Archives

2007
April May June July August September October November December
2008
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2009
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2010
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2011
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2012
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2013
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2014
January February March April May June July August
Molon labe!

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Jimbo Wales has once again suggested that anyone who doesn't agree with him, and specifically referring to me, ought to find another hobby. My view is a little different from his, but do feel free to join in on Jimbo's talk page. Not that it'll make any difference of course. Eric Corbett 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't until quite late on Monday that I realised you had taken the day off as per your earlier musings. I'll be joining you next Monday and fully expect that in due course it will become more days off than on. I might also encourage people who've never edited to have a go, in the sure knowledge that it will go dreadfully wrong, dreadfully quickly as it has done with Gardner's garbage systemic bias campaign that encouraged thousands of semi-literate, clueless pov-pushers and copyright-violators to descend on the project in the space of a few weeks. We're still cleaning up that mess. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, the more the merrier. Eric Corbett 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit for four days in a row, - did anyone notice? I don't think so ;) Yesterday I remembered a milestone in my personal history here, - I mentioned strike a year ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to act in concert though, that's the key. Eric Corbett 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that you might be giving Jimbo 1/7 of what he wants?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than 1/7 surely? Eric Corbett 10:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got to give credit for consistency, however: I have said this many times in the past and will say it many times in the future I am sure: some people need to find a different hobby, because whatever they are here for, it is not to help build an encyclopedia. [...] Giano was trolling (i.e. doing something he knew to be disruptive), he knew he was trolling, and I doubt if he will last much longer at Wikipedia because of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodness Me! "I doubt if he will last much longer at Wikipedia because of it." That was seven years ago, and I'm still here. I wonder what it was that I had allegedly doe on that occasion. Giano (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Join. (Mondays.) It's hard to believe what I think I'm seeing: Cullen seemingly thinks he's practitioner of Jimbo's "moral ambitiousness/love" campaign by issuing sarcastic/baiting personal insults, then when he gets flak back from the target asking to knock it off, tells said target "stay off my talk page until you can conduct yourself with kindness", and, "stay off my talk page, unless you come with an attitude of kindness and respect." (Please also see the Jimbo quote at top of Cullen's User talk.) Do you think I'm misconstruing anything? (Because it seems like just nuts to me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso, I was wrong to make that comment about you, and I apologize for it. I am sorry. As for the quote from Jimbo that I had on my talk page, it seemed like a good idea to me a few years ago, but far less so today. I have removed it. I am still trying to learn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtfulness Cullen, I appreciate. (I do support Eric's Monday boycott initiative for other reasons, including the destructive tone set in motion by Jimbo recently prescribing bans [described by Bish as "Wikipedia eating her children"].) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in. As for Cullen ... best avoided really. Eric Corbett 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have joined the cause and did not 'work' yesterday and have a sort of quasi-template on my talk page. I notice above you said we need to act in concert. Should we have a 'wikipedians' category (who are not wikipedians on Monday? ツ ) or a protest project page to sign? My talk page is not all that active, so my template may not be noticed by itself... PS. As for Cullen, he has finally shown his true colours to me. He is officially on my infuriation list. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent! A category might indeed be a good idea. Is that something you could take care of? Eric Corbett 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that any such cat would be deleted pronto, as per my response to Fylbecatulous in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any rational reason why it might be deleted. But then ... Eric Corbett 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I'm not sure why you worry so much about what Jimbo says or the arrogance of the foundation. Although it seems wrong that they are paid and we're not, they have little bearing really on the development of the encyclopedia and are never going to go around personally thanking people and giving them the respect that they deserve. I think you'd be giving a stronger response by simply ignoring them and not giving them the time of day...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't worry about it all, I just want it to stop. Eric Corbett 16:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. I shall continue to abstain from editing in protest at least on Mondays. I guess I will not create a category. I am already in the infamous (not a Wikipedian) and I wish to not turn over that rock and get those members deleted, as has been threatened in the past.. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea; any signs of dissent will be crushed. Eric Corbett 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too of course, but not editing on a Monday is unlikely to make them act any differently. What we really need is some sort of mass organized strike for a prolonged period!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how wide scale the protest becomes and if it's reported in the press. I agree that on its own it won't have any impact on the WMF, but what might is the publicity it generates. Eric Corbett 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right though that they have little respect for contributors and the general relationship between the foundation and the top contributors here is extremely poor. We ought to be treated every bit as well as the top figures in the foundation, given that content is what wikipedia is all about. I've made numerous suggestions to Jimbo and the foundation for improvements but even if I get a response they never do anything about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, have you seen the rationale in the thread on my page? It was mentioned on this page, too, recently. Doing nothing on the presumption that it will make no difference just reminds me of an analogy: "all it takes for the triumph of evil ..." etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I once had a blow-hard blustery manager suffering from verbal diarrhoea whose first comment in any meeting convened to address some crisis or other was always "Our first option is to do nothing". He was a wanker of course, but what has doing nothing ever changed? Eric Corbett 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying doing nothing will change anything, but I am saying that I think ignoring Jimbo and the foundation entirely and dismissing whatever they say as nonsense without commentary would seem a bigger rejection and that walking away from wikipedia at least for one day is a step towards giving them what they want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree then. Eric Corbett 10:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not disagree with you, but if you think that going on strike every Monday is going to change anything then I guess we'll have to! I'm not happy with the way things are run either, but I don't want to lose 52 days of editing from you, especially given that they want you to leave anyway... Now, Criticism of Jimmy Wales as TFA, that might be something.. I doubt he's had much criticism in reliable publications and it wouldn't be easy to write a neutral decent article about, but could you imagine... Kohs would have a field day!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One person is easily ignored, but 50? A hundred? A thousand? Eric Corbett 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get 100 core editors of wikipedia to leave the website for a full month with a specific request to the foundation then I think they'd start to notice. The impression I get is that they have a naive outlook on wikipedia development and think that even if we lose contributors there'll be more along to take their place. The impression I've always got is that they consider the ip or newbie who adds some unsourced content in entries and the seasoned editor who writes featured articles as all in one class, "editor". I don't think they truly appreciate the "core community" or if they do they their efforts to interact are very poor.