would at least appreciate your comments on the new review (either to offer support or to address any concerns you may still have). Thanks again. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course I have the "authority", but all's well that ends well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"I am just going outside and may be some time"

Nothing to do with the ArbCom nonsense, or any other of the surrounding crap, just real life commitments. "I'll be back". Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Commitments" makes it sound like the rest of life is just a big pain. I hope you're just going AFW to spend time doing something more satisfying, rather than fighting parking tickets or something :-)! --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
My best wishes to you and yours pal. Parrot of Doom 23:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Whatever those commitments may be, I hope they aren't that dramatic. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
They are, and nothing to do with parking tickets. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I wish you all the best. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Same here. Nortonius (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, ditto. Given the AC case, I'm sure this will be taken as being "one of your groupies (C) Trusilver" but since I don't give a shit about them, hope to see you back and on form soon. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wrapping up the GA review on John V.A. MacMurray. If only all reviews were so expeditious! Enjoy your time outside. It's better out there anyway. Homunculus (duihua) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes PumpkinSky talk 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Love and hugs to you and yours. And various kinds of good vibes which, although it's possible they may do no good, can do no harm. I like to think they can do good. That offer I made earlier still stands, btw. Pesky (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I stayed inside and am none the better for it. I did finish the Greene novel, whose title I cited incorrectly above, and enjoyed it immensely though I would have liked a happier ending--"happy" in the conventional sense I suppose. I hate seeing drunk zealots and wife-abusers getting away with it. I read about a dozen chapters of The Coral Island and it's quite enjoyable; it takes me back a few decades. It'll be Sippi's once she's done with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Black Beauty. Ha, she's been taking quizzes illegally again--she wasn't supposed to take a vocabulary quiz on some book. At least they bumped her up a reading level: now she's on a green dot with a stripe through it or something like that, only a grade or two below what she actually reads comfortably. All the best, and please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disappoint, particularly the trolling and cowardly 109.155.133.204, who I note has only made that one posting on Misplaced Pages and has been neither warned nor blocked. So much for the farcical notion of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, didn't see that until just now. They were, in the meantime, welcomed heartily. But I can hardly start blocking for civility now--I have a cowardly reputation to uphold in that regard. The Coral Island finally picked up some pace, and just when it does, Bloody Bill dies! Bloody hell! (No reviewer has picked it up yet? We don't hand out rubber stamps anymore?) Drmies (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • "Welcomed heartily"? You can't possibly be talking about my post, calling them "anonymous coward" and asking what their main account is? And yet that's the only post on the page. I'm mystified. It wasn't obvious that the word "Welcome" was blood-dripping sarcasm? All right, in that case I give up, I won't try again. (As for blocking, I don't suppose there's much point. I'm presuming they've already flitted to another IP.) Bishonen | talk 11:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC).
        • Yes, welcomed heartily--that's exactly what I mean. ;) And I agree with the blocking in that respect also: those one-hit drive-bys can't be dealt with other than by requiring registration. MF, I finished the book. I'd love to see that schooner of theirs. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • It's of its time. I was blissfully unaware of the imperialistic overtones, just enjoyed the adventure. Shamefully though the book that made the deepest impression on me as a young teenager was The Mystery at Witchend, one of Malcolm Saville's Lone Pine series. It was just a run-of-the mill wartime adventure story about a brother and sister who were evacuated to a country village where they became friends with an older girl, Petra, and succeeded in exposing a local German spy ring. It may just have been my hormones, but I fell in love with Petra and I moped for days in the certain knowledge I had no chance of ever meeting a character in a novel. Quite possibly if I read the book again today I'd think it was crap, but even today I still think fondly of it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA?

Hey, it seems you have potential. Also, Beeblebrox is much better than me and I only just bested Bbb23. This is a fun tool to run, though it'd be more fun if it added expletives. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*LOL* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
If insults are needed, check out this: User:Darwinbish/insultspout
Hey, me too! 966 .... Tools don't take account of desires, though. Pesky (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
How fast can somebody earn a score of 666? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use this for closing AFD and other discussions, to properly weight the value of the arguments. And I bested you all scoring over 1200 without the benefit of any "user rights" points, which alone is enough to cast doubt as to the utility of the tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
1339 for me. Sandy's score ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to wish you good luck and say that I will see you after your block. I'm not a fan of April Fool's jokes around here, and in no way do I condone such activity, but I have to admit it would be interesting (sociologically speaking) to see what would happen if he put himself up on any regular day of the week. My gut says it would a very bipolar event, but ending in a sickening love fest, so I'm not inclined to take action to find out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I think my block count of -330 has at least temporarily made the prospect of RfA #3 even less likely than it was before. I'd resolved to wait until our Sun became a red giant, but now it looks like I'll have to wait until the heat death of the universe. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Count of Porto Alegre

