Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:08, 12 April 2011 view sourcePedro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators22,741 edits →Question for any administrators who happen by: got that wrong← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators153,171 edits Happy Holidays! 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}}
<!-- {{wikibreak|message=It seems that the only way for me not to get blocked here is for me not to post, which is what I'll be doing for as far into the future as I'm able to see right now. Perhaps in a week, a month, or whatever, I'll once again be able to face the systemic problems of abusive administrators that wikipedia refuses to deal with, more optimistically and resiliantly than I can now. Then again, perhaps not.}} -->
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}-->
{|-
|width="10%" bgcolor="#F8EABA" style="border:1px solid #8F91A1;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
]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.<br />

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.

|}
<!--<center> <!--<center>
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">
''''''</div>--> ''''''</div>-->
<!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}--> <!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}} }}
{{sidebar with collapsible lists
{{archive box|
| outertitle =
<small>
| topimage = ]
<center>'''2007'''<br /></center>
| bodyclass = hlist
]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]<br />
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;
<center>'''2008'''</center>
| expanded =
]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
<center>'''2009'''</center>
]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
<center>'''2010'''</center>
]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
<center>'''2011'''<br /></center>
]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]</small>
|search=yes}}


| contentstyle = text-align: left;
== According to... ==


| heading1
we have each written one of the two most viewed TFAs this year. It must be something in the water around here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
| list1name = 2007
| list1title = 2007 archive
| list1 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading2
:Or something missing from the water elsewhere. I'm glad the fairies did so well, it's a nice gentle story from another age. ] ] 23:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
| list2name = 2008
::Holy shit, 222,200?? But I'll top that once ] is longer than two sentences and gets promoted to FA, no doubt. Congratulations! ] (]) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list2title = 2008 archive
| list2 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading3
== Prose pliers ==
| list3name = 2009
| list3title = 2009 archive
| list3 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading4
Not motorsport history I'm afraid, but a similar Boy's Own topic. If you find a minute, ] could use a copyedit (and will hopefully be vaguely interesting too!) ] <sup>]</sup> 13:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
| list4name = 20010
| list4title = 2010 archive
| list4 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading5
:Done. Good luck at FAC. ] ] 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
| list5name = 2011
| list5title = 2011 archive
| list5 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading6
::Thanks for that. I really appreciate it. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
| list6name = 2012
| list6title = 2012 archive
| list6 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading7
== ].... ==
| list7name = 2013
| list7title = 2013 archive
| list7 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading8
I know you gave me a list of things to work on for him, did we put it on my talk pages? I have misplaced it... He's not "next" as the Equine project's looking at ] next, but he'll be my next one up. No more carousels, they are as bad as ] for my blood pressure and sanity, I think. ] - ] 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
| list8name = 2014
| list8title = 2014 archive
| list8 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading9
:It's I think. ] ] 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list9name = 2015
| list9title = 2015 archive
| list9 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading10
== ] ==
| list10name = 2016
| list10title = 2016 archive
| list10 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading11
Sorry, I didn't see your earlier edit saying the same thing. (FWIW, I think notes without periods are ugly! and I'm sure you noticed that some of the references have closing periods, but not all of them.) For the purpose of verification, check your email. This whole "explanations" section needs, I think reorganizing one way or another--the attempts at historical explanation are of a different category than Cohen's literary and possibly anthropological argument, but I can't rightly figure out what would be most fruitful. But you can, no doubt--that's why they pay you the big bucks. ] (]) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list11name = 2017
| list11title = 2017 archive
| list11 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading12
:I apply the same rule to notes and citations as in the article body, which is that only full sentences end in fullstops. I agree that the Explanations section needs some reorganisation; it was really just a holding bay, waiting for some attention. ] ] 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list12name = 2018
:PS. Got the email, thanks. ] ] 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list12title = 2018 archive
::Ha, I fought over that same issue with someone in the FL review for ], but I won't rehash that here. Yes, I figured it was a holding pen of sorts. BTW, Cohen's note 18, I wonder if those books mention our children--haven't checked my library yet. Also BTW, I don't think there's an English translation of ''Chronicon Anglicanum'', is there? And tt seems that the bibliography of the article in its current state is pretty exhaustive. I'll keep looking, nonetheless. ] (]) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list12 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading13
:::: Which ''Chronicon''? I.e. who's the chronicler? ] - ] 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list13name = 2019
:::::Sorry, ]. ] (]) 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
| list13title = 2019 archive
| list13 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| content35 =
:::::: Does not appear to be, at least according to World Cat. ] - ] 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{#tag:inputbox|
:::::::Well, get to translating! I gotta go make dinner. Thanks anyway, ] (]) 21:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}/
break=no
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}
| navbar = none
}}
{{-}}


