== "Good faith" ? == 
 Here's yesterday's favourite recipe for a "good-natured and collaborative collegiate environment": 
 :Ingredients and method "d'un seul coup": 
 # Dare to improve an article that has been a Featured Article, and A Good Article nominee since April 2008. 
 # Notice that an anon ip has added unsourced material in the wrong place. 
 # Try to correct that mistake, but also try to introduce additional material from an associated article.  
 # When this is reverted by another editor as unsupported, open a discussion thread and then ask questions about what the current article actually means (fatal mistake?) 
 # Try to add something else from the associated article, but get told by that editor it's "uncited and irrelevant" and be given a suggestion to go and improve the other article. 
 # Suggest that errors which seem obvious to that editor could be corrected by that editor himself. 
 # Get told "Go fix the fucking article yourself, don't try telling me what I ought to do...  you clearly have no idea how to write a decent encyclopedia article" 
 # Go to the editor's Talk Page to leave a comment, but then see that the article (with a helpful link to the above sequence), has been "obsessively "improved" by those too ignorant and lazy to have done the work themselves, or to improve any of the supporting articles." 

 First dowse in turgid duck pond-water for 30-40 hours. Then toast liberally upon a very warm bonfire (suggest a big heap of facts). 

 (Random) Readers of the article, if there are any, may (liberally) add their own seasoning to produce a lovely appetising dish, commonly called (in Barley and neighbouring Pendle villages) "meaning". 

 Yes, so much for Good Faith. But apparently I'm now "a true believer". How much more comfortable not be a recusant. "Bon 'appen-tit" as they say in deepest darkest Lancashire.  

 "Just add water, makes it's own sauce" - Jimmy Wales