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I can only do what I can, even if it's only me. Eric Corbett 11:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you organised a petition to the foundation with some specific requests for change I'd probably join a strike if it had possible positive benefits and I'm sure a lot would here too. I think you'd find though that even within the foundation there is often disagreement, even with Jimbo. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are not "Unsanctionable"...and yep....your block log shows it. But is also shows how well protected you are. You are, perhaps, the best content creator on the project...perhaps not, but certainly close enough. Many feel that is enough to wheel war over you. While your block log shows blocks......it also shows how quickly those blocks were overturned, and since I have been aware of you....I have watched as your blocks created more drama than perhaps was ever needed (as if drama is ever needed anywhere but a good film). But then.....my personal opinion is of no consequence here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It takes more than one editor to cause drama, fly-by comments add to it, consider that. If you don't mean it, don't say it, and repeating what somebody else said to make a point, is well beyond contempt in my opinion. In an attempt to lessen the drama you say you dislike, why don't you take Eric off your watchlist and start improving your content contributions instead. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But who cares about content? It's all about civility and gender now. Eric Corbett 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you and your inability to give a shit about it...perhaps....but then perhaps you care more than you let on and perhaps you really don't care. That is not the point. Others do. Respect is not something you seem to want to offer and in so doing....make an encyclopedia a grudge match in many ways. You know what....I actually like you. I see myself in you in many ways...minus the incredible content creation. I like that you are honest...but most of the time....honesty is not needed here any more than you think civility is.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I treat those who deserve respect with respect. The others can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. Eric Corbett 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I care about content. But I have to go earn some income today so I'll be off working an art festival and selling photography rather than working on content. (Oh, and Eric - I dreamed last night that I visited Manchester and was driving around trying to find a pub we were supposed to meet in. I was very very lost. And driving very badly in England. I think it says something when English roundabouts cause Yankee nightmares...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing, in my naivety I thought that wikipedia was about writing content. I might still think that had I not been interested in the history of where I was born and not been encouraged by Eric and several others who don't suffer fools and care about content. Without content Wikipedia wouldn't exist, there would be nothing for admins to police and folks to fight over and it seems to me the more you write the more there is to fight about. Disagreements about content, started by editors who wouldn't recognise good content if they fell over it causes drama and edit wars when fly-by editors "improve" it by adding pov, trivia, tags and whatever. Try looking from the other side and maybe consider that Eric does not cause disruption, rather it's the editors who stick their noses in and try to prove a point who do. Eric is often right and that's what upsets his "enemies" who frequently line up to take pot shots. Yes I am a fan of Eric and the others who encouraged me, unashamedly so. J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context of me being repeatedly accused of chasing off new editors, and females in particular, I shall cherish that post. Eric Corbett 12:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of constantly repeating myself and appearing to almost always echo J3Mrs comments, I also greatly respect and appreciate Eric. Just as he did with J3Mrs, he was the one who rolled his sleeves up and helped me a long time ago - and since then has often helped, encouraged and enticed me to continue editing when I felt like walking away. If the "detractors" spent more time working on content they wouldn't have any time to run around in circles creating merry hell at every opportunity and typing walls of text in places like AN/I etc. As far as I can see it isn't content editors like Eric or Sitush who cause the problems. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child, I was a fan of Bozo the Clown and Captain Kangaroo...but then I grew up. Fans can fool some into thinking they deserve to be above others. Eric has never encouraged me...but he has certainly inspired me. I am also...not his enemy. Why else would I take advice from another to drop my criticism of him when asked directly because he was going through personal issues. We all have those...I do and so does Eric. He just doesn't seem to care much about other peoples issues from what I recall of his comments when a respected editor committed suicide. Is that harsh? Yes...of course...but so were his comments.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity he hasn't inspired you to write because I tend to judge editors by what they have produced not by how vociferous they are on talk pages. I fail to see why editors with fewer than 40% edits to content are here unless they just like telling others what to do. By content editing I have learned to choose my words and yes I am a fan. Otherwise I have no idea what you are waffling about, and don't want to know either so please don't try to tell me. J3Mrs (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake Mark, what are you trying to do? Why not find something constructive and do that instead. This stirring is really quite nasty. Eric ia an exceptionally able editor, and as a result he will always be targeted with resentment from users who want to be important on Wikipedia but can't write. Eric needs protection from these endless attacks, not what you are offering. If Eric is run off the project then the focus will change to some other exceptional editor. Should we stand back while that editor is run off as well? And then the next, and so on till no more able editors remain. There is a sizeable sub-community here now that would be delighted at that spectacle, but it would be the end of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Eric is constantly targeted. Even tonight Kww had this to say: "Your way condemns us to an eternal sequence of Eric Corbetts. 202.83.19.218 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP would be extremely fortunate to have a constant sequence of Eric Corbetts, but it's not going about the right way to get them. Eric Corbett 10:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing about that 40% content. I actually strived to raise the amount of talk page content because I was led down a path of stupidity to actually think discussion was important and valued on Wikipedia. It really isn't and my content creation is enough for me. I am not here to impress the mob. That used to be something I liked about Wikipedia...that discussion was valued and looked for. But now...I could care less. Eric will never be run off this project. He is truly well protected. But all content creators...even those with my sorry amount have some level of protection. The crowd sourced manner is not exactly ideal and Eric is certainly not the ideal Wikipedian, but even with my harsh criticism there is still that very opinion that I still hold that Eric is attacked far too much. I am not attacking Eric...but I also don't give a crap what others think of my opinion of him. It is neither important enough to effect the way Corbett acts or the way others feel about him. I don't know Eric beyond the written word. In may ways that is my loss for sure...but also a great relief. We don't have to like, respect or even care about each other. That much is a blessing. EC is neither the absolute best of us...nor the absolute worst....so there is that. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm there too right now and considering what I'm being accused of, I'm embarrassed by the waste of space and effort expended so far. Keep fighting the good fight... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the waste of space, quoting from the "accusation": "I treat those who deserve respect with respect. " Period. Just stay in that group, everybody, it's that easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They gave me the honour of the last word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sad thing is they cannot see it is their constant barrage of nonsense reports that are disruptive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it apparently so difficult for editors such as you EvergreenFir to act like rational adults? Is it because you're not actually rational adults? Eric Corbett 10:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think there is any vague chance ever of introducing a policy such as this : "If you want to complain about Eric Corbett on ANI, you will need to have a credit of three GAs or one FA that you personally nominated and were the majority contributor for. Otherwise your complaint will be tossed out until you have those credits." Wishful thinking I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody consider that editors who engage in sugar-coated hostility are disruptive dramamongers who are inviting conflict and ought to be dealt with? J3Mrs (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they do not. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of passive aggressive crap is far more disruptive than the occasional curse word. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things might go a little better for EvergreenFir and her fellow civility gangsters if, just for once, they considered telling the truth at these interminably tedious AN/I reports. Eric Corbett 12:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is not the periodic incivility of Mr. Corbett , the real issue are the actual mean-spirited trolls who attack specific editors and articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said MBW!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is driving me up the wall. Every time it's "I acted like a cockwomble and Eric called me one. He likes to call a spade a fucking shovel. Waaaaah!" It's like "I was in this room with a button saying 'Do not press', I pressed it, and a 16 ton weight fell on top of me", "I spilled hot coffee on myself and it hurts. I want to sue McDonalds", "I went to Free Derry and bemoaned the death of Ian Paisley and got death threats" or "I went to the Alabama Bible Belt and extolled the virtues of Canal Street, Manchester and got beaten up and left in a ditch". We are grown ups. Act responsibly. Now, back to Mersea Island for me.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For there to be drama, there must be actors...and Eric is a constant actor in the Wikipedia drama. For better or for worse.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sea Mither you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sea Mither for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yunshui -- Yunshui (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it passed, you really are letting the side down producing all this good content! That's not what wikitopia is for. Seriously another lovely little article, well done. :) J3Mrs (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on a wonderfully obscure bit of folklore. On a sort of related note, reviewing the article reminded me of the reasons (linguistic flair, solid MOS knowledge, skillful sourcing) that I asked you a while back to pre-review Bonshō before I sent it to FA. It's at FA review now; if you'd care to proffer some suggestions for improvement there, I'd be most appreciative. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 08:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a little break right now, but I'll be happy to take a look over the weekend. Eric Corbett 09:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged; enjoy the respite. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some examples (of abuse of WP:NPA, say) would be good. What I see, much more, is editors like Eric behaving with absolutely ludicrous levels of hostility towards other editors, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole, as people see that even the worst possible behavior is something that some people get away with repeatedly. Eric, and some like him, should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago because the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous. I see no evidence that anyone is stalking or hounding them at all. People have legitimate grievances and we lose good community members because of them. It's time to step up and say that we aren't talking about minor infractions or 'political correctness' but about the need to get rid of people who violate our standards and do damage to the encyclopedia because of it.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that after banning Sitush and I from his talk page Jimbo hosts a discussion such as the one I quoted from above. Looking on the bright side though, if I'm so disliked by Jimbo then I must be doing something right. And why does he keep referring to my "allegedly" great content contributions? Has he not read any of them? I've read quite a few of his, and if writing content was left to him WP would become even more of a laughing stock than it is already. Eric Corbett 09:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I know that you have been kicked off of Jimbo's page and may no longer be reading it, but I want to bring something up, an exchange I had with him a few days ago. I thought I was over my anger because I tend to just walk away from controversy rather than get into a never-ending battle with an editor that I know quite well will just wear me down in the end. But reading the above just brought my anger and disgust to the surface all over again. I'm talking about this exchange I had with Him here: [1] # 13. I can hardly say how hurt I was to see "my" article criticized on his page. And for him to say that he is "already working on it [the article]" is just a bald-faced lie - unless you call asking a question on the talk page working on it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush and me. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "Sitush and I" to be a compound subject; sometimes it's quite acceptable to bend the language. Just look at Dylan Thomas for instance. Eric Corbett 10:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got fed up when I saw what happened to Sitush. An indefinite ban was extreme, looked like nothing but trying to gain brownie points. I'm sick to death of seeing you, Sitush or other editors, Cassianto etc, having to deal with the civility police and inappropriate blocks and the fuss after them. It's been worse than ever since Wikimania. I wanted to know if Jimbo considers their behaviour uncivil too. Perhaps you could find some diffs of provocative comments and abuse of WP:NPA to get him to comment on them rather than on you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You are one of them" was recently used, "them" meaning you, Eric, and another editor I admire, - I said it would be high praise for me. I try to ignore the page mentioned, after my flower question received no answer (as expected). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wales had some decent content to his credit he might have a little more empathy with those who do. Instead his main contribution is a talk page populated by sycophants, whingers, trolls and those who need another venue to canvass whatever injustice they think has been done to them and indeed for the bullies who feel enabled by Wales' edicts. This is not a professional setting or a kindergarten it's the internet. If crowd-sourcing is the object then you end up with the crowd and its trivia and no coherence. If you want an encyclopedia you need people willing to research, write, copyedit, and everything else associated with producing content worth reading. Wales does a huge injustice to many editors by dismissing some of the encyclopedia's best work as "allegedly great content contributions". But just as the community stuck up for itself against the foundation, perhaps it will let Wales know just how out of touch he is. J3Mrs (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never been quite able to understand why people become so worked up about the pronouncements of this Jimmy Wales editor. Like some others here, he has been allowed to credit himself with great deal of value to the project. However, at the end of the day, we are all dispensable - some more so than others. In my view, contrary to his delusions, Jimmy Wales has no real power or use here. I don't doubt that some, listening to his off-wiki speeches and pontifications, believe him to be the linchpin and corner stone of the project, but those of us actually writing the encyclopedia know quite differently. My point is, like all irritating, buzzing creatures, it's best to ignore them - then they go away. Giano (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  He berates others for behaving without "honor", yet he behaves dishonourably himself. Eric Corbett 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He buzzes, but he doesn't have teeth or a sting. Brush him aside and forget him. Giano (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like The Emperor has no clothes. ignore him. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions re Jimbo's "out of touch" and "uncivil" likely pressed a sore point. He supported Kaldari who socked to harass you, and complained at Panda's Talk who unblocked you. That didn't work so now mob-rousing rage come-backs: "should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago", "the need to get rid of people who violate our standards". (Is that like admins' expectation re "behavior at a higher standard"?! And where's the unambiguous CIV standard or consensus for all to read?) Bish said "Wikipedia eating her children" -- how succinct! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Kaldari did indeed, and admitted as much. Yet Jimbo claims never to have seen any harassment against me. But I guess if you keep your eyes tightly shut against the truth you likely don't see very much. I'm off out for a nice meal shortly, Jimbo's already taken up too much of my time. Eric Corbett| Eric]] Corbett 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Bish posted at Jimbo's page? I find Bish to be pretty good at calling it as she sees it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, is one of Wikipedia's greatest, living editors likely to post in such a banal place as Jimbo's page? Yes, I know I have, but I'm not quite as great as BishonenGiano (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did :-) Sorry I didn't finishing referencing Sicily BTW! I very rarely ever post on his talk page and took it off my watchlist about two years back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - we all descend there occasionally. I'm editing in the USA at the moment; it's opened up a whole New World for me - Sicily seems very far away. Giano (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that Bishonen is at all likely to post on Jimbo's page. Remember that he punitively blocked her for calling a little shit a "little shit"; he then coined the infamous "toxic personality" remark and 'Shonen took him to ArbCom. It proved impossible for her to communicate meaningfully with Jimbo at the time as shown by the exchange here: User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, and as far as I know, she's given up on the idea as impractical. That exchange contains a piece of advice from 'Shonen:

