Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 26 October 2011

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Archives

2007 April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2009 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December 2010 January • February • March • April • May • June • July  • August • September • October • November • December 2011 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh God! Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and all you gone daddies & all you pretty mommas,

Don't get a swelled head, but that was my first and only announcement on another user's talk page. :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these events, as they're really just an out of control vehicle for anyone you've ever upset to try and claim their pound of flesh; dishonest wouldn't even get close. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition is a discussion of the "insult"/"mocking" of miscapitalizing "DemiUrge". When did I get a choice between the blue pill and the red pill?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one purpose to RfC, and that's to humiliate you. Much like RfA really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RFarbcom is even worse though. The mind boggles at how much time and effort is spent on NYB's faux court martials.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been impressed by the functioning of ArbCom and particularly by NYB, whether there or as a commentator. We have interacted only about twice. First, somebody named NYB made a calm comment about a DYK that did not threaten or insult anybody, which led to consensus immediately. Second, when I made an erroneous assumption, he alerted me discretely, implicitly inviting me to draw my own conclusion (and correct my erroneous statements). Recently, he seems to have run out of patience with KeepsCases; however, having avoided the apocalyptic language of the snake handlers, NYB is still a mensch in my book. Another ArbCom member is in free fall.Small text

It seems to me that RfC serves to discredit attackers more than victims, but I may be guilty of wishful thinking.

I has been helpful to learn more about pathogenic yeast the last week. We ignore them despite their being present all the time, because they have no effect. If our immune system drops, following cancer or HIV etc., then they cause opportunistic infections. With rare exceptions, when treated they go away. Nothing to get worried about.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing time: Last call!

"Oh, you've been a lovely audience but the time does pass. Don't you all be lettin' the door hit you in the ass. You've been a lovely audience but enough is enough."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that Misplaced Pages's anthem? Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a closing song with a few naughty words, to amuse you and yours.

However, now that I think of it, the RfC does seem to have a bimodal distribution.

• The cluster of "Misplaced Pages users" may be singing "Bugg off! You bastard, bugger off!" to me.
• I appreciate the support from the Misplaced Pages editors/writers (no quotes).

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Imprimatur

Some progress has been made. However, the draft-closing has gag order:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

The suggestion that I should consult with somebody before writing on anything strongly believed is utterly unacceptable. Should I ask for permission before farting?

1. "I fear their next design will be to get into their custody the licensing of that which they say Claudius intended, but went not through with."
2. Milton annotated his margin with "Quo veniam daret statum crepitumque ventris in convivio emittendi. Sueton. in Claudio." "In English (from the Loeb translation of J.C. Rolfe 1914): " allowing the privilege of breaking wind quietly or noisily at table

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Language difficulty. I'm convinced this comes down to it - same as with User:Tenmei who had the exact same prolix habit - I think he learned his English by reading Gormenghast or something. Communication with simple words was impossible with Tenmei, because he could never catch the significance of single words and simple sentences. And no, that's not a personal attack (before Kiefer says it is) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

*Silence*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, bear with me. I have a theory here. It may be a crap theory, but it's mine. A student friend (many years ago) was a brilliant linguist, and said that the most difficult thing was to think in another language, rather than assembling one's thoughts in English and translating them. He once wrote me a letter using English words with german grammar, syntax and colloquies to show the difference. Malleus says somewhere else on this page about summarising being a skill that has to be learned. I didn't figure it out with Tenmei for ages, but what he was doing was trying to show all the information, because he couldn't (to his own satisfaction I suppose) compress his thoughts into short form English. So he'd fill a page with stuff from Harvard about conflict resolution to make sure he got his point over. His first language was Japanese, so I'm guessing that's quite different. Now, of course, English might be your first language. The only thing that makes me think it might not be so is that I've noticed you have a few difficulties where words have developed differently in Swedish and English ('makeless' and 'court' for example). So I'm wondering if you, like Tenmei, are putting quotes and lengthy discourse in to make sure you have got your point over in situations where someone who uses English "in the street" every day would use a few pithy phrases to convey what they meant. Well, that's the theory anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The flipside then, of course, is that Tenmei had difficulty understanding when someone used a colloquial phrase. He kept a collection of them on his userpage, and took great delight in getting to the bottom of what they meant, but he sometimes went of track because he started from the bottom up, as it were, and didn't always immediately catch the current usage. You've done that with 'Planet Janet'. In fact, the show is so obscure I've never heard of it, let alone seen it. 'On Planet Janet' is used in a situation where a person is expounding theories or making responses that seem not to relate to the matter at hand but are somewhat bizarre. You may still consider that a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah. A classic case of dysfunctional prolixity would be the writings of Mick McManus. If KW is Swedish, I'm a small green object. Ning-ning (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean the columnist, not Mick McManus (wrestler). Ah! the Saturday afternoons of my youth!. I've no idea if he is Swedish, but you're not looking too much like Mr Bumpy either way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As an exercise in non-paraconsistent logic, this display is superior to the inference about Lihaas's politics, where contradictory user-boxes allow anybody to concluding anything about his politics---even were WP:NPA non-existent, with the same justification: None.