== FAC == == TFA ==


{{User QAIbox
You kindly contributed to the recent peer review of ], following which I have nominated the article at FAC (]). Any views you might perhaps wish to add there would be gratefully received. ] (]) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
:Good luck with that. If you keep on top of the reviewers comments I'm sure you won't have too many problems. ] ] 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
== Green ==
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
Left some bibliographic notes at ]. ] (]) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''

|-
== ] ==
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

|}
IMO your reasoning for deleting the link to ] doesnt stack up. Your comments "incredible" and "irrelevant" are inappropriate. (you can reply here i have this talk page on watch).--] (]) 17:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:I think you're being ridiculous, and in fact I have a mind to take ] to AfD. In any event it's utterly and completely irrelevant to the ] article, which is in a poor enough state as it is without adding this kind of nonsense. ] ] 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

Set of copyvios from trulia.com - possibly spam in intention. I've speedied it and closed the discussion as there's nothing there to discuss now... ] (]) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:I suspected a copyvio, but couldn't immediately confirm it so I started to open an AfD, which I thought I'd deleted after another editor applied a CSD tag. ] ] 19:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== Thanks... ==

As always for the copyediting... obviously I got diverted into ] today, rather than getting to ] like I'd planned... ] - ] 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:No worries. I noticed the comma pepper-pot being deployed and while I was sorting that I noticed a few other things that had crept in. Four supports now though, game over? ] ] 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Five I think... and you know I love commas! I think we're just waiting on Sandy or Andy here... ] - ] 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:::I know how all Americans seem to love commas, but there comes a point when an article has enough of them. ] ] 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I sometimes have to transcibe articles from English provincial newspapers of the early twentieth century. The compositors must have been paid by the comma, and then there's the weird habit of starting a sentence with a hyphen. -Must have changed sometime in the '40s. ] (]) 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== Oh hell, ==

Don't tell me you're still hangin around this joint? ... haha .. how ya doin Mal? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:They haven't managed to get rid of me yet, but that doesn't stop them trying from time to time though. So far I think I'm winning on points, largely because I'm usually right. ] ] 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::Well, good to still see you're here. There's a few with a touch of clue, but they need you to run around with that sanity stick and beat em once in a while. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== Q ==

Malleus, you know style and Englishnesses. Can you weigh in at ? I couldn't find a guideline in the MoS, but I know I've seen discussion on how (and where, and when) to use English vs. British. (I'm not asking you to jump in the dispute, and if you want to stay away, I'd appreciate your answer nonetheless, here in the privacy of your talk page.) Thanks, ] (]) 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you're asking me, but if it's what someone born in England would call themselves then that's English. Hardly anyone living here would call themselves "British": English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, but not British. ] ] 02:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
::Well, I was wondering if Misplaced Pages has guidelines for what to call a person born in a certain part of those islands up there, even regardless of what they would call themselves. ] (]) 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:::None that I'm aware of, but anyone born in England would call themselves English. ] ] 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
*] may be of interest. --] (]) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

::Hang on, every person mentioned in that essay is ''white'' (and I include John Brown in that category). Where's the rest of us? ] (]) 06:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

== what? ==

What is your ? Try a little harder to be civil. --] (]) 01:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:Please try to keep a civil tongue in your head. As far as I'm concerned you have once again proved me right. You administrators are becoming a laughing stock. You were presented with clear evidence that the candidate fundamentally misunderstood one of the basic admin tasks, and was therefore inevitably going to "abuse the tools", yet you chose to ignore that fact. Why? ] ] 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