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre was promoted. I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your aid. Certainly, if it weren't for you the article wouldn't look as good as it does now. Thank you very much, Malleus. --Lecen (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done. As I said at the review, it's a very nice article that I would have supported if others had not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Bravo, gentlemen! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Another living and breathing example of the fact that I don't bear grudges, and obviously neither does Lecen; if only there were more like us here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Soon you shall be saying kinds words about the Brazilian legal profession! :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely. I don't even have kind words to say about the English legal profession. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Cough... Well, fair enough, one might think. If you need us, though, we'll be there for you. Like the NHS, only more expensive. Bencherlite 19:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The law is a system developed to make lawyers richer and their clients poorer, but I admit there are times when even I have no option but to resort to a lawyer. Apart from the common or garden conveyancing though it's never been worthwhile, and usually an expensive waste of time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I ought to add that like Jonathan Swift my antipathy isn't towards individual lawyers but to the profession of lawyer. Heck, my sister-in-law got her LL.B. years ago, and one of my nephews is currently studying law at university. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of your best friends are lawyers, Malleus! (snort) Montanabw 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Family, not friends. But if I had to pick one trade/profession I despise above all others it would be investment wanking: wide boy city traders gambling with other people's money. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Heeheeheeheeeee, do you KNOW how many lawyers are posting on your talk page? But now that you mention "investment wanking" I'm with you there 100% and thank you for an excellent new term! Montanabw 23:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No I don't. And neither do I know how many administrators, bureaucrats, or other power users post here, and neither do I care. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Are you going to comment on the 5 day extension proposal for nominating DYKs to avoid a nominating rush?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No, because basically I couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Then bugger off from editing the article and kicking up a stink about DYKs and plagiarism then. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I shall continue to do as I please, whether or not that meets with your approval. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You seemed to care enough to complain about it on the talk page and extensively pick holes in the article which would have been avoidable if the duration to write it had been longer and it had been fully copyedited. The fact you imply you don't care less tells me that you like having things to moan about and belittling the work of others. Then when somebody raises a concern about one of your articles you start looking for the sympathy vote here complaining about how much work you put into the article and how dare anybody complain about it. You're one of the most hypocritical editors on here Malleus, always moaning, and then one somebody tries to solve what you clearly think is a problem you say you couldn't careless. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep it up Blofeld, show everyone what an arsehole you are. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The facts of the matter are very clear, even though you choose to ignore them. In the discussion about including GAs on the main page LauraHale made the rather bold claim that DYKs were more rigorously reviewed than GAs. I challenged that assertion by looking yesterday at the current crop of main page DYKs with a view to demonstrating why they fell short of the GA criteria. The mosque was an egregiously poor example, which out of the kindness of my heart I helped to fix up a bit, for no thanks whatsoever. I have absolutely no interest in DYK, which I think is a joke; my only intention was to refute the ridiculous assertion made by LauraHale, as I do very much care about GA. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
"Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time."
And this subsection started so beautifully....
"We both know there is good and bad in everyone...."
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Its because you know I'm right. Every week or two you intentionally get involved in a "conflict" which results in you being warned and you either get blocked or warned which sparks off a new spate of moaning and conversation about how terrible you are treated. You then threaten to leave[REDACTED] or imply you are "going outside" to get your "friends" here to massage your ego and tell you "You're wonderful Malleus. It would be so awful for you to leave us Malleus, you are our best editor." I've seen you repeat this process dozens of times on here, you insult somebody, get blocked and so the drama ensures, Malleus at the centre of the attention. Jimbo, the foundation, everybody knows what you're like Malleus and its only for the fact you've put in some great work on here that you haven't been banned from the website and are tolerated. I may be an asshole but at least I'm honest asshole and am one of the few people who has the balls to say what everybody else thinks. No doubts people will jump tp your defence here but I'm sick of your attitude Malleus. If you make a point of complaining about the state of an article you could at least show an interest in trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be best if you didn't post here again Blofeld, as you're simply making a fool of yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. Your attitude seriously needs to improve Malleus. I had barely touched the Hassan article and agreed 100% with your concerns. It was caused purely by a nomination rush and I propose to extend the DYK nomination period to allow editors to try to produce better quality articles and you say you couldn't care less. If you couldn't care less about DYK stop complaining about how dreadful it is and accusing editors of plagiarism and focus on GA then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Blofeld, go blow somewhere else. I'm simply not interested in your brain farts. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It's bad enough that the actor who played the angel in The Green Mile died. Don't you remember the angel's pathos and suffering at how people are mean to each other?
What's going on today? It's like the RfA nonsense has infected the central nervous systems of a lot of normally sane editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Your edits as always are appreciated Malleus, and you know I respect you as an editor and at times as a person for what you sometimes stand for. But at times I find you and your negative attitude impossible. I simply don't know how you can make that many edits to an article and take the time to complain about it yet seem unwilling to do anything to prevent it from happening again. You are frequently complaining about the quality of DYK. Maybe you are convinced anything to do with DYK is a joke I don't know and that was your justification for your response but your response given the time you have spent on the article seems a little hypocritical.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and I will not discuss this further with you until you drop all these unwarranted personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you of all people just brand the WP:NPA/civil card? Goodness me, that must surely raise a few giggles. Well, that settles it then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what it is you think gives you the right to come here and make all of these insulting and nonsensical allegations, but whatever it is I suggest that you stop drinking it at once. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"MilHist steamroller"