In my case, evidence for the contrary may require some digging, but is there to be had: I have identified myself as an U.S. citizen repeatedly. (BTW, at Swedish universities, researchers typically speak with better English grammar and word choice than the man on the street in the US or the UK, certainly better than President 43.) In general, e-mails and WP postings lack the inflections of spoken English, so that it is useful to signal irony and humor with liberal smiles and winks. (I warn that Swedish winks are more flirty than Americans.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, it was worth a try. It's not about speaking good or bad english, but being able to think about a concept and transfer it from one vessel to another as it were. Having met students from across Europe, I can confirm that most of them spoke English with more vocabulary than half the members of my daughters' classes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant MickMcNee not Mick McManus… I find KW's writing pretty clear. The other I never got to the bottom of. I wonder if Kief's interest in yeast has led them to discover a gobbet o'pus? Ning-ning (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RfAs: Banning discussions of minors

I was asked to agree just to briefly state my conclusion, without elaboration, when opposing minors at RfAs.

Now, the example of an "issue that I feel strongly about" is of course minors at RfAs. I am supposed to consult with an impartial third party before posting about issues that "might escalate".

It would have been honest first to change the policy that currently states that editors are free to oppose minors at RfAs, before raising this issue, which had been ignored in the outside views, in the closing statement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I quote for convenience, emboldening and adding italics for emphasis:

QUOTATION of bans on discussions at RfAs

Demiurge1000 suggested this, which I quickly rejected:

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Misplaced Pages administrator.

WormThatTurned suggested this:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

• Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

After QUOTATION discussion

• I do wish you'd learn to use diffs and stop copying everyone's comments including signatures all around the wiki. It's very confusing, and is generally frowned upon. Worm never posted here - you're making it look as if he did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Malleus, could I prevail on you to do the GA review for my current candidate, Walking Liberty half dollar? It is the final entry (other than the overview article which I may not get to for a bit) in my series on the Great Recoinage of 1907–1921 and has at least one laugh out loud moment. You are free to make changes, I may modify for technical reasons but I won't throw anything at you. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll buy you a beer once you use up all the free ones!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough and competent review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to say, that American Silver Eagle at the end really is quite beautiful. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shows you what Weinman was trying to do in a way that the image of the circulation coin beautiful as it is just can't. This series has taught me quite a bit about art.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

Thanks for your support, I thought you might like to see my hat (ROFL) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick peek at your bastard, look forward to seeing it at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages Policy

Hi!

Having a deja vu experience all over again, I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Why not make Jante Law an official policy of Misplaced Pages?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Randy from Boise did not license that content.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To defy #9, I shall post that I fail #8 every damn day. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incentive, or something...

