User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/February

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated, and thanks also for your thought-provoking question; I had never really organised my general thoughts into a clear position before. Happy‑melon 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion for GA?

Hi,

I'm conducting my first GA review, on Railway stations in Cromer. We've had a few issues come up, that I'm not sure how to best address. Iridescent suggested that you might be a good person to ask for a second opinion. Do you mind? I think everything's pretty well spelled out in the last few sections of Talk:Railway stations in Cromer, but if you want a breakdown, just ask. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give you a second opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the welcome back Malleus. I'm still likely to struggle for editting time for the next week or so, but I'm really encouraged that the project hasn't fallen apart without me (!) (instead I've seen that there have been a few attacks hurled my way for being, seemingly, too bold with a few things - I wish folks would leave me a message for me at my talk page as feedback rather than use discussion pages!). I think the break has done me well and not to take things quite so seriously! It also allows a breather for some pages I tend to watch like a hawk!

Well done on battling out the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester! That's fantastic news! I've also noted you're drive for Cheshire/Middlewich... I think one of my side-projects - Neilston - has met the "water supply" editor you mention on the talk page.

Now... If I could just finish those darn county maps for the infoboxes... Thanks again though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I give full credit to Nev1 for getting that Grade I listed building article over the line; I'd pretty much given it up as a lost job, but he stuck with it. You mention Middlewich, which I'm quite sure we (the Cheshire project) can get to GA pretty soon now, but have you also seen my drive to get the Pendle witch trials at least to GA? It's a subject that's a little bit more literate - by which I mean there's a bit more scope for expression - than say an article about the Naysmith steam hammer. A change can often be as good as a rest. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Man utd fans in Salford

Please stop adding the irrelevant and unencyclopedic information to the Salford article that many people who live in Salford are Manchester United fans. Many people who don't live in Salford are also Man U fans.

---

Well state the obvious why don't you, no one is saying that isn't the case. And why is it irrelevant? The article is about sport in the city the fact that the majority of Salfordians are fans of Manchester United I would say is extremely relevant concerning sport in Salford.

You asked for references and I provided you with them so what is your problem? I'm not adding anything to the article only reverting edits you for some reason keep making.
Also unencyclopedic? What the hell is that supposed to mean its not even a real word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.40.244 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

Please remember to sign your comments, and I would suggest registering for an account. You said yourself that the section is about sport in the city, but in the City of Salford, not Manchester.

By unencyclopedic - which is a real real word - I mean this. It is quite clear that many people in Salford are likely to be Manchester United fans, just as they are likely to be in Old Trafford or Stretford. And it is equally likely that many are likely to be supporters of Lancashire County Cricket Club, or Manchester City. But even if it were true that most people in Salford were MUFC fans - highly unlikely - how would that inform us about Salford, which is, after all, the subject of the article? The subject is not the tribal allegiances of Salford's underclasses.

If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest doing so on Salford's talk page, where a wider range of views is likely to be forthcoming. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject is not the tribal allegiances of Salford's underclasses.

---

You my freind are not qualified to talk about Salford in any way if that is your view of Salford folk. And no unencyclopedic is not a real word - I mean this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.40.244 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try to avoid ad-hominem arguments, and discuss this issue on the article's talk page as I suggested earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Was on a short wikibreak when the FA star came through for Wormshill. Just wanted to pop by and say thanks for helping out on the FAC and the article in general. Exhausting but enlightening. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job on a very small village, so Wormshill is now a guide for anyone else who wants to write a village article, which I think is one of the important things. You would have enjoyed the end of the FAC; it was restarted and pretty much just got nodded through, because all of the issues had already been addressed. Impresssive job! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the AfD feedback

At the point it went crashing to the ground, I figured, "what the heck" and decided to address some of the falsehoods stated about me/Wikipedia. I stand by everything I said, but phrasing will have to wait until the next RfA. Thanks for the support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. keep BQZip01 3 in your watchlist! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actions of hdt83

Hi, the purpose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.241 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please not he has left this same exact message with about 6 users so far. Looks like a possible vandal/spam account. Be careful. Tiptoety ^talk 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not spam.... this is real, please act. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.239 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

hdt83

Hi, the pupose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions.