::Now that you have asked a question, instead of an insult, I will be happy to address it. I believe in ]. He may (or may not) have misunderstood the policy a little, but that doesn't mean he would purposefully abuse admin tools. I didn't ignore anything. I personally feel that any user with a few good months of solid contributions and no history of any malfeasance should be trusted to be an admin, if he/she wants to. I see that you have had some issues in your own RFAs, and that may color your judgment some, but I noticed in your ], your third supporter used almost the same language that I used in the RFA in question. I didn't participate in either of your RFAs, but if I had, I probably would have been supportive. I hope this clears things up a little. --] (]) 03:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:::It was a rhetorical question; I'm not interested in what you think. ] ] 03:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Interesting to look back on that RfA almost three years ago now, and to be reminded of who my enemies are, so thanks for that. ;-) ] ] 03:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus I couldn't agree more with you!!♦ ] 09:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== Just checking ==

If you have any objection to , I'll add a disclaimer ... I assume you value your role as RFA curmudgeon and enjoy the show, but people can't hear tone online so I'll understand if you want me to not to make jokes.

I always learn something when you copyedit after I do, please keep it up. - Dank (]) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:RfA curmudgeon eh? I prefer to think that I'm playing some small part in drawing attention to the absurdity of the process. :-) ] ] 22:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

::Some copy editor ... I didn't realize the word meant "ill-tempered", I was going more for "gruff, no-nonsense". As I said ... keep it up. - Dank (]) 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:::] ;-) ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I'll try and take a proper look through tomorrow. ] ] 00:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. I figured you'd seen it, but I thought I'd just make sure. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Dank, increasingly I think that I'm being too hard on a generation let down by their teachers and seduced by predictive texting. My understanding of Cnut's legendary stand against the sea is that it wasn't to prove to his subjects that he could, but to prove to them that he couldn't, and I feel much the same. No doubt one day we'll all be speaking and writing baby-talk. But until then ... ] ] 05:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm watching a series of lectures by Jennifer Paxton on the Anglo-Saxons so I get what you're saying. Btw, you might enjoy . - Dank (]) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::: OOOH! You used Cnut! Yay you! ] - ] 15:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::I know stuff. ;-) ] ] 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::People in Britain know how to cook with them? Must be all the curry.... ] (]) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Must be missing something; cook with what? Ealdgyth: Cnut is more natural to me because the town of ] is quite close to where I was born and brought up, and local legend claims that it's named after him. ] ] 22:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

== For the benefit of the tape… ==

For the record, isn't true. It's vanishingly rare for arbs to be blocked, but that's because it's hard for someone seriously problematic to reach Arbcom (and if they do, they're so high profile that problems are likely to be nipped in the bud quickly and never reach the warn-block-ban stage), rather than because the position grants some kind of immunity. As Bishonen can tell you, if an arb is acting in a way that's seen as problematic they can be blocked just the same as anyone else.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:Fair enough, but I still believe that's it's naive to claim that there's no hierarchy of power, as it's undoubtedly true that I can't block you. Not that I want to of course, or anyone else for that matter. ] ] 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

::There's a hierarchy, but it's more nuanced than an arb/crat/admin/non-admin pyramid. Blocking is only a small part of influence; Sandy or Tony, for instance, undoubtedly have more say in how Misplaced Pages operates than most of the admins, and even you and Giano have more influence than I think you realise. In the Misplaced Pages context, "ability to get things done" isn't so much a matter of technical abilities, but of how many people will listen to what you have to say.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] 23:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:::"... even you and Giano". Now that's damning with faint praise if ever I saw it. :-) ] ] 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
::There's no doubt a hierarchy of ''authority'', but I doubt one of power. The philosophical debate of "authority vs. power" is a well-known one, and I'm of the opinion that the concept of administration on a website hardly constitutes "power" in the sense that we harbor a cohesive sequence along the lines of admin&rarr;arb&rarr;crat. I could block you if I wanted, but someone will surely object and see to it that you be unblocked – leaving me powerless in the situation. ] (]) 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:::But I couldn't block you, hence the hierarchy; two levels is enough for a hierarchy. I could paraphrase your argument thus: "I could wound you, but another doctor could cure you, so no harm done", which I don't find very convincing. ] ] 05:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::I have to side with Julian/Irri here, somebody may have the technical ability to block you... but that doesn't mean that they have the power to block you. In fact, I suspect that 95% of people who have tried, have ended up cowering in the corner as the backlash against them was so great that it wasn't even funny. Technical ability <> power.---''']''' '']'' 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yet they keep trying. ] ] 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Giano a bum chum I gather?♦ ] 22:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:Bum chum? Are you suggesting that we're gay? ] ] 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::Damn, ;-)---''']''' '']'' 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Perhaps "bum chum" means something else wherever Dr. Blofeld lives. ] ] 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Perhaps he meant you are friendly vagrants, editing from a public library. :) --] (]) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Where I live it means two or more people sticking up for each other and will do so even if it might bring on a backlash (if you;ll pardon the pun). .♦ ] 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== Question for any administrators who happen by ==