Look at Geoffrey then in 2007, before I started work on him, and compare that to now. And it's YOUR copyediting/prose tweaking that makes my research readable. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What an extraordinary transformation! I'll get on to those two clunky sentences when I've finished my tea; "Everything stops for tea" don't cha know. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, I did really like England for it's in hotel room teapots. And the general civilized approach to tea... us teadrinkers in the states are very much third-class citizens. If you don't want an "herbal" tea while dining out, you're in deep trouble. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't drink coffee and I take my own tea to the US. My Louisiana friend can now make a great cup of Yorkshire tea. I doubt if my coffee will come up to scatch when they visit next year. Tea is not good everywhere, especially with little cartons of UHT milk. I'm not sure Malleus is referring to a cuppa though, tea time in Greater Manchester involves eating.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire tea is my favourite as well. PoD and I disagree over things like lunchtime, teatime and so on. For me lunch is what you have at midday, teatime you have about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps with a light snack, to tide you over to dinner at about 8 in the evening. PoD on the other hand, uncouth fellow that he is, thinks that dinnertime is at lunchtime and that teatime is at dinnertime. Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a southern softie masquerading as a northerner. People up here eat dinner and then tea, followed by pudding (not supper). And we drink pop, not Coke. BTW I haven't been around much for Workhouse I know, I'm just letting you fidget with it for a bit more before I look at it again. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've spent much of my life in the soft south, that's true. And until my wife and I moved up to Manchester in the '90s she'd never been further north than Birmingham. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Workhouse, I'm still struggling with the religious aspects that some seem so keen on and I completely fail to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well I'll have to sit with PoD and the uncouth yobs :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

An issue with which you've been involved is under discussion at Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil#Italics. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, but I'm afraid that my experiences with User:Lecen have led me to believe that he is impervious to all reason. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for editing my article on the Quoll Our teacher consistently talks about what a great asset you are to the AP Biology project. Thanks!

Savetheoceans (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your teacher is very wise Grasshopper. ;-) I'm generally quite happy to shuffle commas around for anyone, so don't be afraid to call on me again if you feel you need help, particularly as you get closer to GA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content and the research will always be yours, not mine; my only role is to help you to write it better, mainly by example I hope. Your teacher is helping you with the science, and I'll help with the English. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Science/Outline

Dear Malleus, I'd appreciate your eyes on Talk:Science/Outline which is attempting to scope appropriate coverage of Science. As this is a mixture of summary, following high quality sources at the field review level (across 4+ fields), and meeting encyclopaedic needs; it would benefit from editor eyes who've previously conducted some study at this level even if they're not presently reading out of a hqrs at field review level. I'm having particular trouble with structuring the presentation of the day-to-day practice of science without it becoming a discipline soup. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that this recent push is going to lead to anything other than a horrible article. As I've said on the talk page, it seems to me that pretty much all science articles have the same fundamental problem: reliance on primary sources rather than reviews, and this one seems little different. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I value your opinion. I will be trying to concentrate largely on the history subsection where I can gain access to, and comprehend, the field review literature—and so potentially ensure one section is less than sucky. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of trying to tackle it bottom up, starting with something like Occam's razor, but that would take an eternity. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes

Thanks for doing the GA review of Golden Domes and for the copy editing. I'll work through your list and ask for a peer review before relisting it. However I disagree with your final remark. While the article reports some remarkable claims, it does so using the neutral point of view. It does not, I believe, endorse any of them.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In many ways I think it's a nice article, and I enjoyed reading it, but I just don't think it's a neutral account of the Golden Domes. Of course I may well be wrong, so a peer review might be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Granted, in my effort to be neutral I may have made it too sympathetic. Adding more attribution and critical material might make it more balanced. Thanks again for your time and help.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Why are you edit-warring to restore a relative link? And failing to provide an edit summary when doing so? It should be an absolute link. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you are completely mistaken. The link should be a relative link, as the article may be renamed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility warning - watch your edit summaries. It is precisely because the article may be renamed that it must be an absolute link. You cannot trust that subpages will be renamed. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is of course impeccably flawed. An absolute link won't work if what should be done is done, i.e., the talk page and its subpages are moved with the article page. Anyway, don't you have anything better to do than come here bothering me about this kind of trivial nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that for whatever reasons, subpages are often not moved, which causes relative links like /GA1 to become redlinks. If an absolute link is used, even If the subpage is moved, a redirect is left by default. It's true that someone could delete the redirect, but I don't recall ever seeing an absolute link redlink because of a move. I have seen plenty of /GAx redlinks following moves. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do it your way and I'll do it my way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We should both do what's best for maintenance. Are you going to revert any changes I make to talk pages of articles you have GA-reviewed? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That slum of an article was nominated for GA? Ning-ning (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time, apparently without any notice having been taken of what the first three reviewers said. I notice you've been copyediting it a bit this evening though, so that's good. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to thank you for taking time to review The Time of Angels. Doctor Who is a British show after all, so I thought I might give you a virtual cup of tea. Glimmer721 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a Doctor Who fan (and British) myself, and I well remember the episode. I think you've done a pretty decent job with it, just a few rough edges to knock off before GA. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm a new fan and thought the episode articles especially needed improvement. Glimmer721 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an old fan, right from the very first series with William Hartnell, perhaps the scariest Doctor of them all. If you've got any more episode articles in the pipeline don't be afraid to give me a call if you need a review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