If what you suspect is true then it certainly needs to be looked into. However, I am not an administrator, and I have no personal knowledge of this matter. I suggest that you raise your concerns at WP:AN/I, where I am sure that they will be properly investigated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and support

Hi Malleus, :) Thanks so much for your comment. Much appreciated indeed. I just saw it for I didn't check till now the discussion page of the fork I made. I was just alerted by Geometry guy of the said page. I've posted the new controversy section and added new criticism. Will continue to work on this. Thanks again for your comments and support. I will definitely re-propose the article later for GA. Marax (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The way it's run

Replying to this here since it's getting off-topic for the RFC page... I agree altho I'd nitpick words and say that it's really the way it isn't run that's the problem. Here, there's unusually clear consensus that this new admin shouldn't have the tools anymore, yet there's nobody actually in a position to do anything about it. Well, there may be one person but he's got other fish to fry and why should he care to get personally involved in some minor little issue like this?

I don't know if it's much of a solution, but I've personally been trying to encourage the notion that the crats should have a community mandate to unpromote admins in cases of obvious mistakes like this. I've tried to encourage a couple crats to do this but they're understandably reluctant to be so bold- there would certainly be cries of "OMG crat power grab!" if they did it. The other way to approach it is to encourage arbcom to step in with a quick ruling in cases like this. So far neither idea has any real traction. Arbcom occasionally de-sysops bad admins, but one case I recall took several months after it was painfully obvious that the tools needed to be removed. I don't see an obvious solution yet but changing the community's collective mind to a "removing adminship is no big deal" approach seems like a useful start. Too many people stick up for their friends rather than impartially evaluating the situation. Too many people think that the desire to do the right thing is all that matters, and they forget that being competent is a requirement too. Friday (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; the way it isn't run is more accurate. I find it incomprehensible that so many people can trot out the "admin is no big deal" mantra without realising that if that were true then its reverse would also be true.Instead, they cling onto their administrator status like limpets, proving that for them at least, admin is a very big deal indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly- that particular sacred cow needs slaughtered. I've seen no easy way to do this, so far. The entire rest of Wikipedia operates on the principle of "what's easily done can be easily undone; mistakes are no big deal." Yet, when it comes to adminship, this rational thinking flies out the window. Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is that we have tons of teenagers around here. I think they see adminship as a trophy- "Look at me, I'm just a kid yet I'm trusted with a position of responsibility!" So, there is huge resistance to any notion that we should remove adminship when we see someone isn't competent with it. People also tend to think "admins are all on the same side, so we should stand up for each other".. this is slightly off the mark. What we should do is stand up for doing the right thing, rather than rooting for some specific team of people. A good admin can easily make a bad call. There should be no shame in pointing out the bad call, but many see this as somehow un-wiki-patriotic. I think the teenage mindset tends to lump the world into "good people" and "bad people", but real life is not so simple. We should judge each situation on it's own merits, rather than on the basis of which teams were on which sides. Friday (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hesitated to make a rather similar point myself for fear of an accusation of being ageist, as I have seen others being severely criticised for, but in truth I heartily agree with you once again. That there are now so many teenage administrators has not been a wholly healthy development for wikipedia I don't think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with being openly ageist. If more people were, maybe the problem would be reduced somewhat. Cultural definitions of adulthood do vary, but the entire rest of the world accepts without controversy the idea that adults tend to have better judgement than kids. That such an idea is unpopular on Wikipedia only demonstrates the extent to which the project has been overrun by children. Friday (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.

All questions are optional in consensus' opinion All questions are optional, and that category is optional. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. As am I. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And on another note

The conversation between you and Friday (above) is hilarious in it's seriousness. Unless you and Friday happen to know each other IRL, there is absolutely no way that you (or he) can be certain that the other typist is not in fact a 12 year old girl. I laughed out loud. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And, to quote a rather well-known Monty Python sketch, in return I "emptee my noze all over yoo". I do not know Friday any more than I know you, but if if I had to pick one of you as being a "12 year old girl" I'm afraid that it would be you on present evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

