User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/January

Language

I think the discussion here is somewhat related to the above issues about language-use. Feel free to comment. Pass a Method talk 15:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So do you really

File:Wiki mafia boss.jpg

I iz serious mafia boss

Do all of this[1] Shit, I thought you were just rude. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't do any of that shit, so I'll be interested to see if Matthew finds himself blocked for that very obvious personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it somewhat surprising to see those accusations levelled at you when it is quite often a point of dispute against those who detract Malleus.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, now come on Malleus, surely you don't expect us to believe you are just an innocent victim in all this. I realize that some of the other editors are acting provocatively and you do a lot of great work around here but your tendency to bite newby's, visciously attack other editors you don't agree with and drop the F-bomb is near legend. Now I have mostly supported you in the past and given that my own status on this site is about equal to zero but this attacking other editors and insults really needs to stop. Good editing aside I have never seen an editor with so many blocks be allowed to continue to edit. Whether you have the support of the greater community or not this sort of conduct drives away editors and gives this site a bad reputation. Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Two cents is more trouble than it's worth. Sweden eliminated the 50 ore piece. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does seem that Malleus is brought up for this behavior an awful lot for it not to be considered a pattern. Obviously if this were a newby they would have been blocked and nothing more would have been said about it. The only reason there is any argument at all is because he is such a longtime, respected and productive user. Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop. You are not helping anybody. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus is brought up for this behavior an awful lot for it not to be considered a pattern." Kumioko, does the earth go around the sun, or the sun go around the earth? (Because hey! - it sure as darn looks like the sun goes around the earth, to anyone who bothers to look, don't ya think!?) You're right, there's a pattern ... a pattern of filers filing ANI and Arbcom camplaints. You have the shoe on the wrong foot. Maybe it would help you to view the situation from a different perspective, here's an alternate perspective for you to consider: consider that Malleus may be a bit ... ahead of his time. (When you do that, it might explain to you why he "doesn't fit in", and even why he is despised so much.) And I offer this piece of logic to you also: Malleus writes well, yes? Yes. Gosh, that means he pays attention to words, right? Right. His own words? Of course. So he is aware what he says? Or he is "out of control" what he says? The former. So what about the complaints then? You mean like the one he was accused of calling someone a "fool" many times, when he never did? Like that? Gosh, what's wrong here. Could it be, the massive majority don't pay as much attention to words themselves? Or find it convenient or choose not to, for their own agendas? And that others know the irresponsible things they say will be quickly obscured and forgotten? And meanwhile everything Malleus has ever written can be analyzed and scrutinized, and no matter how long ago it was written, holds up solid as a nickel? Gosh, I see a different "pattern" than you. People are generally weak and let their emotions cloud their thinking, reading, writing. Malleus is more disciplined. It comes with being a great writer, me thinks. (Or, vice-versa, who knows.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I have already acknowledged that Malleus is a great editor and I have supported him in the past. I am also not going to keep posting here. What I am saying is that Malleus is not innocent here and that he has made plenty of comments to other editors that are rude, mean, unnecessary and inappropriate. I myself have been embroiled in drama and have retired from editing a couple times. I rarely edit articles these days, partially because some editors like Malleus seem to be allowed to do and say whatever they want to whomever they want with no repercussions while others of us are blocked or banned for much less. My point was that Malleus needs to look at things from the point of view of those he is commenting too and about. Also, although Wikipedia isn't censored, limiting the use of the terms F*** off and F*** you need to be included in that. I realize its hard sometimes to deal with those you don't agree with but this just isn't needed and isn't helpful. Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, the problem with your reasoning is that you throw out any consideration of context. Context is king. (Take for instance, the litany of abusive personal attacks Malleus recently received at Dennis's Talk, that is the kind of context I mean, that you are dismissing. And even tho Malleus was warranted to be abusive back, he wasn't, he was entirely professional about it. You also give him no credit for stuff like that. You seem to see only a selected perspective, void of context, and draw your conclusions from it. That's a mistake.) Happy 2013 New Year to you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no context that justifies telling another editor to F off, F you, your an F'ing idiot or the various other things I have seen Malleus tell other users he doesn't like or doesn't agree with. That also includes Dennis, but I have only seen Dennis do this once, this occassion, whereas I have seen Malleus do it several times. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(No, I was speaking about the PAs on Dennis's Talk made by MathewTownsend, not by Dennis.) I'll agree with you that saying F off, and so on, is always unnecessary. But that doesn't mean there's a context present that makes it unjustified, unethical, or even unprofessional. (It depends.) The context needs to be gone over carefully, and maybe even in some depth, to know or understand it. (And it's especially hard to not take personally, if one is involved, but doing so just clouds thinking. I do not believe Malleus ever intends injury using words, that his criticisms are most fairly interpreted as calls for others to do better, and, Malleus has high expectations of himself and of others, thus he is a "tough task-master". But like a New Yorker, the fact he'd take the effort & time to give a criticism also means he sees potential in someone for improvement, so from that perspective it is a indirect sort of compliment, really. [Else, he wouldn't waste his breath, why would he? He doesn't need to "make [himself] feel better" thru insulting others, only weak people do that, and that isn't Malleus, for sure.] When Malleus bitches, there's always a reason for it.) Keep an open mind, and endeavor to improve always. I am convinced you will find Malleus the warmest of souls then. (Ask Pesky.) Happy 2013. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think MT is still upset over your dispute at GAN some six months ago. Perhaps there may have been some negative interactions afterwards, but I didn't see those — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Have you considered the possibility that MT isn't who she pretends to be? Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've heard suspicions, yes, but if MT is a clean start account... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  It's hardly a clean start if she continues to pursue those she regards as her enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed, although I am not aware of any history between the two of you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're looking at the wrong username? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm... I have the feeling not. Starts with an M and has a double S — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I really don't appreciate this conversation. If you've got something to say, just say it. And if you're going to, provide evidence of such. And this talk of a "she"?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  If you don't appreciate the conversation, feel free not to participate in it. From your comments over the past little while across a few pages it sounds like you need a break anyway. Crisco, I suspect you're right, but there's a history to find beyond here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I find it quite astonishing to see administrators acting like this. But in reality, it's really not that surprising as of late. I haven't participated this conversation in the least. One is allowed to read and a conversation and be outraged at its premise. It's nice to see you worrisome over me, but don't worry, I'm not the one with the problem.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm aware of your concerns regarding administrators, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, in your case), I'm not quick to block. One is certainly allowed to read what they please, but if one is unappreciative of what one is reading, one would do well to simply walk away. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  So, (if you were someone who was quick to block) you would block a user for speaking their mind about concerns with administrators (without inserting any attacks into the mix, might I add), but not a user who has been constantly being uncivil to pretty much everybody for years? That seems to make a lot of sense. I am allowed to leave my disapprovement of a conversation, certainly also without being told that I should just ignore it. I would be interested in discussing this with someone actually in the conversation, and not by someone who is just monitoring this talk page. I'm not being uncivil about it, I want to have a conversation. You're not one to say whether or not I should. I don't even know who you are.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  No, I wouldn't block a user for speaking their mind about admins, that's practically a habit around here. I might block them for baiting or trolling, but am not inclined to do so (though I really question your assertion that you're "not being uncivil about it"). I can't force you to either follow policy or basic niceties, but I'm certainly "allowed to leave my disapprovement of a conversation" too. You express a desire to have a conversation; do you really think your approach is likely to result in one that is productive? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I wasn't "baiting or trolling", I left an observation. Yes, I suppose it could be deemed as "harsh", but all I did was speak of how it came across in my eyes, as civil as such a thing could possibly be. You must certainly are allowed to disprove a conversation as well. Well, I did say "If you've got something to say, just say it", implying that if the conversation was to continue, that it be done in a non-shady way and done openly. Surely you can understand someone's discomfort in seeing such shady comments directed at another user based on speculation. Especially a user who is (semi) retired and cannot stick up for themselves. That's all I'm saying. Whether or not it's productive is out of my hands. It doesn't appear as if any productive conversation is happening here anyways. Emoticons are running on here, I personally think that everyone should take a wikibreak for a day.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  If that wasn't how you meant your comment, then I apologize for saying so - mininterpretation can be a problem of text-only communication, as I'm sure you're aware. You might check the diff that began this section: whether or not you agree with the user's sentiments, I think it's fairly clear why it might provoke some displeasure, and indeed the user can clearly stick up for him/herself when he/she chooses. A good reminder for all: context is important. With that, I'm to bed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I am aware of such problems in text communication. I do also have a problem with explaining things fully and properly, so it's probably my fault I made it sound like something it wasn't meant to be. Goodnight!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) You were right, Malleus, though I doubt that surprises you. ceranthor 23:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MathewTownsend, a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse

In other words, MathewTownsend has been blocked as a sock-puppet of Mattisse.

I doubt any of the "editors" who enabled Mathew/Mattisse will apologize, but let us hope for some integrity belatedly to be shown. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The next Malleus

Wikipedia needs a highly able editor of iconic status who can be targeted by beady eyed, resentful users with little real talent to offer Wikipedia, but obsessed with the idea that they are in every sense the editor's equal. It's a bonus if the editor speaks his mind, so judgmental puritans and people who like to use a civility pillar as a battering ram can also have their day in the sun. You fill both roles to perfection Malleus. You have been encircled by these types lately, and I can't imagine how horrible that must be. These people believe you are the problem. They will momentarily realize if you leave that it is them that is the problem. They will be milling around looking for the new target. It's a tremendous service you have done, deflected that revolting energy away from other editors, and you should be awarded something major. If you do leave, some other poor fellow is going to have to fill your boots. Until that person is found, the next Malleus, the next community martyr, many other content builders will suffer. If you decide to edit from another account, you should have no trouble purchasing an admin account from a former schoolboy. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. But just so you know, sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to know what it is until MF tells us. --My76Strat (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My position is quite simple Epipelagic. I think that 99.99% of Wikipedia's content is crap, and wasting time arguing about me just proves how broken Wikipedia is. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think the content is so crap, then why the hell are you still here? Clearly you just enjoy being disruptive for the fun of it. And you put some magic spell to make sure you're never "defeated". I've seen people saying you haven't been blocked because you're an "asset" to the project, when you, yourself, stated that 99.99% of the content here is crap. What gives?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just fuck off? Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See, right there, that's not very nice!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Whoever fights with [his/her perceived] monsters should see to it that in the process he[/she] does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you" (a paraphrase, with a small clarification to make it more apt in this case, from Frederick Neitzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil". It seems to me that some people could benefit from reading it, and should probably have read it a long time ago regarding this particular "diversion" from the main purpose of being a wikipedia editor.)

Agree with Epipelagic, Malleus serves as pin-cushion for the described types. And if the new Arbcom tries to grapple w/ its policies & procedures re civility early 2013, Malleus is sure to be used/abused as rallying cry poster/effigy doll. As much as would like to see him return to editing ASAP, who'd wish that kind of heightened grief pushed on anyone. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an asset to the project, so is Drmies, Sitush, and many others here. Pretty sure most of us agree that at least 95% of wikipedia articles are in desperate need of expanding or wiping clean and restarting from scratch. That's not the point. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is inherently flawed, much like the way it is run, but people like us can make the difference in making articles decent or half decent and venturing into poorly covered parts of the project. We're never going to be able to cover as much as we want and it gets very frustrating at times knowing where to start because the task is so tremendous. But until something better comes along we're stuck with it, so let's try to produce a good resource and stop wasting so much time.. I believe that even if a new encyclopedia emerges which is far better than what wikipedia is currently and in the way it is run, I believe that the content being produced now will remain on the internet and continue to be developed over time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I should apply for RfA and see, I've pissed off almost as many people as Malleus, but because the majority of the most pissed off have would up blocked for various reasons (usually because they piss off more people than me) and probably because I mostly have avoided four-letter words (once called someone a jackass, though) I seem to have a totally clean block record (knock wood). However, I still have those who don't care much for me. Wonder if I should see if I can be troll bait? Take the heat off Malleus -- except, Malleus, I think you LIKE the heat (grin); you keep coming back to the kitchen. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Words attributed to you