Noting here what I said on that article talk page about your comments here, here, here, and here. The reason I'm coming here to raise it as well is that even if I and others are wrong about such things, it is important to be able to raise the possibility of such matters, and to engage in discussion, without making a personal issue of it. Otherwise people will just ignore the issues. I realise that you don't think my concerns were valid, but can I ask if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them? It is possible for people to disagree on such matters. There is a current example at WT:DYK right now - see here (please look at the actual substance of the arguments there, rather than making generalisations about DYK). The point there is not who is "right", but that it needs to be possible to discuss such matters by focusing on the actual concerns raised (as Ealdgyth did) without making personal comments (like you did). Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think it is, the ONDB author has built a story using lapidary and powerful language. It's difficult to know how far they've twisted whatever actuality is recoverable; secondly, like the old pork-pie muncher says, the language forms a pair of spectacles which we find difficult to remove. For example, the ONDB's "undignified fracas during vespers" is, in the article, a "dispute". What was it- a heated argument or a brandishing of the bollock daggers? How could anyone feasibly rewrite ONDB's description of such a scene to avoid plagiarism? "Whilst the priest was giving it large, several homeys had at it in a well messy scene, which did no credit to the cool of the occasion". Ning-ning (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What has happened to standard written English while Wehwalt slept?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are rather confused Carcharoth. Which is worse in your opinion, "You are a plagiarist" or "You are taking the piss" (which you were and still are)? I'm simply not interested in your wrong-headed playground notions of civility. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a very subtle point here that I'm obviously missing. It would appear from the example of good practice given above that it is ok to say that SandyG is disrupting wikipedia to make a point and pissing in the wind but it's not ok for you to suggest that someone is behaving like an ass and taking the piss. Richerman (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is not so subtle, but is just yet another demonstration of how those who perceive themselves to be in positions of authority believe that the rules they apply to others do not apply to themselves. It's reached epidemic proportions here at Misplaced Pages. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> My point was that it is OK to disagree about paraphrasing from sources. It is not a black-and-white issue, and it's not a yes/no situation. It should be possible to say "this paraphrasing looks borderline to me, can we discuss it" without the aggravation that often results. For the record, I disagree with the approach Sandy took in that DYK discussion, but is not forbidden to raise issues of that nature. But typically, Malleus, instead of responding to what I said, has gone off on one again about authority figures on Misplaced Pages and civility - two perennial obsessions of his (see, I can be forthright as well). I see Malleus also failed to respond to the "if you think you had valid concerns, how would you raise them?" point. Probably because he realised he couldn't answer without conceding the point (which is that there has to be a way to raise such concerns without the discussion becoming an argument). Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Still here? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange question. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange as your continuing harassment. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if I reply to that, you will cry harrassment? My responses to what you have said is not harassment. If you tell me that I'm taking the piss, or that I'm talking shit, or that I'm behaving like an ass, then I'm perfectly entitled to post to your talk page and object to that. Though I think in future I won't bother as you are clearly just trying to wind me up (maybe I'm learning something after all). Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you just went away. If you want to see how I've dealt with suspected plagiarism in articles that I've reviewed then why not look at some articles I've reviewed in which I've dealt with it, sans all the fancy footwork and Nancy-boy words that you habitually deploy? Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you are behaving like an arse. Geometry guy 20:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My fake dick collection is bigger than all of yours combined. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I will behave as I please. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I have your attention lets backtrack a bit... Carcharoth is not confused, but has raised questions about the article to which Ealdgyth has responded. He might be criticized instead for some insensitivity and tactlessness, but he hasn't been throwing around the weight of authority, only trying to be a good reviewer and seek discussion.