HA! I've been called much worse than that. No, I'm in fact not a twelve year old girl. The only word from that phrase that fits me is old. But I guess you'll just hafta take my word for it because I can't prove it. Cheers, Malleus F. I'm glad you're here. You are a great contributor to this project and I hope you stay. I mean it. Don't let the ludicrousy of this place drag you down. You know what I'm talking about. As for the above, I just don't like the drama that will likely come from your phrasing of that question. I brought it here to specifically avoid said drama. (Now you have proof, BTW, that I'm not a 12 year old girl. What pre-pubescent girl would say avoid drama ? Proof. Cheers my friend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you've convinced me. You're probably not a 12 year old girl. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, that it's very refreshing to come across someone like you who can discuss things in what some might consider to be a robust manner, without them running off home to Mama complaining of "incivility". So I'm doubly convinced now that you're not a 12 year old girl. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And on third thought, you're probably right about my phrasing of that question. I'll change it. I ought not to allowed one bad apple to spoil my barrel. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MF. You rock. (oh, shit, that sounds like something a teenager would type. Shit. Strike that.) By the way, you might enjoy WP:SCREAMBOX. Or maybe you find it superficial. Either way, the link is yours. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd not seen WP:SCREAMBOX before. It isn't for me though; my role model is Commander Data. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Liar! If you're role model was Data, you'd have said I had not seen, not I'd not seen. Liar! </joke> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Hell, you're right! Data famously can't say "can't". What on earth was I thinking of when I posted that garbage? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cripes! That's the first argument I've been victorious in today. Shit. I still think you would enjoy the screambox, at least before it gets MfD'ed. Cheers, MF. I'm outta here til tomorrow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS mess

Thanks for your supportive words, Malleus. Tony (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. Let's see if wikipedia can be saved from the children who appear to have taken it over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park FAC

Hello. Since your oppose based on style issues, the article has had a few editors take a peek at it. I would appreciate your visiting the article again. I tend not to try to pressure editors to support when I invite them back to view the article, but this FAC has gone on for 6 weeks at least. Please keep in mind style and syntax can by subjective. If you don't think the article should be featured due to poor quality, by all means keep your vote as oppose. But writing style can't be perfect for every reader. I know you are an experienced FAC reviewer because I have read your comments to other FACs. For some reason, I felt I had to say this... Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know how frustrating the FAC process can be, particularly when it drags on as this one has done. Just for the record, I wouldn't agree with your characterisation of my oppose as being based on style issues, which I agree are necesarily subjective, as opposed to basic prose quality issues unconnected with style. But I don't like to see any article fail to get over the line, so I'll be happy to take a second look and consider whether I still believe that my oppose it valid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I'm watching the article as you change it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If I f**k up, then please feel free to revert me; there are some American things that I'm not sure about, like front country camping. But I'm just about ready to support the article now, so I'll be changing my vote shortly. It's really a very good article, and it would be a shame to see it fail just because of how a few things are written. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment on SandyGeorgia's talk page but I think it's best to address it here. If you felt I misrepresented you, I apologize. I was very frustrated at the time and I feel FAC's biggest weakness is the inability or unwillingness for some FAC reviewers to give specific criticism or praise. The suggestion "Prose is bad" or "needs work" (or worse yet, "Bad English") or any variation thereof is meaningless without a reference to what is preferable. A link to the MOS is not sufficient for this, as it's just too massive in scope. Part of what frustrates me, and I know you know this, is having a good editor give the article a thorough copy edit, and watch other editors revert those edits, or still have "Prose is bad" comments after copy edits. My education background is in curriculum and assessment and this is just bad assessment, very basic no-nos. I see the FAC talk page sometimes and see that people are always trying to improve the process. I can help out in improving this if folks are interested. I really don't know - some people may like this rather chaotic system over a system with too many rules to follow. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand the frustration that you must be feeling, and I share your feelings about criticisms like "prose needs work" and so on. It's really not all that helpful to be told to get an uninvolved editor to look the article over, good advice though that may generally be. You're in the middle of an FAC, and you need to be given at least some examples of the perceived problems so that you can have a fighting chance of addressing them yourself if no willing uninvolved editor pops up in time. The tone of some of the opposes can often seem very disparaging, to the point of insulting: "Why have you brought this rubbish here? Take it away and get it copyedited by someone who can actually write English." Very discouraging, and something that I think the FAC process really to try and get a grip on. I made that comment a bit tongue-in-cheek on Sandy's talk page, because I didn't want to be lumped in with the bad guys just because I came late to the Everglades National Park article. I was only trying to help out by providing a review before the article's window of opportunity for this nomination disappeared. I really do think now that enough work has been done so that the article deserves to be promoted to FA, and I wish you luck with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Christianity clarify tags