Did you actually call someone a "cunt" on Wikipedia? This is the impression I got from reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Negativity. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Cunt is an excellent word. Parrot of Doom 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is, since there's a lot of cuntishness at Wikipedia, to which I attribute fully the intermittent nature of my editing history. It's hardly surprising though, since Wikipedia is primarily a social experiment. Nortonius (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I like to picture Malleus as Kent in Act 2, Scene 2 of King Lear: he calls people out without holding back (ie. with swear words), they cry for help, and he ends up in the stocks. Meanwhile, all he really cares about is writing some articles that aren't complete crap. Perhaps this isn't a realistic comparison, but I think's it's fairly accurate. ceranthor 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So (to switch plays for a moment) is it nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous cuntishness or to take arms against a sea of douchebags and by opposing offend them? I dunno, but Malleus has a cuntishness detector of unerring accuracy and I'm grateful to him for not hesitating to publish its findings. Writegeist (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A speed camera for you!

	Here is a pristine GATSO speed camera. Just bring an angle grinder and a blowtorch! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You left a good impression

Hey, since you seem to be leaving I just though I'd let you know that you left a good impression inside me. The article you helped me with, Bahrain Bloody Thursday is now a good article. And I've been more involved with the good article process. So, thanks and good luck with whatever you plan to do. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to start a new thread, this fits ;) - I came to congratulate on the GA "1950s ...", great collaboration, well deserved, GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to hear that Mohamed, well done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1950s American automobile culture

This is now at GA status. Without question, it would not be there without the hard work, patience and guidance from you and the pat on the back for this article is equally yours. I know you are pretty much retired now, but I wanted to say thanks you for taking the time to educate me, and for allowing me to play a part in one of your final projects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a really nice leaving present Dennis, but the credit is yours, not mine; all I did was nudge you a bit in the right direction. I'm sorry I won't be able to help with any FAC, but there are lots of brilliant editors watching this talk page who I'm sure will be only too happy to lend a hand. And you can always email me if you'd like a second opinion on anything. Ciao. Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and hopefully not goodbye

Cheer(s) Malleus.

And another round

Since you're editing and I am too, just wanted you to know that I've meant for a while to stop by to say - I don't know what ... not goodbye ... maybe farewell is best. Thanks very much for getting me started here - you've been an inspiration and I learned a lot from you. Be well, and best in the new year - can only be better than 2012. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise. Also, I did finally drink a Manchester ale and thought of you. It was a very tasty beer. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hope you find a place where your talents can be recognised properly. A single beer is not enough, so have another. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I fall down a rabbit hole...

And Reginald de Warenne emerges. I thought he'd just be a quickie two or three line stub... shows what I know... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your intervention may be needed?

At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#The_Cunt_With_The_Bell - or that of other cuntatory experts gathered here. The article is a laugh anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Plz come back

Maybe after the WP has had a badly needed enema, but whatever, please do. (It's depressing w/o reading you here.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can't imagine any circumstance under which Malleus would return to the humiliation that is editing Wikipedia. Twenty-one blocks, a hostile ArbCom and a dysfunctional "community" have made Malleus's continued participation here impossible. Time to move on. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  Alfie Fripp after helping (but not getting shot on account of) The Great Escape survived the 5 July 5 2003 London Bombings, after which he commented, Nil desperandum!" "We turned on BBCtv news at 21.07 hoping to see Uncle Bill. Then, at 21.08 there he was! The report was on people caught up in London & stuck without public transport. Uncle Bill was in a 'bus queue, holding a placard -Veteran. The reporter mentioned the veteran who was unable to get to his reunion & then put the microphone in front of Uncle Bill, who declared: We've been here before. Nil desperandum!" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathew Hopkins

Where will we be without your careful honed eyes on such. Take care, rest easy and many thanks for the assistance, guidance and occasional laugh. At work where there were once Witches visiting it is now Nuns, I jest not; The World Turned Upside Down. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TFA on April 1

See this lengthening thread.