The real problem here is the irrational and paranoid obsession with plagiarism which has infested Misplaced Pages ever since the RLevse affair. Normally intelligent editors seem unable to distinguish between what is appropriate in an academic journal or monograph, and what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. The stigma of plagiarism in academia infects discussion about paraphrasing in articles. But hang on a minute, folks, we are writing a tertiary source here: combining and paraphrasing secondary sources is what we do.

And it is difficult: avoiding original research by synthesis, yet also avoiding following sources too closely can be like walking on a knife edge sometimes. So we need to work together to achieve this delicate balance. A review comment which suggests distancing prose from the source material should be made and taken no differently from a review comment which suggests making the article more faithful to the source material.

The fault here is on all sides: no one who follows this talk page should be surprised that reviewers have become as nervous about the plagiarism issue as article editors. In my view, this nervous attitude towards close paraphrasing is completely wrong-headed.

At the very least, could we all try to be a little bit less precious about it? Geometry guy 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with protecting against plagiarism is that very often, the editor of the source being summarised has already used the best possible combination of words to construct the most meaningful sentence possible. A Misplaced Pages editor can deal with this by changing the wording, removing information, combining sentences, etc, but that still leaves the problem of a good copyeditor who hasn't seen the source doing exactly what the source's editor did. Inadvertently, what was once quite different can suddenly become quite similar.

My view is that so long as its obvious that the sentence hasn't been copied and pasted (with a word or two changed), there isn't a problem. The whole thing does make me a bit paranoid though, that one day someone will accuse me of plagiarism, just because I couldn't find a better combination of words to use than already existed. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to deal with this paranoia because it is undermining collegiality. As you quite rightly say, when there is only one reliable secondary source for a segment of an article, it is impossible to distance the article from the source without engaging in original research. However, as long as it is made clear that the article is following the source (a few "according to..."'s might help), then no accusation of plagiarism can possibly stand, because by definition plagiarism involves copying another work without acknowledgement. In this context, suggestions for rewording sentences and paragraphs should be made and received just like any other suggestions for article improvement. Geometry guy 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to deal with it, certainly, but to consider accusations of plagiarism the same as any other suggestions for article improvement is ... well, unrealistic. How can a suggestion to improve the grammar be considered equivalent to an accusation of laziness at best and dishonesty at worst? Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Such suggestions should neither be written, nor read, nor interpreted as "accusations of plagiarism". The whole attitude is wrong-headed. Geometry guy 22:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But they are accusations of plagiarism, so why pretend otherwise? And to pick up PoD's point, Ealdgyth has occasionally pointed out to me that in copyediting her bishop articles I've moved the text closer to the source: sometimes there's only one good way to say something. What's fairly obvious is that Misplaced Pages's requirement that every statement of fact be cited inevitably leads to sentences that may look rather similar to the source. How many different ways can fifteen or so words be re-arranged or re-written? Personally I'm not so concerned about individual sentences, I'm concerned about blocks of text. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't, because the source is acknowledged. I agree though that PoD's point is an important one: copyediting can bring a text closer to the source. All the more reason to be clear which source is being followed, and to be less precious about the whole "plagiarism" issue. Geometry guy 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As a totally unrelated point, can someone define "precious" for the Yank? I'm pretty sure you don't mean "valuable" here... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming it means special like a snowflake. So special one requires different treatment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. My dictionary says "very fastidious or affected". Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone asked if they might copy edit your work you may say "Carry on - I'm not precious about it" meaning "the present wording is not so important to me that I'll be upset if you change it" Oddly, I can't find a definition in the dictionary or online that really covers that usage. "Very fastidious or affected" really refers to someone who is acting in a very camp manner. Richerman (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Yes "special" is probably close to the intended (affectionate) meaning; my thesaurus gives "precise, overrefined, artificial, affected, overdone, euphuistic, twee", which does not entirely represent what I wanted to say, because reactions to "accusations of plagiarism" are entirely genuine. The term is used in acting circles where it is fashionable to overreact to the mundane. The responses here have been honest rather than theatrical: the theatrical element is the backdrop, the community's overreaction to all things related to paraphrasing of sources. Geometry guy 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and I had a discussion some weeks ago, where we agreed that most good writers just write off the top of their heads, and then add the footnotes. Now, I think that problems arise when editors, without much knowledge, try to write an article and use only one source. They may make a lot of factual mistakes, or fall into close paraphrasing.