Hi. You asked for clarification of one of the clarification tags at Christianity - I think the text "According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived [clarify] by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary" is the one you are referring to. The clarification that I feel is needed there is due to the dual meaning of the word conceived. Presumably the sentence is intended to mean "The Holy Spirit thought of the idea of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary gave birth to him"? I presume it doesn't mean conception in the biological sense, but as some readers could interpret it that way, I added the tag? SP-KP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean; can the imacculate conception be considered as a biological conception? As it resulted in a biological birth I'd probably be inclined to say that it could. But I concede that there may be grounds for a more explicit statement one way or the other in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2

Hi there, since you cited my comments in your oppose vote, I thought I'd drop you a note to say that my concerns have been entirely resolved by Remember the dot's changing their recall criteria. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BrentfordChiswick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BrentfordChiswick.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

orthodox Christianity

You seem to feel that the term "orthodox" Christianity has baggage. Can you please explain what baggage you are referring to in a paragraph that is defining Christanity as believing in the Trinity? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Orthodox Christianity ought to be well enough understood without me having to explain it to you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well now I at least understand your shortcomings. Orthodox Christianity is not the equivalent or "o"rthodox Christianity. They are two completely separate things. Just so I know that you understand the difference I will explain. Orthodox Christianity is used to refer to Eastern Orthodoxy; however, orthodox Christianity is a term used to define all groups that fall within orthodoxy.

By your reply above I see that you appreciate direct communication; I can accommodate you. If one does not understand the difference a capital letter makes in using the term, then that person should stop immediately from editing. Such a significant lack of understanding of terminology is too easily seen as either stupdity or troll-like behavior. Please stop wasting my time and the time of every other experienced editor who obviously possesses a more indepth understanding of the various topics. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I note your abuse, and it does you no credit whatsoever.

Let me remind you that you are writing for a general readership who may not notice your subtleties of capitalisation. Or who may even be listening to the article, not reading it. I am deeply disappointed by your disregard for even the most basic of Christian precepts; treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Shame on you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you will read your edit above, you will note where curt, rudeness had its birth in our discussion. Mainstream Christianity is an undefined term, whereas orthodox Christianity is a known, defined term. I shy away from using it and you will note that there has been considerable discussion about its use in the discussion history page.