It's That Man Again

And his manhood

I have a rubbish memory and seem to recall you don't like articles you've worked on appearing on Main Page. Am I right? There are a few articles you've worked on that might fit, but I'll leave off nominating them. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem with articles appearing on the main page, it's more to do with the intransigence shown by some toward protecting such articles against vandalism. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got no objection at all. In fact I think that with a suitable blurb the Cotswold Olimpick Games might make a good candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cotswold Olympics? Wow that's quite something! The only "olympics" I knew of that happened there was of a sexual kind on honeymoons!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure you're not thinking of Dorset? Pesky (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, and one nipple higher than the other!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, mate ... if yours was that size, d'you think you'd be worrying about the symmetry of your nipples? ;P Pesky (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, hehe.. Yeah I reckon a lot of blokes would tolerate a sagged nipple for one that size! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I do ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources? ;P Pesky (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you got me there - all I have is unreliable primary sources :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm proud

You're leaving with your head held high, which says a lot about you. It's sad that you're leaving, but it's good to see you're not leaving all broken. You've got a lot of self-respect and I like that. Take care Malleus. I hope you have fun outside of WIkipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A sad goodbye

It seems at this point pretty clear to me that you aren't coming back for the foreseeable future, so I wanted to extend my regards. Obviously you'll be missed, and it sucks more than anything that you aren't writing anymore, but I'm so glad that I got to read from your articles and learn from you, and interact with someone so fierce and so brilliant. You deserve better than all the crap you've taken the past couple years, and anyone who contributed to your retirement should be embarrassed.

More importantly, though, I wanted to thank you for shaping who I am as an actual human being, and for being so patient with my at times childish comments and my clunky writing. I wish you only the best, Malleus. ceranthor 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Still somewhat gutted that you really do seem to have gone :( I actually just wandered over here out of courtesy to inform you that I'm using one of the atrociously bad blocks in your log as an example over here; with follow-ons as to the difference between "civility" (enforcement, aka "snobbery with menaces") and actual civilisation (as in civilised societies). Pesky (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was given very little choice Pesky. The alternative would have been to hang around until I was banned, which would have been a bit pointless really. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• If it's any help: I found my six/seven/eight month break (or whatever it was) was very useful. Once one goes beyond the stage of looking to see what's going on, life become very much more pleasant. It also make returning easier and more calming if the break has been long enough to enable putting into perspective how ridiculous so many of Wikipedia's problems are. Now, the the thought of being admonished on politeness by some silly little hillbilly dope smoker calling himself TwoEyedTed or Sparkling Gusset (or whatever) just seems amusing rather than irritating. One can just smile, ignore them and carry on. Even when they scream that they are going to report you to some equally weird misfit who has scaled his way to even greater power. Just remember Malleus, it's all a mater of distance and perspective. I'm sure you will be back - just a matter of when and how long it takes you to share my opinion. Until then - so long. Giano (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at recent RfAs, I see not only the teletubby and Wiggles-styled signatures, but new waves of editors who are building up their resumes and social networks by promoting each others' articles on pop songs, video games, etc. It would be better and more honest for Wikipedia to stop calling itself an encyclopedia and rather call it a junior-high school for Wikia editors. The number of editors who edit roughly an hour a day, racking up lots of edits on such articles using tools, and then head to GA and now Today's Article for Improvement would unnerve anybody wishing for an end to the sapping and psychological warfare against FA-editors.