"Such Were The Days": When I was in 5th grade ( at a U.S. public school), we wrote our first reports, and we were told that we had to "put things in our own words", not just rephrasing others' ideas.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Summarising is a skill that seems to have been lost. When I was at primary school we had lessons in what was then called English comprehension, which basically consisted of either listening to or reading a piece of text and summarising it in your own words. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting. My mother, who taught nursing, said that often persons with photographic memories have arrested development of reasoning, because they use their memory rather than abstracting. On the other hand, John von Neumann had a near photographic memory, and his reasoning abilities were superhuman.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mother may have been right, as von Neumann was not the first to come up with the idea of the computer architecture that has come to bear his name. Plagiarism? Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch it, bub! ;)

The von Neumann & Burks report abstracted the engineers' design, and this mathematical abstraction facilitated reasoning about its properties. It is hard to imagine how smart he is. I have seen internationally prominent mathematicians humble themselves before Fields Medalists, and almost none of these have launched whole fields, like Garrett Birkhoff or Saunders Mac Lane. Then there is another gap before you reach von Neumann and Kolmogorov. Human abilities have such a long right-tail.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur W. Burks is a personal hero of mine, in that he not only helped von Neumann but he also edited the scientific papers of Charles Sanders Peirce!

The original idea is the hard thing, not its subsequent misattribution. The truth is, I think, that ideas have their time, and their attribution is largely down to accidents of history, which after all is left to the winners to write. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Von Neumann wrote a similar statement about the importance of original ideas, when he discussed Emile Borel's notes on game theory, which had mixed strategies but conjectured that non-symmetric 2-person zero-sum games need not have a saddle-point, falsely. It's called "On the Borel notes", and it was published in Econometrica (JSTOR).

Von Neumann was working around the clock on regular rings, pointless geometry, game theory, numerical analysis, atomic weapons, defense strategy, etc. I think that he or Burks have acknowledged that they wish they had written some reports more carefully, with more careful attribution of ideas to the Penn people. I haven't looked at the question of Turing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus,

The New York Times reports on a Waldorf school that avoids computers until the children are teenagers. Many of the parents are computer professionals.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotted Eagle Ray

Thank you for your contributions on my spotted eagle ray article! Your help is appreciated! --Marissa927 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC) WOW! I just looked at even more corrections from you. I really do appreciate your help and I'm working on remembering all of your corrections. I'll try to improve my writing.

P.S. Next semester I have English and the writing test, maybe that will help (: Marissa927 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to walk it by then. ;-) Learning how to write (and I'm no expert, believe me), is almost as important as knowing what to write. But with your teacher's project you're in the perfect position to learn both, hopefully as painlessly as possible. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully painlessly. There is definitely a learning curve, as Mr. Butler warned, but it is hard to understand until we get out and start. But, hopefully we will improve with time. Marissa927 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think learning by example is often the best. I guarantee, when you've finished your article and you look back on it in years to come you'll think "Wow, did I write that?" Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I most likely will. I wanted to let you know, I am running out of resources on my spotted eagle ray article. I really love the animal, but I can't seem to find enough (reliable) information. I will continue to work on it, however to ensure a good grade, I am going to put more effort into another article my group has chosen. I will most likely be on the Diamondback Terrapin or Sand tiger shark. Marissa927 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Check for sourced => using google scholar. Regards, SunCreator 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