I deal heavily with religion pages and I have very little patience with rudeness or ignorance. In the future refrain from outright reverts of good faith edits by others. It is better to change the edit as you did the second time. Be aware of undefined terms; this case is particularly pernicious because so many think they know what it means, but then it turns out that many that think they are mainstream are not. When we use orthodox Christianity it is clear that heretical beliefs are excluded from the term. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am completely underwhelmed by someone whose justification for rudeness is "You started it". And please do not try to claim some nebulous "expertise" with me. You have not addressed the simple point that I made, that anyone listening to the article will not be able to hear your capitalisation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that your rudeness is unending; no need for me to pull any punches. You seem to enjoy communicating in a rude manner; to each his own. Your assumption of the blind is condescending. The blind are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding context. This is further emphasized in that the article addresses both trinitarian and nontrinitarian Christians. I also see you have made no attempt to explain what the bloody term "mainstream" means. Your audacity to hold another up to a standard that you so flagrantly flaunt is stunning. If you are going to require that other answer all your inanes questions, please begin by answering all of their questions. Jeez, this is like working with a child. I think this is done. Hope you continue to judge others and retain that sanctimonious self-righteousness; it is very ingratiating and will surely result in just rewards. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been so revealing, watching someone who appears to consider themself a Christian put that faith into action. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Thanks for this message. Clearly Str1977 is getting quite wound up by my questions & requests for clarification. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on how to prevent the editing temperature at this article from escalating further. SP-KP (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if editors could apply some Christian standards of behaviour to their comments. It is not for you or anyone else here to judge whether SP-KP is qualified to discuss anything further. And I have been frankly shocked at some of the comments that have been made on my talk page for daring to remind one editor over his use of orthodox Christianity that not everyone accessing this article will be reading it. Some will be listening to it, and may hear Orthodox Christianity. Let's try and act like Christians, not like the lions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Malleus (also posted on Talk:Christianity), very well but remember that this is no Christian website. I am not saying that Christians shouldn't behave as Christians should and I applaud anyone turning the other cheek even though I have not been able to do this all the way. But while I applaud this, I don't think that a failure in doing so is a valid target for criticism. As I am writing, I do not know what happened on your talk page. Regarding my comment: if someone comes to this article and doubles the size of the talk page in a few days in an attempt to clarify things, I think I can expect that he is at least familiar with the basic tenets of Christianity. That was my point: one that doesn't know that Christians believe that Jesus lives doesn't know a lot about Christianity. 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the basic tenet of Christianity is the Resurrection, not a belief that Jesus is alive today, or in what form. So in that sense the question is a valid one. Not all Christians have believed that Jesus was even a physical man, notably the Cathars. The questions that SK-KP has been asking, I believe, have been intended to provoke a thoughtful response. Instead of which they have generated knee-jerk hostility. The question of what does it really mean to say that Jesus was conceived, what does it really mean to say that Jesus is alive in the context of the Trinity, seem quite reasonable questions to ask. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Use case opening sentence

I found the opening sentence of the "Use case" article kind of awkward (although it's better than it was at the start of the day today!), so I added a quotation from one of Cockburn's articles which says pretty much the same thing. You seem to not like the "prose" in Cockburn's quotation. Rather than starting an edit war, how about compromising on something like:

A use case is a "description of a system's behavior when interacting with the outside world."[1]

although I am uncomfortable with deleting words that I don't like from a quotation.

Comments? Shanemcd (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your proposed wording, but I still don't think it's quite right. I suggest that we discuss this on the article's talk page rather than here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your new buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page

You were right, as I knew you were. I have been getting somewhat frustrated of late and less inclined to suffer fools. That account will be semi inactive for a while until I decide I can interact with people like Guy without dropping to his level again. Viridae^Talk 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A little wikibreak will hopefully allow you to regain your perspective. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not totaly gone. I have a second account which will be used to do some article work I have been planning now I am not doing honours. I'm not the greatest writer but will try and get my first DYK. Viridae^Talk 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. A change can often be as good as a rest. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedro

Whatever your differences with Pedro are, I would suggest you put them behind you and go your separate way from him. Pedro is, in my experience, an extremely positive contributor who, in my opinion, enjoys strong community support. I believe that you are mistaken in your assessment of Pedro. In any case, no good can come of picking this fight. I would suggest you agree to disagree and let this one go. - Revolving Bugbear 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. I'm picking a fight now am I? Jeez, where have all the adults gone? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for ambiguity / poor word choice -- I meant "pick" as in "choose" ... as in choosing to have this fight (rather than choosing to let it simply go away) will not bring anything. - Revolving Bugbear 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it clearly won't. I'm the bad guy who who doesn't understand WP:AGF and Pedro is the good guy who thinks that he does. Rather sad IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. I'm just trying to give you some hopefully helpful advice. Take it or leave it. - Revolving Bugbear 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Best pic I've seen

Good luck with your new admin buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3

A little surprised to see your support here. Don't know what happened, but not everyone has greeted this RfA with cries of joy. It's very hard to come back even if you give up the mop voluntarily. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it picks up for ^demon. Seems that going through an RfA to regain sysop results in an automatic 10 or 20 oppose !votes. Sad. I supported for exactly the reason I said, I like his attitude towards being an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. This is the problem I see with too easy recall-- if you anger enough people or a cabal, sssshhhhkkk! off comes the mop. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a problem with RfA as well though. Everyone you've had a disagreement with over the past six months comes creeping out of the woodwork to get their revenge. Just seems to go with the wikiterritory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you see me doing this please tell me.