• I know of no single piece of behavior in the community that has a more bitter—more "toxic"— harvest than blocks. Blocks should be used only when absolutely necessary, such as to stop ongoing vandalism, because their effect is so bad. I believe it is now widely accepted in the admin community that so-called "civility blocks" are pernicious. My personal belief is that nothing loses the project more well-meaning established editors than those types of blocks do, together perhaps with ham-fisted arbitration remedies. Those editors should be the backbone of the project, and the teachers of the new arrivals; but in reality they not merely leave in great numbers, but leave in bitterness. - Bishonen, 15:24, 24 June 2009

Absolutely spot-on five years ago, and just as relevant right now. Lessons just don't get learned. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bish's "Wikipedia eating her children" comment was at Sitush's Talk [2]. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted to Jimbo's page twice today. I won't make that mistake again. I had completely forgotten about his moronic block of Bishonen. It's not a good thing at all that he retains any position of authority with regards to en.wikipedia. (You know me, I promise, from back in your "Malleus" days, when I too went by a different nom de plume.) LHM^{ask me a question} 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many very active FA/quality article contributors have left wikipedia because of you Eric? Jimbo implies that wherever you breathe other editors flee the project without looking back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimbo had impartially assessed the evidence he would be able to answer your question himself. Eric Corbett 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters to most anyone, but my two GAs, one FA and TFA are due in part to Eric, and I probably wouldn't have bothered to improve them to that point without his help. The newest one I'm (slowly) working on with GA goals will very likely have his participation as well. For me, its is simply a choice (and gratitude for the help when I can get it). He has said my organization for one article was "shit", but it is hard to take offense when he is right as that was an apt description at the time. Being blunt isn't a curse nor should it be cursed. It saves time and it is honest. I don't see that as incivil. Dennis 23:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis....you've both pissed me off and shamed me greatly. What you said above does matter...to me. In fact, it is your collaborations with Eric that have given me the demonstration of his ability to work with good editors to help them and their content work because....he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often. And when he does....it generally ends badly. His bluntness is one of the inspirations I take from him...but he also demonstrates his seeming contempt for the Wikipedia community. God (or the deity of your choice) bless Eric. But I sure as hell wish he was less abrasive and disruptive.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err...Mark I don't follow you....what are you trying to say?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant for you to understand and deserves no clarification. Now...if Dennis wishes for me to expand on that, I will certainly do so. Heck...since this is Eric Corbett's talk page, if he asks for clarification I will respond as well...but really...don't take offense to not getting a response.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that Eric's collaborations with others end badly? If so then checking this talk page or the edit history should tell you otherwise, or if someone else it's coming across as ambiguous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you really think "he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" you've obviously not looked very hard. On User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#FAs I list the FAs I've worked up in order of promotion. Every one after Stigand has had tremendous input from Eric/Malleus in terms of copy-editing and help with all aspects of article prep. I'd say that's a pretty strong showing of collaborative ability. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...sorry, guess when I suggested Eric to a new editor and it ended in an awful cluster fuck it was just a one off. My bad. Eric is the new messiah. Sorry for pissing off the faithful.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor/article are you referring to? Eric Corbett 03:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark, I've seen Eric collaborate with tons of people. Sometimes they bump heads a bit, and move forward. Sometimes they don't. When you want to create FA type stuff, there is going to be friction sometimes. Most of the FA regulars can handle mild frustration. If your goal is excellence, it is unavoidable. And if I've pissed you off and shamed you, I'm sorry. It is never my intention to do that to anyone, and not sure what I did, but obviously here isn't the place to hash it out, email would be. Like Eric, I can be gruff at times, even if do it in a different way. That is my whole point about incivility, we ALL can be dicks sometimes, including me. But as to my first point, yes, Eric is why I got those GAs and FA. Right after he opposed me at RFA. Dennis 01:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry Dennis. I deserved it. And as much as Eric seems to support FA excellence...he doesn't suffer "fools" (meaning everyone BUT him) at all. Everyone his opinion doesn't deserve help gets the exact opposite. He disrupts everything beneath him and praises everything he agrees with as if he was the savior of the entire project. Don't get me wrong...I do like Eric...but his disruption needs to stop or he needs to go. Period. He will do nothing to change my mind because I am less than his opinion feels even deserves attention. But...my attention is not so discriminating. But then....Eric is also not that important to the be all or end all of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go somewhere and argue for him to "go" or whatever you're trying to get accomplished. This, however, is not the place for your odd rants. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give me a fucking break Lithistman. Seriously. I came back from my vacation to see you pinging me to attack another editor. Get over it! As if your "odd rants" have any place on the project. Try shutting up and see if that helps you!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay. FYI, you were pinged because you had participated in the consensus discussion. Believe me when I say this: it will never happen again. You're apparently just here to rant incoherently about your vacation and how awful Eric is to others (but you "still do like him", or course), so have fun with that, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever...but at least you got the fucking message. Stop pinging me to attack others. And my vacation was wonderful....Wikipedia is not...at the moment, but that can change...and yeah.....I do like Eric. Odd for some that can't understand why someone would be critical of those they actually admire. Like I give a shit.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yours has been one of the oddest screeds I've seen on here in quite awhile--and in 8 years, I've seen some doozies. Also, your claim that I pinged you to "attack others" is simply a falsehood. I explained both here and there what the ping was for, so I'd appreciate it if you'd quit making that false claim. Or just keep swearing and using random ellipsis. That works as well. I'll give you the last word, should you choose to reply. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then..... how about "shut up". You just expected me to support your attack and you really had no business pinging me. Now...stop doing so. I never asked you to do so or ever expected it and never wish that to happen again. Got it? Good. ( a true apology to Eric for this being on his talk page and I endorse his removing any of it if he chooses.)