How the hell was that construed as a consensus to keep, if "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements"? This seems to have been a mere vote count, since those voting to keep (10, by my count)) couldn't offer even one clear example or one solid source in support of their vote, while those voting to convert to dab (6) actually had grounds. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter the empty rhetoric, the much vaunted "consensus" is simply a vote, as you have just seen. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the closer has some prior history with contentious closures. See User talk:Sandstein. Sandstein considered the Wife selling closure correct, but undid another by the same non-admin editor. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein is not one you ever ought to trust to be consistent or honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with the feeling that "junk SYNT article but it's there so cannot be deleted" is a problem. Fully qualified, LOL. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge

Thanks very much, and for your edits to the article, as well as Ickenham. Hopefully they will both make it through. Harrison49 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to pop up everywhere. But not always welcome, I have to admit. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, how did you manage to get two FACs up simultaneously? Has User:SandyGeorgia given you a dispensation? Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest pulling Ickenham, which I don't think has much chance, and concentrating on RFA Uxbridge. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I seem to have followed your suggestions without having read this first, so hopefully the Ickenham nomination can be closed in favour of the RAF Uxbridge one. Harrison49 (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left SandyGeorgia a message. Harrison49 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It will all come out in the wash, I'm sure. SandyG isn't an unreasonable person, despite any reports to the contrary. Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've revisited an old friend...

William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose and would like to see if you can get access to Salzman (1923) Chartulary of the Priory of St Peter at Sele. The relevant portions appear to be pp. xii-xiv, 47-49. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where would I start looking for that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea. U of I didn't have a copy... I'm hoping that the libraries in England have a better chance of having it... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a scout around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wake Forest has it. I would check your inner-library loan to see if any schools in your state have it. I might check maryland for kicks.... --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Me and the local librarian do not get along. No, it's not that I've abused the inter-library loan procedures nor have I any outstanding books from my local library, it's that I've very publically supported some opponents of hers. She's an idiot and wouldn't know scholarship if it hit her in the head. (You may take it to mean that my own personal library in terms of history far outshines our local city library.... even in subjects I'm not that interested in.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats understandable. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Ealdgyth, it's available at a university library in my state - could probably get it through ILL in a week or so... (Luckily, the local librarians and I get along quite well, and although they look at the breadth of topics in my ILL requests very oddly, they happily go along). If Malleus doesn't have easy access to it, I could request it and scan/e-mail you the proper pages, as I think we've done once before. Let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly don't have easy access to it, so your suggestion looks good. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm betting that' it's not a lot of use, but in the interests of running down everything... I was also thinking of reviving Malleus' interest in the William Cragh Featured Topic... I'm getting bored with bishops so it's time to touch some other subject for a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A featured topic on old Bill? Is this a Thomas de Cantilupe thing? Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can be very ponderous sometimes: I've just clocked the de Braose connection. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in hunting down my Magna Carta Ancestry book, I remembered that I am indeed descended from good ole Billy and his father through Joan, who married Richard Foliot (not a relative of Gilbert Foliot, as far as I know...) As far as the featured topic, I suspect we could get by with Cragh, the two Braoses, and Cantilupe. I'd think the main topic would be Cragh, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But as you know, there's really hardly anything known about Cragh. I only dug in because of my morbid fascination with weird stuff. As for my own ancestry, least said soonest mended, but my wife's family have traced themselves back to the Anglo-Saxons, and even have a nursery rhyme named after them: "Bye, baby Bunting". Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is more known about some of my bishops? Look at Mellitus. You've already got William Cragh to FA, we'd just need to work up the two Braose's (and one of them is already GA) and Cantilupe and we'd be good. I think the elder Braose would probably be stuck at GA, but Cantilupe, the younger Braose, and Cragh would all be FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you I don't have access to a university library. Well I do, but it's 200 hundred miles away, so pretty useless really. I guess like many others here I tend only to write about what I can find sources for in public libraries, but if you're up for it then so am I. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the Braose's have an ODNB entry, and my Magna Carta Ancestry has a very extensive bibliography of works relating to them. The younger is essentially complete except for some more minor points that would need to be brought out and some background material inserted. The elder is going to need some more work, but it's not impossible, Magna Carta Ancestry does list a few things I'd want to look up and there are some other things that can be consulted for him. Cragh's in good shape. Cantilupe's ... honestly, I don't have the desire to work on his article, but it would be possible for me to get the research up and have you do more of the polish and stuff. I've already gathered most of the sources I'd need for Cantilupe. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cragh's in brilliant shape, and surely Cantilupe can't be so hard? Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(interjecting!) I was already planning to stop at the library on Friday when I'm in town, so will put in the request at that point, unless I hear differently from anyone in the meantime. I'll let you know when it appears. Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana. I'll do some digging here for some stuff, but may need to have someone look up an article or two in The American Genealogist magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Manchester United F.C.