"that many administrators wield their position as though it's some sort of badge." Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Hello, I saw that you have recently opposed my RFA based on question 6. Would you be willing to elaborate on that statement, as I'm not quite as to why you feel the answer isn't satisfactory. I can assure you that if I was to become an administrator, that I would be held accountable of my actions regardless if I was in the category or not. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you decided to put yourself in that category or not, so long as the asymmetry exists between being granted this "no big deal" admin status compared to the tenacity that some administrators demonstrate in clinging onto that status, even though it's "no big deal", I would want to see a clear statement of the conditions under which you would voluntarily resign, if any. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility issues

Malleus Fatuarum, I am becoming increasingly tired of your behaviour towards me. This seemingly unfriendly relationship has been brewing ever since this encounter back in October 2007. We've worked together as part of the Greater Manchester WikiProject since before this time and this is what I would have thought would have counted towards healthy relations between the two of us. Unlike this however, you continue with a disregard for this community. This comment is extremely disappointing, and not how I or anyone else would expect you to contribute in a discussion. I have been willing to ignore your comments for a long time now, but enough is enough. If you continue with this unfathomably rude behaviour, I will have no choice but to create a discussion at ANI regarding this. Rudget. 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time threatening me. I really couldn't care less what you do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're at ANI. Rudget. 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply not interested. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it go?

What are the chances that you and Rudget can both let it go? Any chance? (I'm posting this at Rudget talkpage as well) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's look at this from my perspective. I did not initiate a AN/I case against Rudget, and neither would I ever have done against him or anyone else for something as tenuous and open to interpretation as "incivility", but he chose to do so against me. So be it.

I do not accept the charge of "incivility", and I deliberately did not take part in Rudget's AN/I because that would have been impossible without being allowed the freedom to say what I really think about this situation, which may have melted your Internet connection. Suffice to say that if Rudget chooses to continue with his vendetta that is of course a matter entirely for him. On the other hand, if Rudget conducts himself in the future like a mature adult, then there is no reason why there should ever be a problem between us. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just noticed your edit to Foclut and wanted to express my admiration for your username. I'm mad that I didn't think of it myself. :) Dppowell (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The name may shortly be available to be recycled. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview Button

Dear Malleus Fatuarum

I was surprised to see that on 18 December you were refining John_Brogden_and_Sons and created 16 permanent new versions of the article in 30 minutes. May I recommend the “Show Preview” button on the edit system? It says, ”Please use this before saving”. It could have been used to check evary change before going on to the next one.

Every version takes up some of Wikipedia’s disk space. Disks have to be purchased, they have to be kept running all the time using electricity and all the data must be backed up regularly. Please consider using the Show Preview button to make the best use of Wikipedia’s funds and to keep down its carbon footprint.

I hope I am not offending you by mentioning this but I believe we all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and I think this point is worth considering.

Best wishes.

Budhen (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, rather I'm surprised. The changes I made were to 12 separate sections, and so it was perfectly reasonable to make them as a series of edits on each section rather than a bigger edit on the entire article.

So far as disk space is concerned, it is only the deltas that are stored, and the same deltas would have been generated and required to be stored whether the edits were made as a series or as a single change, because the difference between the article's initial state and its final state would have been the same in both cases. In other words, it is not versions that are stored, but the differences between versions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very pleased to learn that the system stores only deltas and I agree that that makes it fine to save any change so long as it is known to be correct. Budhen (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Truce

I think it's time for yet another truce. I do have a soft spot for you, Malleus, as I've known you for quite a while, but I just can't stand to see your bitterness and aggressiveness to other users. I know it's due to you being a very sensitive person, but you need to realise that it only makes things worse for yourself. I've learnt this the hard way during my time on Wikipedia. Please try to be more relaxed and nice to people, for your own sake. I'm sorry for lecturing you, but I hope you consider my advice. I do understand why your upset with me, and I'm sorry. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sensitive is not something that anyone who knew me in real life would call me, quite the reverse. ;-) Forgive me if I have misunderstood your offer of a truce, but it appears to me to be that if I agree with you that I am "bitter and aggressive" then I will be forgiven for my sins. I hope that you may be able to understand that that doesn't sound like a particularly great deal, more like a witchcraft trial.