Giano, I quoted your old comments on my talk page but please don't write anything, as you can see by the request from SG. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Giano. My almost 3 year break has done wonders for me. I am now living in China, with lots of other things to do, and wikipedia can just wait: if I feel like it, I'll get round to it. It's a pity that you are going just as I am returning, but that's the way it is.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether you're working in WikiLand or not, the offer of a really decent beer down here in the Forest is always available. Give yourself a well-earned holiday, pack yourselves into a car, train, whatever, and come and chill out in our neck of the woods. Depending on how you like to spend your Filthy Lucre, there's everything from this little gem to this (with fossil-hunting on the beach for fun). Alternatively one of the family could probably find you some floor space. Which you may have to share with pets ... Pesky (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Malleus, I miss you very much. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ditto. It's the disenchantment of the WP world; all that is fun melts into junior-high school. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, Malleus made things plain, the disrespectful & hostile environment toward content contributors, treating them like naughty children (junior-high hall monitor Admins, per Kiefer's great analogy) -- too humiliating to be tolerable. Why can't it be figured out from that, what the H is wrong? What is anyone doing, or going to do, to reform it? (It's not Editor Retention Proj -- what a lame joke!) I have a Q ... in the end, are all content contributors just unpaid workers, creating value for WMF, in the event they should decide to sell-off the encyclopedia for $ (did Iridescent say $3-4 billion?)? Thx for any thoughts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  Here, I neglected to cite User:BadgerDrink for the analogy to monitors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

life outside

Just a thought, I knew you were interested, but a long way to travel for the green children. [2] Edmund Patrick – confer 06:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably know as much about the green children as the person giving the talk. Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sing praises

I have been told that I'm singing the praises of the banned, - I praise you for doing the same, as a model for others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The way that banned editors are disrespected here is intolerable. Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See? What did I say: (civility and team spirit)

Civility

I asked some candidates for arbitrator the following question: how do you feel about applying the principles that we use for BLPs (Biographies of living persons) also to editors: "a high degree of sensitivity", "attributed to a reliable, published source", "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered"?

Team spirit

I like to see in the Main page's (frequently discredited) DYK section 1950s American automobile culture, the result of admirable teamwork begun here (where some may not exactly expect civility) ;) (15 December 2012)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

See sense --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: green children of Woolpit

This is a note to let the main editors of green children of Woolpit know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 2, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The green children of Woolpit is the name given to two children who reportedly appeared in the village of Woolpit in Suffolk, England, some time in the 12th century. They were of generally normal appearance except for the green colour of their skin. They spoke in an unknown language, and the only food they would eat at first was green beans. Eventually they lost their green pallor, but the boy was sickly and died soon after baptism. After learning English, the girl explained that they had come from an underground world whose inhabitants are green. The only near-contemporary accounts are contained in Ralph of Coggeshall's Chronicum Anglicanum and William of Newburgh's Historia rerum Anglicarum, written in about 1189 and 1220 respectively. Between then and their rediscovery in the mid-19th century, the green children seem to surface only in Bishop Francis Godwin's fantastical The Man in the Moone. The story also provided the inspiration for The Green Child, the only novel written by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read. The main explanations of the story are that it is a typical folk tale describing an imaginary encounter with the inhabitants of another world, or it is a garbled account of a historical event. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Malleus, if you're still reading these pages, feel free to drop me a line privately if you spot anything that needs fixing. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  I will thanks. Congratulations on your green children TFA. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• It isn't mine, Malleus, it's mostly yours, but thanks. Oh, in other news, Sippi got an award for being the first kid in her grade to reach her AR goal (by a country mile). The new problem is getting her to go to sleep and not read three books a night. Sound familiar? I'm sure that's what you did too, and I know I did. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Sounds very familiar, good luck to Sippi. One of my regrets about the way things have panned out is that we'll now now never get The Man in the Moone to FA. Or at least you might, but I won't be around to help. Such is life. I'm not terribly happy about the blurb, so I may email you a few changes I'd like to see later. Or then again I may not. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(watching) looking forward to the children! - I just received the offer to improve the refs of Richard Wagner (FAC, 200 in May) but am afraid. I didn't learn enough from the expert in time, such is life. - You did refs well on the 1950s ... culture! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I learned a lot by watching what Jack Merridew did, even though we didn't always get on. I'm sure if you can sniff out his latest account he'd be only too happy to help. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He gave you good advice, and I believe he followed it successfully. Now we are left, to take care of the children, green or not, but not quite ready, or green ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That was indeed good advice, which I've belatedly taken, although I didn't realise at the time it came from Merridew. Obviously it's only a matter of time before my access to this talk page is removed, but my email address still works. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

