Wikipedia

Talk:Kenneth Widmerpool/Archive 1

< Talk:Kenneth Widmerpool
Latest comment: 14 days ago by SchroCat in topic Unfinished discussion
Archive 1

Recent edits

Latest comment: 28 days ago19 comments3 people in discussion

@Tim riley: See here Wikipedia:AutoEd it is clearly uncontentious so I have restored the auto edded improvements. My prose tidying removed a few sloppy phrases. The 'agreed' text doesn't include me so I suggest you refresh your memory of WP:own and we can go through them one by one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley: "...Nicholas Jenkins. Initially presented as a comic, even pathetic figure, he becomes increasingly formidable, powerful and ultimately sinister [as the novels progress]. I removed this [] as 'ultimately' provides the meaning, 'as the novels progress' is otiose. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Keith-264, if you persuade your eyes to stray up to the previous section you will see that I am fully aware of WP:OWN]. Several of us keep an eye on the 100+ articles successfully taken through FAC by the late, grievously missed, Brian Boulton. He was a mentor to me and many others in Wikipedia, and I take strong exception to your accusing him of "sloppy phrases" – your evidence, please? Tim riley talk 11:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Tim riley: I f you persuade your eyes to stray up to the previous section you will see that I gave an example of sloppy prose. I'm glad that you are familiar with WP:OWN and look forward to you following it; I hope to see some WP:AGF too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see! You are the one infallible creature who knows better than the main author, the four peer reviewers and the seven reviewers at FAC. Silly of me not to realise. Difficult to assume good faith in someone who makes sneering references to a dead colleague's work but I shall try. Text now repaired. Tim riley talk 12:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A fresh pair of eyes can do no end of good but you don't want to AGF; it's a bit lower-second. What's wrong with eponymous? Keith-264 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting a sentence with 'however', a word that should never be used outside quote marks, is a mistake because it can only refer to the sentence ended with a full stop. It's best to treat prose as prose not a conversation or a lecture. Keith-264 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It is a superstition among the ignorant that one mustn't start a sentence with "However". Not quite as foolish as the phobia about split infinitives but ignorant enough. You're in distinguished company, though, as this was a shibboleth of Michael Gove. If starting a sentence with "However" is good enough for Fowler it's good enough for me. See current (2015) edition pp. x, 2 15, 19, 26 etc etc. Tim riley talk 14:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That's untenable and illogical, 'however' can't refer to what follows, only to what goes before, ergo prohibited by the full stop. I can see that you are intent on gainsaying but when you revert an improvement you could at least check it; now it reads 'However He'. When did the word add anything but verbiage to a sentence? Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You can take it up with the current editor of Fowler. I recognise your assumption of divine right here to tell everyone else they're wrong, but I doubt if the OUP will. The word however appears more than 400 times in the current edition of Fowler, frequently at the beginning of a sentence (though more often inside a sentence, it's true). Have a look at your copy if you don't believe me. I have all four editions on my shelves and I notice that in the original 1926 edition the old boy is much more sparing with opening "Howevers" but he still did it. I entirely agree that Howevers can be, and often are, overdone - it is one of the things I look out for when reviewing for GAN, PR or FAC - but it is foolish to say that every however is nothing but verbiage. Tim riley talk 14:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave you to your bluster and edit one word or phrase at a time to see what excuses you make to revert it. Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice to see such a generous exhibition of AGF. Bluster and excuses. Nice! Tim riley talk 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
When you point the finger, there's usually three more pointing back at you. Have another look at your claims and compare them with GF. Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no difficulty in believing that has been your experience. Tim riley talk 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keith-264, Opening a thread accusing good faith editors of OWN is poor form - and you've managed to ratchet up a lot more bad faith accusations since then. Can you take it down several notches and try to to play nice please? And the less about editing at the behest of a second-rate computer programme with it's blunt and inflexible approach, the better. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Given the editor's behaviour, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. Why would anyone oppose an auto-ed ed? Let's try to stick to step-by-step editing rather than playing the man eh? Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I would have objected to many of the changes too. Commas before quotes? That’s a terrible American habit. High quality writing doesn’t come from a computer programme, and it doesn’t beat the consensus of two review processes. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat, fellow BB protégé. You will have spotted instantly that "any reasonable person" means "anybody who has the temerity to disagree with the infallible and glorious Keith-264". As I'm restricted by the 3RR rule perhaps you would like to restore the text to roughly the way it was [1] before the current attack on it, but only if you feel it appropriate to do so, natch. Tim riley talk 17:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a better idea, let's work together to improve the article instead of wasting energy. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The article - a featured one - is top notch as it is