Recent events have made me begin to wonder whether it is worthwhile persevering with wikipedia though, so you have certainly given me some additional food for thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with anything. I hope you don't leave. What are you upset about? Epbr123 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for what would be a very long litany of wikipedia's problems, one of which would be the farcical RfA process. But so far as you and I are concerned, none of those problems are personal. So, to avoid any misinterpretation that they may be, as I said, I will not make any comment in your RfA, truce or no truce. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment at my RFA. You've proven here that it isn't personal. I would like to hear what your problems with me actually are. From the opinions you've been expressing on various pages over the past few months, it surely hasn't anything to do with "incivility". Epbr123 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What opinions on what pages? So far as your RfA is concerned, I have determined that I will not take part, simply to avoid any interpretation that my inevitable oppose would be a tit-for-tat response to your conduct in my failed RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant your opinions regarding accusations of incivility in general. Epbr123 (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. It's certainly true that many seem to see "incivility" where I see robust discussion. But there do have to be limits, and I made my opinion clear at your RfC. My opinion hasn't changed since then. Perhaps in time it would, but my fear is that like so many admin candidates you may just have jumped through whatever hoops are necessary, confident that there is very little likelihood of you ever being desysopped no matter how you conduct yourself as an administrator. If your RfA is successful, then I hope that you will prove me wrong. If it is unsuccessful, then I may even be persuaded to support your next application, given a few months. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the difference in acceptable behaviour between admin candidates and admins. I stated such at RFA's RfC, and suggested each admin should have to have a repeat RFA once a year. I'm glad to hear you imagine still being here in a few months. I'd be willing to nominate you for adminship myself in a few months, if you just make a tiny effort to be nicer in certain circumstances. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah no, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than consider another RfA, thanks all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 adminship

Hello, Malleus. As the one who pointed you to the RfC, I've felt bad for some time about any negative fall-out your participation in it may have caused to your own request for Adminship. However, noticing your comment at Epbr123's page, I really don't think you should recuse yourself from comment at his RfA. I plan to write one tonight. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was my choice to comment or not in that RfC, so nothing for you feel bad about. Even I'd known ahead of time what the fall-out was to be, I'd still have gone ahead anyway.

I think that it would not be difficult for anyone who cared to, to pretty accurately guess my opinion on this RfA, but I will stick with my decision not to get involved with it. If I were to express a negative view then that could too easily be wrongly attributed to a desire to get my own back instead of being my honestly held opinion. The truth is that I have little regard for the conduct and probity of many administrators as it is; one more or less really won't make very much difference. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. I think I understand your position. Cheers. Dekkappai (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:GM

The fact that he has left our project is a total discrace! Obviously you must be feeling guilty for you to ask... _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have you left now?! God, members are dropping like flies! I didn't read Rudget's reasons for leaving properly, I saw that he wasn't getting along with you and guessed that is the reason. Please come back to the project. There are few members I respect more than yourself and believe your edits are superior to most. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Come back Malleus, this does seem like a storm in a teacup. Nev1 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just another indication to me that wikipedia and I are incompatible. One values civility, which I do also, but I value honesty more. Andrew suggested that I "must be feeling guilty", presumably for - in his eyes - chasing St Rudget off the project. I am not about to pretend that I didn't hear that just for the sake of a quiet life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it, I'm just hyper on coca-cola, should have kept my gob shut. I don't blame you for Rudget's departure, he left on his own accord and my comments on his talk page were not aimed at you but anybody who had put him off WP:GM. His GM related edits had decreased somewhat of late due to the curse of adminship. He's probably right that it was best he left but I certainly don't feel the same about you. Please come back, even if just for the sake of our magnificent county. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You truely are one of Wikipedia's greatest editors. I really hope you continue to grace the encyclopaedia with your time and edits. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are good editors and there are bad editors. You're in the former. If all the good editors go, what's the point in this whole project? Why leave?? You have my support, and others, so it's not like you have odd-ball minority views. You've tried to take on several "big dogs", and admire you very much for that. I totally sympathise it can seem like talking to a brick wall - I've struggled too with our very own Scottish Mafia, but I just plod along.