KW's self absorption

I quoted your wisdom on being called "childish" by twelve-year olds. "Run and never look back" seems to be the motto of survivors of zombie infections, etc. Run and never look back! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That advice goes back a loooong way. --Dweller (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The predictable ANI fun. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) You're in the wrong gang KW. Best to bail out while it's still your choice to make, as I've done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) All I see from that VP discussion is that too many administrators still have their heads up their arses. I've complained many times about being blocked for using the word "sycophantic", but if you look through my log you'll see I was also blocked for suggesting that one administrator was a wikilawyer. Nothing will ever change here, pointless even to try. The only rational use of Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned is as a storage cloud, until the adult version comes along. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I think that the expected lifetime of a member of an organization is 18 months, if my memory of a bad study is correct. It's no wonder that editors leave, even in good fora, but here--- don't get me started. ;) Hamlet's father did not appear at ANI. Forget about D, who actually has twice surprised me with his sagacity (one being a statement about all babies looking like Eisenhower---or, I'd say, in our case of beginning to sit at the table and try a piece of white bread or a bit of mashed apple---like Kruschev at the UN)! I am in awe of the instigation of the last week.... The ANI discussion went well. Kudos to RegentsPark and especially Beyond My Ken---who threw hard, high, and inside to brush me off the plate, some years ago, if my memory is correct. Nice when admins show character. I'll be waiting for KWW to indef me.... ;D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Malleus, if you want to improve the blurb, you can email me - I was doing my best to explain things in no more than 1,200 characters of visible text (it's at 1,240 as it is) and inevitably some points have to be lost or summarised. As ever, if you can improve my prose (and how many times have I asked for and received that help for GAs/FAs, and how many times have others asked and received?!), please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Once I would have cared, but now I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also arrived at I don't care, it makes me stay. If I cared I couldn't. I asked before: how do you like my red cat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I was going to ask the same question. Just give me a few suggestions. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

This is a note to let the main editors of Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 14, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American recording artist Beyoncé Knowles from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008). It was the album's lead single alongside "If I Were a Boy", contrasting Knowles' persona as herself and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce. Inspired by her secret marriage to Jay-Z in April 2008, the song explores men's unwillingness to commit, a topic that motivated Knowles to write "Single Ladies". It is a dance-pop song with R&B, dancehall, disco and bounce influences. According to the lyrics, the female protagonist is in a club to celebrate after a recent end to a poor relationship; her former lover is also present. The song and the repeated refrain, "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it", are directed to him. Critics praised the song for its smooth production. "Single Ladies" won three Grammy Awards, including Song of the Year. It peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. The accompanying music video was shot in black-and-white and features the J-Setting dance choreography inspired by "Mexican Breakfast", a 1969 routine choreographed by Bob Fosse. The award-winning video has been parodied and imitated around the world. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this is evidence of the broadness of your contributions. Let me know if you want me to stop it. Ucucha (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I used to have my finger in so many pies, but all I did with this was to help Jivesh out at FAC so far as I recall; can't really remember how I got involved. I've never heard the song to be honest, and I'm no fan of Beyonce, so if Jivesh is happy then so am I. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)