Latest comment: 14 days ago129 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest we move on, restore the article to its agreed FA state and end our no doubt to some delightful contact with Keith-264. Tim riley talk 18:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Quite so. Thank you for admitting it. Tim riley talk 18:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's work for one.Keith-264 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, now that the edits suggested by Keith-264 have been opposed, they should not be reinstated without a clear WP:CONSENSUS. My review of them indicates that many of the suggestions were simply personal preferences that did not markedly improve the prose, clarity or style of the entry. I should specifically note that there is no firm rule against beginning a sentence with "However", and in this case, it alerts the reader to a contrasting aspect of the character described in the previous sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The article is already top-notch, and has been through two heavyweight review processes, which give it a rather strong consensus. That said, nothing is ever set in stone on WP, and it is possible that there are some possible improvements that can be made (I see, for example, that the year range format has been brought up to the current demands of the MOS, rather than the older standards of when this was first written).
    To avoid further bloodshed and reversions, Keith-264, can I suggest you outline any further suggestions on the talk page first, where they can be thrashed out a bit, and see if they gain any consensus? The computer programme may be fine for re-working low-level articles, but it’s not a viable tool for dealing with quality work, so the talk page may be the better way of doing things? - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you complaining about auto ed? It's generally useful but the prose in this article doesn't amount to quality work. If you look up the page I've been trying to get some cooperation from another editor who has been obstructive. My preferred edits are clearly superior to those in the article on grounds of grammar, syntax, logic and elegance. "Its title is taken from Nicolas Poussin's 1634–1636 painting of the same name" eponymous painting has the quality of brevity. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
One could say that plain English is better for a global encyclopaedia dealing with variable reading abilities, but everyone’s opinion will differ. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
My preference is plain English but there's no way round the fact that pandering to assumptions of ignorance in the inferred audience is an exercise in futility. Oh and thanks for spelling encyclopaedia properly ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Context: A Dance to the Music of Time, "intermingled with the more practical spheres of politics" What does 'inter-' add to 'mingled'? Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
See the OED entry for explanation of the meaning of the word. Tim riley talk 08:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I suspect this is a further example of Keith-264's tenuous grasp of the English language. "Encyclopaedia" is indeed spelled properly, but so, according to the Oxford, Cambridge, Chambers and Collins dictionaries is "encyclopedia". Three out of the four give it precedence. I prefer the longer version but that doesn't make it the only "proper" one. As to "eponymous", rather than BB's original plain English version, it would be just plain wrong here, as all four dictionaries make clear.
I imagine I am the editor whom Keith-264 accuses of being obstructive, and as I am trying to obstruct turning good English into bad, I own the soft impeachment. Mind you, one has to admire Keith-264's wonderful modesty: "My preferred edits are clearly superior to those in the article on grounds of grammar, syntax, logic and elegance". The main editor and all the peer reviewers and reviewers at FAC are all out of step except our Keith, the one-man consensus. Tim riley talk 08:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
That's enough, I think. There's nothing constructive going on here. Changing 'intermingled' obviously doesn't have a consensus for change, so let's just move on, possibly to a different article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I commend The Mote and the Beam to your attention. What does 'inter-' add to 'mingled'? Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
See the OED (this is for the second time of asking). I am perfectly familiar with the Sermon on the Mount, though I don't recall the Good Lord saying Blessed are the bigheads for they shall think they know better than everyone else.Tim riley talk 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Unmasked! You are Kenneth Widmerpool and I claim my £50! Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I say! An attempt at wit. Keep trying and you may get there. Tim riley talk 11:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Am I joking? Think about it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
From Wodehouse, rather than Powell: "I am not accustomed to talk rot" he said. "Then, for a beginner", I said, "you do it dashed well". Tim riley talk 11:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
You do indeed! Now what about your giving the rest of us here a break and finding yourself something more useful to do? Tim riley talk 11:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
What does 'inter-' add to 'mingled'? It's a simple question. Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