Hi Malleus, keeping in mind your comments at the FAC for Oerip Soemohardjo, would you mind looking at Sudirman before I go to FAC? Hopefully the prose issues aren't too terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard#RfA 2

Hi Malleus. I mentioned you at User talk:Cunard#RfA 2 regarding two edits I made to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Σ and its talk page. Those two edits have been contested on my talk page, and I would be grateful to hear your thoughts about the matter. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but my thoughts on the matter are exactly as you describe them. I think the ArbCom restriction is an absolute disgrace, clearly intended to stifle the expression of unpopular opinions, which is what's happening to you now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Your ArbCom restriction was crafted because you offended too many editors in your RfA opposes. If any discussion between you and another RfA participant is moved to the talk page, I recommend that other editors move it back, as I did in this case. Preventing you from having honest discussions is deplorable. I'll have to be wary about the same happening to myself because it's clear that someone must be punished for their friend's failed RfA. Cunard (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed very clear. Keepscases has already paid the price and now obviously the "baying mob" are looking for another victim, you. Kudpung is determined by hook or by crook to eliminate all oppose votes at RfA, to make it a friendlier place, that's the bottom line. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Keepscases should never have been blocked, and Drmies has rectified that injustice. Several of the supporters engaged in similar conduct, but of course they are above reproach because they did not oppose the candidate. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned you on Jimbo's page in a discussion related to this RfA. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind". You people just don't get it, do you. If you're not respectful to me then you have no right to expect me to be respectful to you, and sure as Hell I won't be. If you want me to be nice to you, then start by playing nice yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Dress

I fixed the two issues you brought up here, even though the first was referenced with three different sources. Till 03:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Malleus

Thanks for contributing to Gibraltar F.C., we're doing a project in Gibraltar at the moment to help improve the articles, here

Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a very welcoming place to be. DYK I mean, not Gibraltar. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Koutoubia Mosque

You are most welcome to copyedit Koutoubia Mosque before it hits the front page..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How very generous of you. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK promotion has been reverted

Malleus, as the DYK consensus on the Gibraltar hooks was to promote no more than one per day, I had to revert your promotion of Rosia Bay to Prep 3 since Gibraltar F.C. was already in Prep 2. I'm about to do so again, although you haven't been doing it correctly. Please do not continue; if you wish to discuss this, I've already opened a subtopic in the Gibraltar section. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And how do I do it correctly? Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Promoted Rosia Bay, Gibraltar