As I may occasionally have mentioned, I was once blocked for suggesting that some unnamed editors were sycophants, doing whatever was required to climb the greasy admin pole. Yet in the topic above this one Gianoand I are accused of being shirt lifters, with not an eyebrow raised. Are such comments directed towards unpopular editors like us taken less seriously just because of who we are? Obviously I don't want Blofeld to get blocked for his indiscretion, but I'm wondering if wikipedia's ludicrously childish civility policy ought not to be updated to reflect this apparent imbalance. ] ] 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:There are {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} admins, all with the ability to unilaterally block someone without checking with anyone else first; expecting consistency from this anarchy is going to lead to disappointment. The answers to this possibly rhetorical question are (a) the block for saying "sycophants" was wrong, and (too lazy to check, so crossing my fingers I'm remembering right) was overturned at AN or ANI or someplace <small>(if it wasn't, it should have been)</small>; (b) I'm very puzzled by this comment of Dr. Blofeld's, and would first wait to see if there is some other explanation; I find it hard to believe he meant it the way it sounds, but maybe I'm assuming too much good faith; (c) in general, the type of admin who would immediately block for this is probably the type of admin who doesn't like you, and much like the real world, it's fairly common for humans (and other hominids, like bonobos and admins), to have this kind of a double standard; and (d) the idea that you are an "unpopular editor" is so 2010 - I realize this may rankle, so if you'd like to be more unpopular, I suggest you tell me to fuck off; I am universally loved, and this would return you to the ranks of the outcast very quickly. --] (]) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

: What's a willy? where would my vocabulary be without this talk page (back in 2010, with the idea that Malleus is unpopular). Yes, Malleus, if you'd be blocked already and I'd be attending your block party instead of All Of The Other Fun IRL Stuff I'm Doing. I'm wondering how this is going to work out for Blofeld ... doesn't look good ... but not wondering enough to go check his talk page when I'm busy. ] (]) 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::He's not blocked, but Risker's left him a warning - guess we'll see how he responds to that. ] (]) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::Well he should be blocked. Quite why someone is allowed to say things like this and remain on the project is alarming. For the record, I am male and heterosexual; Malleus (I have never asked her about sexuality, but I think is male) and as far as I am aware we have never had intimate relations of any kind - I think one of us would remember. Many of my friends here and in RL are homosexual, meterosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and quite a few who just can't be bothered at all. But whatever they are, it is not for the likes of Blofeld to make disgusting insinuation of their preferred methods of making love. People rant incesantly on about incivility here, yet most of them can't recognise incivility even when it stares them in the face - or worse in some other part of their anatomy. If that is the only way Blofeld can make a point, then we don't need him here and I am wondering where the civility police have all gone running. They truly are a hypocritical waste of space. ] ] 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''comment''' YEP! .. The Blofeld comment was TOTALLY out of line. I'm not gonna get into the ] issues, but personally, I'd see that as a downright personal attack. Lucky to get away with just a warning, although I'm sure someone would start a "punitive" issue if he were blocked at this point. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 07:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::*Don't expect him to get blocked - just demonstrating how the "civility police" see only what they want to see. I suppose in the great scheme of things - saying because an editor doe not like info-boxes, it means he likes to take it up the arse is a perfectly rreasonable assumption in the view of the self-appointed civility police. I must remember that when next trying to make a point. ] ] 07:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Haha LOL, exactly Giacomo. Oh come on don't be dopey people. Ched don't be so melodramatic, you;'d be shocked if I really wanted to be unpleasant, trust me. Malleus I'm glad you know me well enough by now to take such comments with a pinch of salt and to not even be remotely phased by them. The reason why the "civility police" didn't turn up is because they know me by now that it won't make a blind bit of difference and makes situations worse than they need to me. My comment, a question of why two editors felt they had to turn up on the talk page of Giacomo to make me look clueless and no idea about wikipedia. Where I come from "bum chum" refers to people who stick together even if it may face adversity. literally "bending over backwards to support one another" if you'll pardon the pun. I was just puzzled and a little surprised why two editors turned up to support Giacomo, it seemd as if they were ganging up on the Bald guy. I thought initially I was being stalked but then I thought, mm Giacomo is obviously a friend of you and then I saw his name discussed on here so I made a light hearted query. Well from my point of view I thought I was doing a good thing by creating ]. I was, maybe wrongly?? under the impression that the majority were in favour of infoboxes on wikipedia, otherwise they wouldn't be in practically every article except artist articles. I'll agree with you I would rather biographies didn't have an infobox, but I thought adding infoboxes to building articles wouldn't create any opposition, so a little surprised more than anything.. Forgive my ignorance but I had no idea who Giacomo was or his connections on here. I wonder why I have never come across him before. I see he is an excellent editor seeing the articles he's edited in the past which is why he has so much support amongst good editors here. But surely the fact that the majority of articles contain infoboxes that there is some consensus they are desired on here, otherwise the people who detest them would win out and remove them all. ♦ ] 08:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Actually it was '''8''' editors who turned up, in a short space of time. The only odd thing is that you appear never previously to have encountered the widepread and often violent dislike of infoboxes in humanities and especially visual articles. ] (]) 11:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Malleus you have an email. Watch out for the hidden piranha tank trapdoor... Oh am I to be blocked for making such threats?? ♦ ] 09:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:FFS, can everyone ] some mainpage content already?! ;) ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