While not as bad mannered as another editor, you are not AGF or showing it. Leave the red herrings where they belong and face the fact that this is a question to be answered to gain consensus. Play the game, not the man. Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You are the one being disruptive here. You started the first thread with insults and kept on going ever since. You have refused to accept a lack of consensus in your proposed changes and you are refusing to acknowledge that this question has already been answered, with the suggestion to look to the OED. I can see this ending up at a noticeboard if this WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude continues. - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
No the culprit is Tim riley with his splenetic bluster. I am part of consensus building and my improvements have been peremptorily rejected in a contumelious manner. I'll do you a deal, accept one improvement in the prose and I'll leave it at that. Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If pointing out to Keith-264 that according to four dictionaries he doesn't know what "eponymous" means is "splenetic bluster" I plead guilty. I mean, really, is such an aggressive editor as Keith-264 an asset? I hope he will find something more useful to do with his time and stop showing himself up. Tim riley talk 17:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Some of your changes have been accepted. SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that User:Keith-264 is being disruptive. It is saying a lot, but in 18 years on Wikipedia and 175,000+ edits, I have rarely encountered the arrogance and condescension that user:Keith-264 has so casually displayed on this Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Come off it you've got a pet article and can't face the fact that some of it is poorly written. Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the final bit of crass rubbish. Bye. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Their ambience is a bohemian world...." Ambience? Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers.
The OED definition of "ambience" corresponds to its use in the article. While looking it up, Keith-264 may also like to look up "eponymous" to learn what it actually means rather than what he imagines it means.
There is, or perhaps was, in English law a concept of "vexatious litigation". We have the Wikpedian equivalent here. SchroCat has now given up trying to get Keith-264 to be reasonable, and I think he's correct and the rest of us should give up too, though keeping an eye on the article text in case of any sly alterations. Tim riley talk 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Stick to the point please. Have you noticed that the description of Widmerpool and his life are better written than the first part of the article? This corresponds to the fact that description is easier than explanation. I suggest that you try to open your mind. Keith-264 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Constructive edit

"Among the more prominent names suggested as real-life models for Widmerpool...." → "Among the people suggested as models for Widmerpool....". Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Has someone warned you two off? Keith-264 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for Tim, but as there is nothing to warn us about, I have not been warned. I am not the one who opened a thread falsely accusing people of ownership, and then continued to be insulting, belligerent and possessing a BATTEFIELD attitude. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"...he becomes increasingly formidable, powerful and ultimately sinister as the novels progress" → "...he becomes powerful and sinister", 'increasingly' adds nothing to 'becomes' and 'as the novels progress' is redundant because they can't regress. "...he becomes powerful and sinister" is enough. Keith-264 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your bad faith is palpable.Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
To you, perhaps, as I don't lie down before the Great God Keith-264. But why not ask if anyone else thinks me guilty of bad faith? Otherwise, I should welcome an Attleesque period of silence on your part. Tim riley talk 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Says the person who opened the thread with a bad faith and uncivil comment and who has demonstrated bad faith and a BATTLEFIELD approach from the off. I think we're getting close to a noticeboard at this stage. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
You and your associates are strewing the talk page with evidence. Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any "associates" and I don't think I or other editors need more of your unhinged drivel. Tuning out, and leaving you to drivel on unheeded. Get consensus if you can for your proposed changes or else go away. Tim riley talk 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Have I hit a nerve? All you have to do to conciliate me the way that I have offered to conciliate you is to take my edit suggestions seriously. The paper-trail you have generated is quite revealing. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keeping digging. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"The novel sequence A Dance to the Music of Time comprises 12 volumes spanning a period of approximately 50 years; from the early 1920s to the first years of the 1970s." → The novel sequence A Dance to the Music of Time comprises 12 volumes spanning a period from the early 1920s to the first years of the 1970s. removes repetition. Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Capping pointless noise
@SchroCat: You shouldn't tamper with other people's edits. Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I have altered some of the formatting of the thread where it's been needed, which is entirely acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Wikipedia:Indentation