This is a note to let the main editors of Manchester United F.C. know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/October 30, 2011. 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 delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages: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:

Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club, based in Old Trafford, Greater Manchester, that plays in the Premier League. Founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, the club earned its first FA Cup victory on 30 October 1886. The club changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to Old Trafford (pictured) in 1910. In 1968, under the management of Matt Busby, Manchester United was the first English football club to win the European Cup, ten years after the Munich air disaster that claimed the lives of eight players. The current manager, Sir Alex Ferguson has won 37 major honours since he took over in November 1986. Manchester United has won the most titles in English football, with 53 domestic trophies, comprising a record 19 league titles, a record 11 FA Cups, four League Cups and 19 FA Charity/Community Shields. The club has also been successful globally, winning seven international titles: three European Cups, one UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, one UEFA Super Cup, one Intercontinental Cup and one FIFA Club World Cup. In 1998–99, the club won a "Treble" of the Premier League, the FA Cup and the European Cup. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to the no doubt interminable arguments as to whether Manchester United is singular or plural. Not. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The timing seems a little provocative, given the derby scoreline at the weekend. I can see the casual City supporters piling on already. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

About this; I think we edit-conflicted. It's not my way to censor another user's posts. Nevertheless, I have to ask; why is this apparently such an emotive area? --John (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever been to a football match? Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Never been to MUFC but started at Partick Thistle F.C. as a boy, then Greenock Morton F.C. and Queen of the South F.C. as we moved around Scotland. As an adult living in Edinburgh I used to go to see Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Hibernian F.C. especially the latter as it was near my house. I have only been to a couple of English grounds; St James Park, Newcastle and the Stadium of Light in Sunderland. Are you an MUFC fan? --John (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And on that shivering topic I'm really excited for League Two Aldershot to draw MUFC in the Carling Cup. Obviously Fergie will play his reserve side, but what a game that'll be for the home crowd.

You lucky so and so. They're an amazing club. Gordon McQueen, Joe Jordan, Brian McClair... back in the day when Scotland had decent players, a lot of them seemed to be at Old Trafford or Anfield. Those days are long gone, sadly. --John (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was at Old Trafford for pretty much every game in the late '60s early '70s, but I then I went off to that London. When I came back I was amazed at how the stadium had changed. You can even buy a pint of beer to go with your pie now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In that era you would have been privileged to see God. I missed the chance to see him in the twilight of his career at Easter Road, but he must have been amazing in his prime. --John (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

George Best was a presence, not just a footballer, but it all went wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Have fun in your playground. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Came over to see what you were upset about. A party at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What, no Auto-da-fé? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have I been blocked yet? Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, and I don't think you will be. I would still be very happy to figure out why this was such an emotive subject for you both. Answer in your own time or not at all. --John (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had to venture a guess, it's been quite a week of little brushups with people with a less than firm grasp of the English language for Malleus. There was the issue on the Aphonso page, then we have the long running sore that is the wife-selling article, then the FAC for Geoffrey the Bastard, and the usual stuff on Guy Fawkes. It's probably not this particular issue so much as straw on a camel's back. I know I've been ultra-cranky this week myself... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to be cheery because after being out of the loop for so long, one forgets what "business as usual" was like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the memory comes back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And I see another member of the corps de admin decided to block you even though the ANI thread was against it. How lovely --Guerillero | My Talk 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no honesty here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's some honesty here, and a fair amount of competence, but sadly not always enough of either. --John (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the end for me. I will never forget or forgive this. Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011