Please go look at the DYK section on these promotions. Down at the bottom, I think there's some confusion. Please.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is some confusion. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello MF. Regarding your reverting the IP here . The IP was on one of those mild vandalism sprees where they were making seemingly innocuous changes to dates and cities etc all of which were inaccurate. I reverted the others but I have a question about this one. In the infobox the birth year is c. 1572 but it is 1573 in the death date template. Is that a mistake? Or is it something to do for using "circa" for the birth year. I hadn't encountered anything like it before and I wanted to find out in case I come across something like it in the future. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine the template year is something that some bot has done. I wrote most of the article but I rarely bother with those templates, I just leave them to others who understand them. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks PoD. In all of those templates that I have dealt with the info in "birth" is always the same in "death" and that lets the age calculation do its thing. But, I have never dealt with it when one of the dates is "circa" so I thought that their might be some quirk in working with that. On the other hand if the two dates should match I thought I'd check with those who take care of the article so they can fix it. For years we had a vandal on film articles that went around changing the release date by a year or two just to mess with the article. Maybe not important in the grand scheme of things - I was just curious. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk
I've changed it to 1572 anyway, just to give a more plausible idea of his age at death. To be honest though I'm not sure the {{Death year and age}} template is appropriate in cases like this one though, when all we know is that he wasn't born before 1572. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi. What was your rationnale for reverting my edit on this page. I thought it was uncontroversial. The phrase "but not official recognition of their political status" seems to me to be POV, in that it assumes that they were, or should have been considered to be, political prisoners. The very slight re-phrasing removed that implication and seems to me more neutral. Jay-W (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your alternative – "but not official recognition of political status" – is a barbarism. Everyone has a political status; you, me, everyone, and to deny that displays a POV. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case your argument is with the original phrase "political status" and not the change I made. Jay-W (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't presume to tell me what my argument is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Right. Well if you want to make your objections clear and be constructive then please do so, but I'm not going to get drawn into some pointless argument with you. Jay-W (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Then you ought not to have started one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. I've realised now there's no hope of any intelligent discussion with you. If you decide you want to make a useful contribution you can follow this discussion on the article talk page.Jay-W (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you have hope of an intelligent discussion with anyone? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem incapable of understanding what you've already been told; perhaps you don't understand the term "barbarism" when applied to sentence structure? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
A sentence structure cannot be barbaric. And you are not being constructive. Jay-W (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no point in continuing this non-discussion. Please use the article talk page. Jay-W (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The American Mathematical Society's "Guide for authors of mathematical papers" had this Piranianism: "The barbarism called the dangling participle has become more common but not less loathsome." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You must be mistaken; Jay-W knows better, or at least he thinks he does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You are right. I must have been mistaken in thinking Piranian was thanked in Steven Krantz's recent AMS guide to writing, when it must have been in fact Jay-W. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Abuwtiyuw

Apologies, I pasted the translated de tag into the article instead of the talk page by accident. Hope there isn't any major edit conflict. It's clearly based on a de wiki translation (even the etymology section has its own tiny paragraph at the end) and the author didn't credit them. I've notified the writer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, everything's fine. I've restored the Discovery section you merged with Background, because what I want to see is some background on dog funerals/burials/mummification in Ancient Egypt. It's not at all clear to me, for instance, whether Abuwtiyuw was remarkable because he was buried ceremonially, or because his funeral ceremony was so elaborate. But that's for the nominator to sort out; the sources are there to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and also the date is unclear as the Boston Museum started reporting on it in 1933. I think the 1936 is actually the publication date, I might be wrong though. The nominator says he is "discouraged" at the moment. I'll try to look into it but I couldn't find much in google books beyond the snippets and a lot of sources for some reason have errors when you click them. JSTOR only has two articles, one the article used and another which I believe is some sort of copy of the other. it has occurred to me though that different spelling might pick up more, the German name for instance..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been able to check out the December 1936 PDF the article relies so heavily on (for some reason it was unavailable earlier), and it says the tablet was discovered "last winter", so could be either 1935 or 1936. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

1935 I'd go with, I also saw 1935 in another snippet.. I've picked something up under the other spelling which the Germans use but damned server went funny on me as I was about to save. I'll try again shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that as another thing for the nominator, or you, to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
p.207 photograph by Boston Museum is dated 18 October 1935, date of discovery. I'll ask Gerda to translate the snippets it picks up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you to do whatever you think is best. I'm not fond of the way you've re-merged the Background and Discovery sections, as it's not at all clear what this is now the background to. As I said, what I want to see there is a background to the Ancient Egyptian practice of holding funeral services for dogs. But I'll suspend judgement until you've finished. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance in regards to that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's hope he can help, as I wouldn't be prepared to list the article as it stands. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I could see that it would fail, especially with one source, and the idea of a mummified dog fascinates me. Ancient Egypt is one of my major interests but rarely get the chance to work on something of quality towards it. Thanks, I see what you meant now, I hadn't thought of the background being about the burial customs, so its back. I don't want to overcook it though as it is about the dog, I suppose if extensive info could be found an article on Funerary customs of animals in Ancient Egypt could be started. I'll just cap it off now and then see what Aymatth can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Aymatth has finished I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and for making those needed minor edits too. Great topic. had to save that one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Some great work done there I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at this, and thought the use of "spolium, spolia" looks a bit odd to me:

  • I haven't come across "spolium", though it might be in use and I just haven't seen it; but, in the second paragraph of the lead, " was apparently part of the spolium incorporated into the structure" doesn't work, since "spolium" is singular, and such items found together would collectively be "spolia". So, if there were more than one re-used item in the structure, I'd routinely write "It was apparently among spolia incorporated into the structure". If it was the only re-used item, I suppose one might say "It was apparently a spolium incorporated into the structure"; but, as I say, I don't know that "spolium" (singular) is found in modern English. If not, perhaps just avoid using the word!
  • In the first paragraph of the section "Discovery", it seems to me that "The tablet was apparently re-used in about 2280 BC in the spolia of a different grave" attributes "spolia" to the wrong grave (and "spolia" are by nature things re-used): here, "spolia" are the spoils of (an) earlier grave(s), so something like "The tablet was apparently among spolia used to build another grave in about 2280 BC" would be better. Spolia are only found in the later grave because someone nicked 'em from (an) earlier one(s), to which they really belong. HTH. Nortonius (talk)
    Thanks. That seems to make sense, so I've made the changes you suggest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    No problem Malleus – glad you agree! Looks much better now, to me anyway... It's been a long day, but my tired brain insisted on making me squeeze that out before bed! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

New Worlds FAC question

Truthkeeper just posted a support at the FAC, and included some comments, one of which is about the lead. Since you worked on it, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion. My reflex would be to merge the short first para with the second, and move the second sentence further down, to place it in chronological order, but Jim's support seems to have been conditional on three paras in the lead so I don't really want to do that. Can you take a look? Perhaps the lead could expand slightly, to allow that merge but still have three paras? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've jiggled a few things around, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I like it; thanks. I'll post at the FAC and see if Truthkeeper's OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
And I see you've already done that too. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Stanislaw Zolkiewski

Re - let me know if I'm stepping on any toes and causing unnecessary edit conflicts.  Volunteer Marek  21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You carry on. As I've said in the GA review I think the article needs a bit of reorganisation, so let me know when you're done and I'll pick up the review again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Haldraper (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivil remarks

Please don't tell other editors to "fuck off" Nobody Ent 10:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Imagine my complete lack of surprise when I found that you'd posted a similarly silly message on J3Mrs's talk page, but not the talk page of Stevo1000, who was the user who started all that drama in the first place. Are you bored or something? Parrot of Doom 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me not to tell other editors to fuck off when they deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Nobody Ent, while I appreciate your intentions are (probably) good, have you ever considered doing any article improvement work? A look at your last 500 edits doesn't seem to reveal any such work at all. You might even find that those of us who actually write the content would have more respect for your pronouncements on civility and the like if you were to do this. Failing this, you should not be surprised if content editors politely ignore your comments, like a fart on a bus. Incidentally, "incivil" is not a word. --John (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • At the risk of escalating self-referentialism, I don't see how the chiding " have you ever considered doing any article improvement work" is working toward a resolution. I agree with the first part of the statement (good intentions) but I'm not really following why a call for more civility is only valid if it comes from content creators.
  • I support the content of Parrot of Doom, who correctly observed that the instigator wasn't addressed (now has been). It is too easy to see a particular word, jump on it as uncivil, and fail to look closer for the more egregious lack of civility.
  • I wish MF recognized the knee-jerkedness of many editors (generally speaking, not directed at NE) and modified his use of language. While "wish" often means "request", that is not the case here. The community doesn't have the clean hands to make such a request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (I now see that there was an intent to notify the instigator contemporaneously, but the wrong editor was identified. Sounds like a classic British comedy, except for the lack of humor, unless falsely accusing someone of incivility is self-refernetial enough to qualify as humor.)
    Wish all you like, ain't gonna happen. If "the community" behaved itself then I would have no reason to tell ignorant and rude transgressors to fuck off from where they're unwelcome. Let's try to remember what sparked this incident shall we, and maybe wonder why Nobody Ent sat idly by while another editor was being serially abused for upholding Misplaced Pages's copyright policy? Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand, that's why I tried to emphasize that it wasn't a request. I do see what sparked this, and agree it could have been handled much better. Frankly, your response was remarkably measured given the baiting.
  • Happy to clarify your first bullet point SPhilbrick. Criticising others' behaviour is always a risky area to get into, and it works best (by which I mean it is more likely to effect a change in the person's behaviour) where there is mutual respect. I do not claim to speak for Malleus but I imagine he may share my mild contempt for sanctimonious pen-pushers like Nobody Ent who regularly lecture others, hang out at the noticeboards, but never apparently contribute anything of value towards the work we are doing here. I recognise we all have our different strengths and areas of expertise but there is a point at which you have to wonder why someone with no wish to write wants to spend their time working on an online encyclopaedia. You certainly have to wonder what he thought it would achieve writing his ungrammatical little "warning" here of all places. --John (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions Add topic