If I think I know your "wiki-self" well enough, I'm a worried though that you are a conviction-user, and really do mean that you're leaving us. I'd be disappointed though if you didn't reconsider. I'm struggling for a way of asking you to come back without sounding patronising, but there is sincerity in my text when I say come back and help us. You're the one-eyed-man in the kingdom of the blind. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you recall the text, the outcome was that the seeing person was forced to flee the Kingdom of the Blind, to avoid being blinded himself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn. OK, granted that was a bad example.... But, it's not quite Shakespere, but "there is no fate but what we make"!!! There's no good to come with you punishing (I know you're going to twist that word around) WP:GM. I believe Just don't go. You're a good guy and even better editor. It seems like madness to leave the project that admires you the most :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll think on it. Right now I've just about had enough of the asymmetry that allows Andrew, Rudget, and others, to make the comments that they do, whereas I get hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion far less offensive their own. If this kind of vindictive behaviour is considered to be acceptable[1], then I want no part of wikpedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay you came back! Sorry for what I said, I take it back. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I ought not to have been so tetchy. No need to take anything back, it's water under the bridge now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Great infact, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't gonna be losing you as a contributor? You're one of the finer GA reviewers and are badly needed. If one particular group of articles and their contributors are giving you stress ... just stay away from them! You'll be doing that anyway if you permanently leave, so just take 'em off your watchlist! Good to see you look like staying. Don't reconsider ... please! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words and good advice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I'm a tad surprise that anything in Archive VIII, much of which comes from months ago, would be enough for some people to override everything else I've done or be seen as a reason not to hand the "mop and bucket", but I wouldn't withdraw it even if there were 8 opposes and 2 supports. The worst thing that can happen is that your potential flaws are pointed out to you! :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good man. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi-- I think I'm done commenting directly on the RfA, so do as you will. I just think there's a line between making a clear point and "piling on" unnecessarily that should be respected. Of course, everyone's perception of where that line is will differ, so…I've offered my opinion, and I'll leave it at that. -Pete (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And I too have simply offered my opinion. To which I will add that I find your "piling on" analogy to be a bizarre misunderstanding of the facts. But each to their own. You live in your world, and I'll live in mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I regret bringing it up. I think my word choice was poor. I'll admit my understanding of the facts was probably not sufficient to justify commenting on it, I really haven't read it all carefully. I suppose that means it was my choice to use words at all that was poor. -Pete (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I think your article-work is impressive, and of high quality. I want to give you this Barnstar in recognition of your excellent work. Acalamari 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For the kind words on my talk page. I still plan to edit here, don't worry: I'm not going to leave. :) See you around! Acalamari 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At the RfB

Hi Malleus (ha, usually I shorten names to initials, but thought that might be inappropriate here :-) I was wondering if you might reconsider your !vote against Riana (at least for the reason given). I'm asking as someone who was basically of the same mind as yourself during the whole AT debacle (you endorsed my statement here). I just think it's a little unfair to hold that against her, but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I didn't see Riana advocating on AT's behalf, instead, I think she was just obliging a request for help by other editors. I also didn't see any action, on Riana's part, trying to excuse the poor behavior. Anyway, thought I would leave a note here instead of piling on at the RfA. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly think about it. I agree with you that Riana made no effort to excuse Archtransit's behaviour, but I do not like to see the administrator's club closing ranks instead of dealing appropriately with a gross violation of trust. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Offering mentorship is one way of trying to deal with bad behavior. Sure, there's room for disagreement over how effective it tends to be, but it is one way of trying to fix the problem. Friday (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not certain that I'm finding this apparently concerted attempt to change my mind particularly edifying. I already said that I'll think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One reason I was never that worried about the outcome, was because it was so predictable. There was no way anyone could be that obtuse and not be doing it on purpose. Sure the mentoring thing was a little detour, but ultimately, problem solved. If I remember right, AT tried to keep Riana off of the mentoring short list. . .there's probably a reason for that. Well, I just wanted to let you know my take on things, if you consider it, thanks. If it doesn't sway, well, like I said you are entitled to your own thoughts on the matter. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)