Sometimes, a long discussion can cause indentation to become too deep, which can make it difficult to read in narrower browser windows. When it does, you should consider outdenting your next comment. When you do that, it's helpful to make clear what you're doing: The templates

and (←) exist for this purpose. You can use either one, and they can also be employed by their equivalent "shortcut" names of

and (←) , respectively.

You shouldn't tamper with other people's edits. Keith-264 (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. Don’t even try to patronise me—you’re just not good enough—and just stop. SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, I won't ping you again unless you ping me. Stop tampering with my edits Wikipedia:Indentation

Sometimes, a long discussion can cause indentation to become too deep, which can make it difficult to read in narrower browser windows. When it does, you should consider outdenting your next comment. When you do that, it's helpful to make clear what you're doing: The templates

and (←) exist for this purpose. You can use either one, and they can also be employed by their equivalent "shortcut" names of

and (←) , respectively.

You shouldn't tamper with other people's edits and you should try to gain consensus rather than making threats. Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Schrocat, I suggest you, I and all comers leave this aggressive and misguided editor to spout whatever he likes here and simply ignore him (unless he becomes libellous or threatening), keep an eye on the article, and revert any changes for which there is no consensus. Tim riley talk 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"The series itself was published between 1951 and 1975." → "The series was published between 1951 and 1975." Itself adds nothing to the sentence. Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"Channel 4's television filmed version broadcast in 1997." → "Channel 4's television filmed version, broadcast in 1997." If no-one objects I will begin to amend the article accordingly. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Please obtain a consensus for any changes you wish to make. Otherwise they will be reverted. Tim riley talk 18:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
No comma needed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

of course the comma is needed. As for other editors not commenting, that amounts to consensus, when they are free to object. Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s not needed. It’s clear there’s no consensus for the change. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I told you not to tamper with my edits; do you ant me to tamper with yours? I'm thinking of rewriting the lead and the Context section to incorporate my improvements. Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s clear there is no consensus for that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's also clear that you are forfeiting AGF. Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s also clear your a disruptive editor with a BATTLEGROUND attitude. SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm the most conciliatory person in this debate and I can re-edit the article to a standard that deserves an A-class rating. Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You’re certainly not that. Why you would decide to downgrade the article to a standard that doesn’t exist outside a couple of projects I really don’t know, but suffice to say, I’m not sure there is general agreement that would be a constructive step to take. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't. If Keith-264 would take his tanks off the lawn and move on it would be of advantage. We have seen above how poor his command of English is. Any changes for which there is no consensus will be reverted. Tim riley talk 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
See here Wikipedia:AutoEd it is clearly uncontentious so I have restored the auto edded improvements. My prose tidying removed a few sloppy phrases. The 'agreed' text doesn't include me so I suggest you refresh your memory of WP:own and we can go through them one by one. Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly not uncontentious, given the mess you left the article in last time, so if you do it again any edits that degrade the article will again be removed. This has zero to do with own, so pop that particular incivility where it belongs and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"However, he has the ability to rise above numerous insults and humiliations that beset him" → "He has the ability to rise above the insults and humiliations that beset him." 'however' is a fatuity and there is no need for 'numerous' when insults and humiliations are plurals. These are schoolboy errors. Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AutoEd .AutoEd (source) is a user script that helps to automatically make certain changes in articles.' [2] please list what's contentious. Keith-264 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is under any obligation to list anything. It is for you to convince a consensus that your proposed changes should be adopted. The changes to the invisible spacing you and the bot favour are neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 15:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It would show good faith. Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What would? Your English doesn't get any clearer. Tim riley talk 17:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you run JUST the AutoEd—with no other changes of your own—and it can be judged on its merits. Don't include any other changes of things you want to change, just do the AutoEd, and it will be judged on its merits.