::Lots of versions guys and girls. My favourite is the choice dustbin. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup>] 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm here speaking for every gay person on the planet, because they all voted for me. Malleus, Giano: we don't want you. Go stand over there with Tom Cruise.

As for the use of "bum chum"...wtf? Blofield, I call in question your sexuality and masculinity. "Blofield" is clearly a name used by a secret organization run by an 8-year-old skip-roping girl named "Sally Sue" who enjoys "My Little Pony", Bratz dolls, fingernail polish that rubs off after 3 hours, and painting her room with unicorns. What do you have to say for yourself, Sally Sue, now that your ruse has been detected? Yes, cry. Buckets of tears. There, there. --] (]) 12:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, my cover is blown, I never though anybody would ever discover my love of my Little Pony or ass banditry. Hehe, the wonders of internet perception. LOL if you picked up any feminine or gay vibes from the Bald One, you must have Elton John mooning you on the screen in front of you obscuring the raw testosterone filled Blofeld, it aint too hard to see LOL. Hahaha now that's definitely a first being compared to a fag or 8 year old girl. Chuckle, yep that's why I'm a fan of ], typical gay icon. LOL. Actually I look a lot like and am around the same sort of height actually.. But if you think I'm an 8 year old girl or nancy on the Internet then that's awesome mate. ♦ ] 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:Melodramatic? ... Naaa, just saying it was a poor choice of words. Hard to fathom that someone so prolific here isn't familiar with Giano though. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 13:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, not sure I missed that one... Crikey, 8 turned out, that's beyond bumchummery, that's um.... gang banditry with balaclavas? LOL I am kidding, but the next time a James Blunt fan turns up on my talk page he will be swiftly fed to the piranha. Seriously though, yeah Johnbod is right, I had no idea that so many are against infoboxes.. I really don't mind, maps are my thing really as I like to have a quick reference to where something is in a city or country without having to go looking on google. ii'll admit OSM is not the best, which is why I proposed our own mapping project a while back, a proper quality Atlas in which we can freely crop out maps from which are way better in quality. I still think we could use such a project but the foundation said they were happy just to be affiliated with OSM rather than a WikiAtlas or something.♦ ] 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have added at the time that Malleus, you just need to set your signature to "] ]; I was blocked for calling an admin a sycophant once". You'll never have to remind anyone again.