Seems a very good idea. Tim riley talk 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll let you do it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre situation this is. You say you want to use it, others say OK, and you then say you want someone else to do it? What is the point of continuing this farcical nonsense? - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone who reads this page is morally, intellectually, syntactically and grammatically limited. Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Quite so and it would be unkind and uncollegial to name the only one who so conspicuously fits that description. It would be nice if s/he were to behave like a colleague rather than an invader. Tim riley talk 20:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Just stopping by to see what's going on. Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS. It is hard to achive consensus, Keith, when you insist on being insulting. This is not your website, so you cannot unilaterally do what you like. To paraphrase an old Polish proverb, "If you have no authority, be polite." Like SchroCat, I found the robot edits to be of poor quality and certainly not helpful for a FA article. Further, I judge your other suggestions above to be personal stylistic preferences, not significant improvements. Frankly, I think it is vanishingly unlikely that you will achieve a consensus for them any time soon. But if you are amusing yourself by sparring endlessly with Tim and SchroCat, feel free. I will, of course, assist in reverting any of your edits made without a clear consensus to do so *expressed* on this talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is a two-way street and any reasonable person, reading the above, would agree with me that your comments are hypocritical. I have retaliated mildly against insults (and invective) while offering constructive engagement. Rejecting auto ed is juvenile and by refusing obvious improvements, such as the elimination of pleonasm is WP:own that brings all of you into disrepute, Widmerpool deserves better. Keith-264 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
You were the one that started the incivility and have continued it ad nauseum throughout. There is a consensus to run AutoEd, but you've decided not to. People thinking your suggestions are poor are not any evidence of own, no matter how many times you try and muddy the waters with the insults: it's that other people are working to different—higher—standards to you. You're just at the level of trolling with comments and further incivility like this. Again, I'll repeat, in case you didn't understand the interaction above: go ahead and run AutoEd. It will be interesting to see the results, but please just limit it to that, so we can see only what it does. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

if you really believe that, set a better example. Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Heigh ho! (Sigh!) Tim riley talk 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
"Literary analysts have noted Widmerpool's defining characteristics as a lack of culture," → "Readers and literary analysts find Widmerpool to lack culture...." best not to forget readers, endless appeals to authority are a bit anally retentive, he's only a character in a novel. Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The original has the benefit of being based on sources, not spurious guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"His main motivation appears to be his craving for social status...." → His motive appears to be his craving for social status...." No mention of other motives makes main irrelevant.Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it really doesn’t. It makes it look like that’s his sole motivation. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That's what the passage means; if it was his main motive, why aren't the lesser motives mentioned? Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, for Heaven's sake! Is there the tiniest chance that Keith-264 will stop being a tiresome nuisance here and go off and do something useful elsewhere? Tim riley talk 20:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with this suggestion, which would make the text less precise and obscure the meaning, as SchroCat explained. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers, thank you for looking in, but I don't think expecting this one rogue editor to add anything of value is a good bet. Tim riley talk 21:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be rewritten to remove the mentally lazy wording. The article shouldn't be a monument to mediocrity. Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And again with the trolling? Just keep digging and we'll be at a noticeboard soon enough. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd be interested in what unbiased editors made of your aggression in the face of such reasonable edit suggestions. Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sub-standard suggestions that would degrade the article, none of which have obtained a consensus. The aggression and incivility was started by you at the outset and you have continued it ever since. Please just stop. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you think that the prose of the article can't be improved, it must be something else. You and the other editors have no leg to stand on which is, perhaps, why your abuse had been so shrill. I make no claim to be a prose stylist, merely an ability to write prose that can withstand scrutiny. Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
None of your suggestions have been improvements. They would have degraded the article. There has been no abuse directed at you, just commentary on your approach, which has been sub-standard from the outset. I will wait until you have something constructive to suggest about the prose, but ignore the rest of the noise in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Your hypocrisy is palpable but I will grant you the last word. Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
"he is close to the centres of power" → "he is close to the centre of power" Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Again the extant version has the benefit of reflecting the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"he is close to the centres (sic) of power" then. Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? Do you think readers cannot understand that there is more than one centre of power? - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it a quotation or a paraphrase? Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought this editor had promised us relief from his/her "constructive" suggestions when s/he granted the rest of us the last word, above. I wish it were still so and s/he would keep his/her word. His/her latest effusions should be treated with what the late George Brown called "total ignoral", I think. Tim riley talk 20:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I referred to his abuse; I apologise if I overestimated you. Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Do give it a rest, dear! Tim riley talk 17:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"The name "Widmerpool" was assumed by many critics to derive from Widmerpool...." many critics, who? Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not identified in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Not citable then. Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. If a source says there were multiple critics saying the same thing, of course we can reflect that. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
SchroCat, I advise against confusing the omniscient Keith by confronting him/her with the facts or with logic. He ain't listening. Tim riley talk 10:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