And I think all infoboxes should be set on fire, fueled by my own hatred of them. --] (]) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:Excess nav templates are worse I think, some sports articles have even over 10 on top of each other, hideous. Oh I was considering putting ] up for deletion.. ♦ ] 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you for the clear explanation of exactly what is a "bum chum" - next time I see GWH and Sandstein backslapping each other on the block of some hapless editor who forgot to grovel to an admin, I shall just politely say to Sandstein that he is only agreeing with GWH and vice versa because they are bum chums - I am sure that only those with the most base and lowly minds will think I am suggesting anything other than they are just two friends "bending over backwards" <shudder> for each other. Could Risker just confirm this for me, preferably before I tiptoe over to ANI to see what is going on. ] ] 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be awesome Giano, you better tell em to stop it with the chumming. I'm liking your sense of humour already. Between you and me though (beware of User:Risker, he's a James Blunt fan). Never trust a James Blunt fan! I am joking Risker, I'm sure you are a cool guy really. Blunt's debut song You're Beautiful" was tolerable for a few weeks and then it got massively overplayed everywhere and then got very irritating. His subsequent hits were really really bad especially 1973 or whatever its called. That voice really grates with me... Now if anybody sounds like he's got something shoved up his crevice its Blunty.. Way too nasal... If you want a quality male singer try ] or somebody.... ♦ ] 16:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::I am not. A cool guy, that is. What with not being a guy and all. And your behaviour does not seem to have improved since last we spoke: pretending that "bum chum" does not normally mean "homosexual lover" (as it does pretty well universally in all English-speaking countries); nominating an article primarily written by another person who disagreed with you ] for deletion instead of asking for a reference; and making fun of a ] as an attempt to needle someone else who disagreed with you. These are not behaviours that reflect someone having come to realise that they made an error in judgment. <p>Side note to Giano and Malleus: no, I would not recommend that you refer to ''anyone'' as someone's bum chum, unless they have already revealed their relationship onwiki. ] (]) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:::The question was Giano's, not mine. I have expressed no intention or desire to call anyone a bum chum, either here on wikipedia or in real life. ] ] 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. ] (]) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

*Never have I heard of bumchum being used in anything but a negative context, and I consider myself to be a connoisseur of bad language. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh... I think Giano was almost certainly joking, if is a language barrier then I hardly think he would be likely to use it anyway. "Bumchum" or "whapping" somebody are terms regularly used from my school days and was never meant in anything but good jest and to be said to those who seem close friends. Where I come from its hardly a taboo expression or even intended to offend gays. "Giano a bum chum I gather?" is a lightly miffed Blofeld term for "How come you both turned out at his talk page against me, stalking or is he simply a good friend? Oh deary me Risker, you ''really'' take yourself too seriously. Get over it. Seriously who has ever been offended by it? You? Just the sort who would be offended by ]. I should have known that no fan of James Blunt would ever be cool. As for ] I happened to be browsing and cam across an unreferenced stub which I tried to find sources for and found virtually nothing solid on the web or google books. I have since tried to scrape some sources together and just assume that due to the period virtually noithing is available. I also nominated another article shortly afterwards, completely unrelated.

Oh and what about the fact I've bent over backwards to make image agreements on flickr to get us images of settlements in Nunavut, Yukon and NWT. As a Canadian are you offended by that too? Or are you going to start assuming good faith here and stop seeing the worst in everybody. Nothing is ever as bad as it seems and the sooner people like you stop blowing everything out of proportionand expecting editors to be saints and just get on with writing an encyclopedia the better it will be. ♦ ] 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:Since you've said some different things in your private correspondence to me, I will just let this hang there as is. Apologies to Malleus for having allowed this to continue here. ] (]) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::Indeed Risker.♦ ] 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
: For fans and non-fans of James Blunt alike, I recommend (if you don't know it already) - Misplaced Pages can be damaging to one's senses of humor and perspective, and any therapy is welcome I reckon... '']'' 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:: There's an even better one by this Australian guy, I'lll try to dig it up... :-D ] (]) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL.♦ ] 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me thinking that Blofeld's somewhat rambling, banal and "oh so innocent, me" commentary is really not helping in ''writing an encyclopedia'' as he urges everyone to do just above? Meaningless generalisations (<small>pointless bollocks is a better description</small>) like ''"I should have known that no fan of James Blunt would ever be cool.."'' simply makes him look, well, a little silly at best. Still, not my talk page I guess. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::Uh, a little late Pedro now with the anti-Blofeld comments... I guess being Spanish you don't understand basic English perhaps and had to use google translate just to work out what had been said. Que?

I've written ] today, y usted?♦ ] 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:::Troll. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Aw Mr. Fawlty, ... ♦ ] 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::My apologies Blofeld. When I typed "troll", clearly I meant "ignorant racist ]". <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024

2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive
2012 archive
2013 archive
2014 archive
2015 archive
2016 archive
2017 archive
2018 archive
2019 archive

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Jersey Act, introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)