what does many critics add, cited to a source? The academic laziness of the source? Find one who names them instead of relying on an unreliable source, contrary to Wiki. Simples Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We reflect the source, as we should. This is an FA: we don’t play fast and loose with OR or SYNTH. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
You have demonstrated that your source is unreliable. You play fast and loose with grammar, syntax unreliable sources, WP:Battleground, WP:NPOV and WP:dead horse. Keith-264 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. I don’t think you’re even convincing yourself with this nonsense now: you’re certainly not convincing anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What's the best of my proposed edits? Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Dr Johnson said "There is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea". Tim riley talk 17:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh! I know the answer! The best of Keith's edits was when he wrote: "I will grant you the last word." But, of course, he continues to try to have the last word. Whether for good or ill, no one ever gets the last word on Wikipedia. I laughed out loud when I saw his farcical citation of guidelines above. Like a certain politician, he is just accusing others of what he has been doing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Try again, you can't honestly claim that they are equally bad; "laughed out loud", has anyone ever laughed out quiet? Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keith is evidently no more at ease with English literature than with the English language. Sherlock Holmes, anyone? "He was quivering with silent laughter" ("The Empty House"). "A few yards off he stopped under a lamp-post and laughed in the hearty, noiseless fashion which was peculiar to him" ("The Blue Carbuncle"). T S Eliot: "His waves of silent laughter" ("Mr Apollinax"). Aldous Huxley: "Quivering with enormous silent laughter" ("The Gioconda Smile") Tim riley talk 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not equally bad: some are worse than others, but it’s a low bar, to be honest. Have you done a search for “laughed soundlessly”? - SchroCat (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

How palpably dishonest. Keith-264 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, it seems that wee Keith has found a new word to play with, bless him:
  • "Your bad faith is palpable"
  • "Your hypocrisy is palpable"
  • "How palpably dishonest*
To misquote Hamlet, "a twit, a palpable twit". (Other misquotations are available). Tim riley talk 11:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Those are oxymorons.... Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
You wrote all three. Do try to keep up. Or better still find some better use for your (and more to the point our) time. Tim riley talk 16:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I know, I was there when I retorted. I think that you're an inadequate editor, even for a middlebrow literary article. Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfinished discussion

Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's rude to try to censor an incomplete discussion. I retrieved this at random "However, he has the ability to rise above numerous insults and humiliations that beset him" → "He has the ability to rise above the insults and humiliations that beset him." 'however' is a fatuity and there is no need for 'numerous' when insults and humiliations are plurals. These are schoolboy errors.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I archived it because of your ongoing crass and small-minded insults and trolling. Re your new suggestion: the extant version is superior. SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Kenneth Widmerpool page is a work in progress with material on his career to be added. All contributions to his memorial to a memorable literary villain welcome. --Balliol 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Career subsection, O Spirit. It reads like an entirely convincing fourth obit in the Times! -- Balliol 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Widmerpool/Archive_1&oldid=1252712401"