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" is just about as far from the truth as I could imagine. Why are you persisting with that evident falsehood? Are you in Jimbo's pocket? How often have you seen him collaborate on an article with anyone? Why not just look at the facts rather believe the lies? Eric Corbett 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" That is what I really did and do see, but have been corrected by others. As you do...my words were chosen to be honest and not an exaggeration. I am more than cool with the fact that other editors know you to collaborate often. While I really did not see it...I actually trust those that state you really do. Jimbo has collaborated with me a great deal. Not like he hasn't had harsh words for me when I did wrong, and critical of my contributions. I didn't get all bent the fuck out of shape about it. You could try that yourself you know.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion for you; stop propagating Jimbo's ill-considered opinions on anything. And how you could have collaborated with someone who is so clearly incompetent at article writing will have to remain a mystery I suppose, as you will undoubtedly have no evidence to back that up. Eric Corbett 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "[propagate] Jimbo's ill-considered opinions on anything". I don't even have his talk page on my watch list any more. Oh....you want "evidence"? LOL! Why....because assuming good faith is beyond you? Nah....I don't think my giving you diffs would be much help, but yeah...Jimbo is like everyone else...just like YOU. He has collaborated with me and I very much appreciated the help. Give in to the "Light side". There is no real need to be so dark here. You got stuff that is useful...why not be as kind the general community as you are to your ...I don't know..."fans"? You have good support. I like that. Many do. Why waste it? Anywhoo....happy editing. I am not your enemy.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've never "collaborated" with Wales on any article. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So why the lie I wonder? Eric Corbett 04:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you accuse me of a lie. Alrighty then. Nope. Not a lie. Jimbo helped me on the talk page of an article where the subject was being accused of that very thing...a lie.. about their birthdate. He pointed out a number of issues and we discussed tabloid sources on his talk page in relation to the Independent that he felt was not a tabloid and shared some information that he knew about the owners and other papers they owned but admitted it was possible for the paper to change and that it could be seen as a tabloid. He spotted a BLP violation and I removed it. Someone else requested help with the article at about the time others were requesting help on a BLP about a transgendered person that was eventually deleted after several discussion on different venues (on that situation he did not assist from what I remember), but if you feel that was not collaboration or assistance...cool. There have been other smaller collaborations through his talk page in regards to articles he asked for help on, as well as a number of situations he helped clarify content or policy et. He has been a good help to me...but I took his page of my watch list a while back. I'm not sure how that "tool" works but as far as I am concerned if you want to think...what you want to think...I can't control that.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look. A lie is a lie. Just stop. Eric Corbett 18:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lie is saying something you know is not true. I haven't done that. A lie is a lie...when a lie is told. Jimbo has been good enough to collaborate with me. That is not a lie.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to figure out what the hell he's trying to accomplish at any point in this thread, more or less that false claim to have "collaborated with Wales." LHM^{ask me a question} 04:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very important to this project Mark, and I'm sure Jimbo has benefited from your collaborations. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I only hope to learn and improve myself. I am not perfect and I make mistakes...but I try and as awful as my words to Eric may seem here, it is because I really do think he is worth this effort.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of incivility, you know, I don't think I have ever heard Eric EVER say "shut up" to anyone. Now those are two words generally guaranteed to stir emotional drama! Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure I have not actually seen that myself...but yes, that was not civil of me. I have struck out the comment and apologize to Lithistman for it. Also, sorry Eric for overly mirroring what I perceive as your own behavior. What we see and perceive is always filtered through tint of opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that all your accusations are based on your beliefs and prejudices with scarcely a nod towards the actual facts. Eric Corbett 18:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm....yes. "..based on your beliefs and prejudices". However, facts are what we know. I can't say you never collaborate well with others, I can only say I have not seen it "often". But others have and that is good enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, Eric and I collaborated very happily here and I think (I may be wrong) took it to GA together. I have no idea how one summons that little tool that proves that, but I'm sure someone watching this knows how to do it. Giano (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like you might be thinking of Vorontsov Palace (Alupka) or Ashton Court. I don't see Little Moreton Hall on the editor interaction page for you two. Also, here is a link to the base page where you can type in usernames to see if they've actually interacted. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Both Giano and I have had name changes in the fairly recent past. Under the user name of Giano II he is the second highest contributor to Little Moreton Hall, and under the name of Malleus Fatuorum I'm at no. 4. Eric Corbett 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed we have, but your edits are always far more superior and weighty than mine. Anyway, Pondering carefully on the matter, I think I may have been advising discretely. Giano (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, that makes sense. I knew about your name change, obviously, but Giano's is quite subtle, so I didn't think to check the other one. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And quite recently we worked together with Rodw on Ashton Court if you recall, now a GA. Eric Corbett 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see that but did see one collaboration that went well and ended up as a GA I believe and possibly wnet to FA. Eric is a superb content creator, there is no doubt there. Nice to see the work with others.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric has helped me out lots of times copy editing and polishing articles I've written and I've made contributions to articles he's been working on all without rancour. He's also collaborated on many articles produced by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester - the article on the Peterloo Massacre stands out amongst these. It's usually only when pedantic idiots come along and try to tell him that they know better that problems arise. He also mentored a bunch of American high school students some years ago helping them to produce some excellent work. Richerman (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"[M]entored a bunch of American high school students" That is extremely difficult and time consuming. Very cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every 5 to 10k edits, we all might call someone an ass. Eric's greatest crime is being so prolific that it happens every few months instead of every few years. If you look at his "disruption" edits versus "productive" edits, his "dick ratio", so to speak, he probably has us all shamed. I rather like that "dick ratio" concept, someone should pen an essay. Dennis 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that notion of a dick ratio, made me laugh anyway. Eric Corbett 19:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"[H]is "disruption" edits versus "productive" edits". Thought about this last night. And yeah...the dick ratio comment made me laugh as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this doesn't mean you have to like every comment he makes, or agree with anything he says (I certainly don't agree all the time), but I do think it is wise to put things in perspective and not get sucked into the "Eric is evil" cesspool whirlpool on Jimbo's talk page. I suggest unwatching that page and flagellation if you are tempted to peek. Nothing good happens over there, you won't be missing anything. Dennis 19:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All of this discussion is a textbook course in civility, with much of it on the border, and much of it over the theoretical line. It does prove that we can all be dickish at times, to varying degrees, myself included. This is why it's best to ignore the small stuff and spend that energy doing something else, like writing articles. It isn't about ignoring Eric's sometimes gruff manner (sometimes I cringe, sometimes I laugh, sometimes I say "meh"), it is about prioritizing how we spend our energy. I can show you examples where I've been about as blunt as Eric (albeit, a bit more passive-aggressive poetic) and no one batted an eye, showing the bias in the system. Dennis 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bias in the system is all too real Dennis, and it's a bigger problem than many realise. Those of us who fondly remember Eric's good friend George Ponderevo recognise all too clearly how an editor sharing many of Eric's skills could get along with everybody. That was because he didn't have continual provocations from the trolls who just want to get a reaction from those whom they persecute. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember George and came across one of his starters when I authored Marie Lloyd not so long ago; missed as Gerda would say. We even had an minor spat editorial disagreement in the past. I was still a fan of his work and think it odd that I should get on so well with Eric, with that beared in mind ;-) Cassianto^talk 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten Ponderevo. He was a class act, I was sorry to see him finish. Went about his business quietly and was highly productive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What a huge pity it is that it's necessary to be here paying tribute to one of the encyclopedia's most productive editors while he's still alive - all because he does not fall into Category. Middle-class American nice person. It's a great pity that when Eric is being "blunt" that these people don't just pop over here and say "stop being a miserable bastard" or even (as I tell my sons - in vain) "bad language is a sign of limited vocabulary." But they don't; instead, they manufacture all sorts of aggrieved editors who have been driven off. I would just like to see a list of these lost editors - or even proof of one of them's existence. Giano (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well indeed. I just saw this diff and as always, it is seemingly those who wish to wave their willies about civility who are the nastiest and least civil people. I suspect part of it comes from a cultural difference; having lived for years in both countries, Americans are shocked by how much British people swear, but British people are shocked by how sneaky and passive-aggressive Americans can be. Different ways of showing your annoyance, but I've always thought our way was healthier. Of course that may be because that is the way I was brought up. It also left me feeling sorry for Wales; to co-found the most amazing Internet resource in history, then to be reduced to impotently girning that he wishes you and certain other ediitors could be banned for all these (eternally unnamed) editors your supposed misdemeanours have driven from the project, must be a real come-down. Feel sorry for those who abuse and mistreat you, that's the Christian way I suppose and although I am not a Christian I see the value in it as I get older. Hang in there, Eric; those of us who know our arses from our elbows, and who write the articles, value you. --John (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Jimbo Wales is the real toxic personality on this project, not me and not Bishonen, who at least had the balls to block him once. Perhaps a few more blocks might get the message across to him. Eric Corbett 19:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing but Jimbo does seem to show a strong aversion to a lot of the core content contributors here who know they're valuable to the site. The more work you've put in and the more you value yourself here, and the more willing you are to be outspoken on the problems of the website, the more likelihood he'll dislike you. He seems to be oblivious to the real work a lot of the contributors have put into the project as evidenced by his "allegedly great contributions" remark. The frustrating way he chooses to embrace certain things like politics and civility and the people who "enforce" them and shows an utter lack of interest in content and encyclopedic contributors. I get the impression that he thinks of the seasoned contributors here as of no more value or worth than newbies or the occasional edit once a year type of editors. We're all mere pawns in the eyes of the God-King.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the admin system now controls it's own terms of reference, intervention by the foundation and/or Jimbo was the last hope for rational remedy. The foundation has made it clear over the last 18 months that such deliverance will not be coming from them, and any remaining hope has been blown away by Jimbo's recent attacks on core content builders, and his unsubstantiated claims that they are the real source of dysfunction on Wikipedia. This is a decisive go-ahead for the agenda-pushing social networkers supported by Jimbo, and puts reform of the dysfunctional parts of the admin system beyond reach. Some admins seem excited by the turn of events. One prominent admin grandee is currently issuing warning guidelines for content builders, advising that if they are going to matter they need to be "those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards". The same admin likens core long-term content builders to "crap and vandals" that need to be kept out of the encyclopedia. In his own words, Wikipedia "has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia." --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Kudpung has succumbed to the fatal JimboWales virus. Fatal to Wikipedia that is of course. Eric Corbett 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a public space, take out a £5/$5 note, and tread on it. Kudpung can't do that with a 10 baht note without major consequences (physical and/or legal). That's all you need to know about Kudpung. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who treads upon legal tender has either to much cents, or no sense at all.—John Cline (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"which you recently created or substantially expanded". Shouldn't that be "which you allegedly recently created or substantially expanded" ;-)...

According to the tablets of stone handed down by Jimbo it probably should. Given the current rows centring on the GGTF project though it's interesting to note that Shafts was an early feminist magazine. I guess that's my misogynist credentials shot to Hell. Eric Corbett 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCOMN! The irony! Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you could always go back and vandalize it. The addition of pictures of tossers doing, ahem, the eponymous appears to be a perennial favourite. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Good Article Award
	This way I reward you with the Dessert No. 4 from Boston for excellent work in the field of GA. Hafspajen (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it given the new ANI on me, but you are UK, another hour and a half by my clock, get back to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you fancy a little automation you can use:

{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}

I know it only saves a few moments removing or restoring <!-- -->, but there are better things we could be doing with those moments. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest something similar, but the automatic switch would deprive us of a watchlist reminder about the protest that Eric (and others) are making. Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point and I must admit that being retired means one day looks much like another to me (except the supermarket closes early on Sundays). However, you could always put

• {{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Protest Day today.}} |}}

on one of your pages as a reminder :) --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll likely do something like that RexxS, as "I'm not trying to cause a big sensation/ Just talking 'bout my generation." Or in this case my utter contempt for the way that WP is governed, funded and run. Many say it will make no difference, and probably it won't. But it does to me, and that's all that matters. It's a small thing I know, but great oaks from little acorns grow. Eric Corbett 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here previously dealt with SMcCandlish? I'm about ready to throw in the towel at a rather obscure article titled Landrace. For one thing, would anyone here try to argue that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source? For another, would anyone here argue that the FAO is not an authoritative source on livestock animals? I think they are, but I could be in the wrong here, just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMcC is one of the WP:MOS heavies from way back. The only person heavier was Noetica, whose retirement banner went up at the same time mine did. You might try posting the question at one of the MOS talk pages, or if it's strictly a MOS question, try Tony1--he's probably the top MOS person who's still left at this point. —Neotarf (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'splaining that to me Neotarf. That wasn't my question, but thanks for trying. I've only been here 8 years and have 40+GAs to my credit, some of which were reviewed by the illustrious Mr. Corbett. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to not throw in the towel - that's how SMcC works, by wearing people with opposing views down via TLDR talk posts and reams of circular reasoning. If you're convinced you're right, keep going (and if you need some extra eyes try DRN). Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across SMcC before and my experience mirrors Neotarf and Black Kite (eg: Talk:Tommy (album)), and as Eric has suggested above, these sort of actions are far more toxic and poisonous to Wikipedia culture than telling somebody to fuck off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Ritchie333 I'm rather certain that Neotarf isn't taking the position you think they're taking (different sense of "heavy").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an American argue with me over the use of British English and tell me that the OED "aims to be comprehensive rather than prescriptive" before now. [3] Richerman (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your American friend ought to be aware that no dictionary aims to be prescriptive, and could never be. Eric Corbett 12:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is not so much a source as a compilation of sources that speaks for itself about the history of usage. SMcC's writing style used to be mentioned more than it is now; it has improved quite a bit, but he often comes across as being enthusiastic about a given topic. I can't figure out what the issue is though, can you explain what this has to do with Landrace? —Neotarf (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The few times I've seen SMcC in action have convinced me that he's one of the policy OWN types that are responsible for driving off more editors than Eric could ever manage even if he were inclined to do so. Intothatdarkness 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more poisonous MOS OWN editors in Wikipedia, but they operate in very predictable and narrow areas (example) and hence they can be easily avoided. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the template move or it's discussion? I must be missing some subtext. If you just mean that wikiprojects have a tendency to act like independent, sovereign wiki-citystates, that want "their way" over Wikipedia's way, I would agree. (I say that a founder of several projects and a participant in dozens; we work with the tools we have, try to improve them, and try prevent their abuse, as in every aspect of life.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neotarf: Our dispute is well documented on that article's talk page. Basically, it's me making some point of something, then being ignored and reverted, making the point more clearly and invoking WP:BRD, being ignored and reverted, formally disputing the reverts and reliably sourcing why and demanding proof from the opposing side, being ignored and reverted, etc., with Montanabw saying "tl;dr!" and refusing to address anything substantive. I'm wise to this WP:IDHT technique now - social-engineering the other party into re-explaining their position (i.e. adding more words) so one can later claim its just some text wall - so I'm henceforth going to pretty much verbatim repeat any unmet demands for sources and rationales until they're met, and just ignore the personalized, aspersion-casting handwaves, any time I get such handwaves in response to requests for evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I haven't looked at this, but is the handwaving coming from just a select few, or the majority of people? If the latter, then you might be on the IDHT side. If the former, then you should seek DR.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep an open mind, and open eyes. I've been trying to get past the personalities issues (it's not like I run to ANI all the time with complaints of being attacked), and just look at sources and policies. If people refuse to provide evidence and keep engaging in "vicious" "bullying" to turn someone's words back against them, I have no reason to entertain it and feed into the "fuck you!", "no fuck YOU!" cycle. The core policies trump that nonsense, and if people can't back up what they're trying to make articles tell our readers, then that's what we need to focus on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: – Re: original post: That's an obvious and provable straw man. See my actual arguments (at Talk:Landrace#POV promotion of vague FAO and OED definitions, and with repeated demand for evidence from you at Talk:Landrace#"Controversy" novel synthesis removed): First, the OED, when it conflicts with multiple, reliable, peer-reviewed sources is trumped by them, especially on matters of biological science terminology, with the strong sources coming from that field. See WP:V and WP:RS. WP prefers secondary sources, not primary or tertiary ones. Dictionary are extremely simplified explanations for lay readers, far more so that WP itself is. Dictionaries are primarily useful as sources for usage history ("when did this term appear?") and etymology, and they frequently conflict with each other on both. Second, the FAO document in question is an internal glossary and guideline of how FAO approaches and defines landraces (a.k.a. landrace breeds) and standardized breeds, not a reliable source for how these terms are used generally. The FAO source says it is trying to ensure that landraces and formal breeds are conflated legally, so that genetic conservation measures are applied to them equally. A source that is intentionally blurring a distinction and says so cannot be used to prove there's no distinction. This has all already been explained to you at least four times, so you can't even claim "tl;dr" this time; I know you've see it at least once. You are blatantly mischaracterizing my position, and I'm having a hard time seeing how that could be happening in good faith. Perhaps you can explain why you're doing it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMC, You have just proven here with your answer how toxic you truly are. I do not agree with your analysis, I've had it with your 'splaining everything, and it is an assessment, not an attack to state that you have a SERIOUS WP:IDHT problem. Your walls of text rarely contain anything new and I have already discovered several cases (too many to bother listing at the moment because I have a life) where the sources cited don't verify the material and where you add tons of SYNTH to the article that goes far beyond what the experts say. Your sourcing and analysis would never pass a GA or FA review, which is why I've come over here, where there are many experienced editors of excellent quality articles, to sort out what is content from what is personality. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, resorting to gender-based attacks now? Noted. Also noted: repeated claim of bad sourcing with no proof, exactly like those you're being asked to back up at Talk:Landrace. I'm not sure why you seem to think "You're lying!" "What's your evidence?" "I won't provide any. You're lying!" "Again, what's your evidence?" "I'm to busy to say, you asking for it is a text-wall. You're lying!" "Again, what's your evidence?" is going change any minds. I can think of other reasons you've come to a user talk page unconnected to me in any way, to engage in misrepresentation of me and my editing in personal aspersion-casting ways that "sort[ing] out what is content from what is personality". The very notion is at cross purposes with the action.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Splaining is used for any example of condescendingly explaining the obvious to people who know the topic better than the 'splainer. You also like t'splain to male editors, so like Eric's famous "c-gate" problem here, I meant it as a comment on behavior directed at both/all genders. As for the rest, again, you are basically taking everything I have asked of you or said to you and you are turning it around and saying that it is either what I have done or what you have asked of me. There is a word for this: ABUSE. You are abusive and toxic in your interactions with me. (And yes, I'm just waiting, you will say that I am abusing you within about 10 minutes of when you read this, I'm quite certain)

@Montanabw: Actually, I don't think I've ever claimed you were "abusing" me. I will note that you directly linked to Mansplaining, disproving your attempt to backpedal here. For the record, I had no idea what your gender was until recently, and assumed you were male due to your argumentation style. Since learning you're not, I've strongly shifted (out of an innate sense of chivalry, I guess) to a much more compromise and moderation-seeking approach, but it hasn't worked either. Basically, nothing short of total appeasement seems like it will result in anything but interminable opposition from you on virtually everything, even when we actually agree on the facts, and I'm really not sure what to do about that. Part of the problem here may be legal backgrounds (I'm not a lawyer, but [among other things] a professional policy analyst and legislative activist, and have worked with piles of lawyers since 1993.) This is generally a recipe for an adversarial approach, and it can be difficult for people with a litigatory temperament to set it aside sometimes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but I'm betting in the future, on another drama board you will be, because you generally take my arguments and anything else and then turn the same thinking to benefit you. And you can stuff your "innate sense of chivalry" because you don't have any and no, you have not shifted to a "more compromise and moderation-seeking approach" - you've just become equally demanding that I participate in compromise and DR. And yep, you clearly take anything anyone says about you and make it flip in your favor. Hmmm. When did I first tell you "nothing short of total appeasement seems like it will result in anything but interminable opposition from you on virtually everything," about your own edits? I'm also completely unimpressed with your claimed credentials; on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog, and frankly I'm amused that you have finally deigned to review my userboxes, because that's the only place I have ever mentioned that I have a law degree (and beyond my userboxes, the rest of my resume is, frankly, none of your damn business). Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, you're doing exactly the same thing. I think any independent observer would surmise that half of our conflict is due to just being stubborn, critical people with similar debate styles and a tendency to prevail with them. I find this is often the case with protracted conflicts over fairly small matters (vs. WP:GREATWRONGS like all the Armenian/Azerbaijani/Turk/Kurd hatewars thrashing their way across a zillion articles; those are a different kind of issue entirely, more of a "Die, you and all your people!", "Not if we exterminate you first!" problem). Argumentative-editor "spats" as you call them are more often about approach, and just leaving them alone for a while tends to heal them. I never asked you anything personal, and I'm not claiming any credentials. I generally ignore people's user pages, both because they're unverifiable and because we're supposed to address edits not editors, content not personalities. But sometimes I'll go look, when an issue doesn't seem to want to go away, and see if something stated there indicates anything about what the nature of the issue might be. Not sure why you're assuming bad (or weird, or whatever) faith about any of that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett:: Any idea why I'm being discussed in terms that seem to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF on your talk page? Seems odd to me. Not just because we don't interact much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above for my reply. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you, nor about you in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing you anywhere, but your question would perhaps be better addressed to the ever so honourable and morally ambitious Jimbo Wales, who is discussing me on his own talk page, from which he has banned me. Eric Corbett 15:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not; just wondering why I'm being gossiped about in a canvassing and attacking kind of way, here. I'm unaware of your history with Jimbo.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 16:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Montanabw understood your point of view, but just wanted to a third opinion to try and get a consensus out of it. It's generally nice to get a different angle on things. I can only assume she assumed Eric or a qualified talk page stalker would be somebody who could do it. Incidentally, I've got my own dictionary problem on Faversham, where I've "cheated" and used Wiktionary's definition for the Latin Faber (where the town's name comes from), though I think I can get away with it under the pretext of a simple English translation not being "material challenged or likely to be challenged". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: While I agree in theory, this does not appear to be to have anything at all to do with the process outlined at WP:THIRDOPINION#How to list a dispute. Montanabw didn't ask Eric, she asked his talk page watchers. It's not lost on me (after looking into disputes about Eric) that he's criticized sometimes for things similar to those leveled at me, often by many of the same people, who watch this page. I also note that Montanabw has previously gone to WT:BIRDS to direct that entire project, many of whom are unhappy with me, to a WP:AN case involving me which had nothing to do with birds, and just today (or maybe yesterday), approached a WP:BIRDS-participant admin, no fan of mine, on his talk page about the Landrace dispute, and made a point of ensuring he knew I was involved. I think I can be pardoned for noting an escalating hostility pattern across more and more pages and a distinct lack of neutrality in these approaches.

Faversham: I think it's likely someone would eventually challenge that, but dicdefs are easy to find via Dictionary.com, etc. I wish Wiktionary regularly cited sources rather than just appearances of usage. It would be 10x more useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie pretty much got it in one. This page has a lot of good editors watching it, and they are uninvolved. I basically "get" where SMC is coming from (even if I refuse to do more than skim his walls of text and have repeatedly noted they are "tl;dr") and I disagree with his views, but cannot seem to get any of my points across and he refuses to compromise with me. I figured that this is the place where people can tell the difference between intense debate and being all the evil things SMC accuses me of being. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except I have a huge pile of diffs showing me attempting to compromise with you. Noting "evil", that's a good one. You may want to reconsider this idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for starters, the link in SMcC's first diff is not to the OED but to an online dictionary site. See here for clarification. The OED does not provide definitions; it shows the earliest documented usage of the word and can be useful in tracking changes in usage with time. If you have never seen it I would recommend going to a library that is large enough to carry a dead-tree version of the multi-volume set and leaf through a couple of the volumes. If you want access to the online version you will have to pay an impossibly steep fee, try your local library, many of them carry a subscription. @Montana, have no fear of SMcC's bona-fides. There are many fruits, nuts, and flakes attracted to that subject area, but SMcC is not one of them. If you can wade through his densely written prose, that has sometimes been known to encompass the entire editing history of a topic in just one post, you will find actual issues that may lead you in fruitful directions of research. @Ritchie333, you may find this website of interest. Personally I would avoid making definitive statements about placenames unless you have a reliable source--better to say it "may" be related than to claim information to be certain when the true facts are lost in the mists of time. Folk etymologies are common, and inaccurate. —Neotarf (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the CR-ROM edition of OED proper, vs. it's concise website, now't I think of it, and I live 5 blocks from a city library, too. Just been too busy with work to go on a sit-down-in-the-reference-room sourcing run.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for 'splaining that to all of us, Neotarf. I happen to have no interest in doing SMC's work for him; and I do know how to conduct research, how to formulate a cogent argument and so on. But I have never run into someone like this who basically bullies people with reams of incomprehensible gibberish until they all just give up and go away. My understanding is that SMC was the individual almost singlehandedly responsible for "Birdcon", which, indeed, ran off far more editors than Corbett ever has. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can one editor be "singlehandedly responsible" for a discussion with many editors, opened by someone else, in response to an RM that said editor didn't even participate in, and closed with a result, on the facts, sources and policy bases, that the closer didn't even prefer?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct there. It is ironic that when the usual suspects complain that Eric's occasional incivility drives off editors (with no evidence of these mythical people, of course), they don't bring up stuff like this, whereby SMcC and his cronies managed to convert all of Wikipedia's bird articles to titles that anyone who knows anything about the subject knows is wrong, and drive off a number of excellent editors while they were at it. Still, if that's what they enjoy doing ... I won't say what I think about them. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that SMcC has driven anyone off, even with his superpowers, although it's true enough that the Bird Capitalization zealots always seem to show up when he's around. The bird RFC was definitive enough, in spite of the off-site canvassing, which was linked to during the RFC. It's unusual to see so much agreement about anything here--at this point the bird people should probably just leave it alone. —Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were, and are, a number of regular editors that haven't edited - or have edited much less - since. And frankly, it doesn't really matter how many of SMcC and his jackbooted MOS zealots there were - they were still wrong, as anyone who actually knows anything about the subject could tell you. Let's face it, telling a Wikiproject that they don't actually know how to define articles in their own specialist subject is pretty fucking special. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: veiled allusions to fascists, see Godwin's law.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: editors blaming me: Nearly every editor leaving for a while (or less often finding something else to do long-term) because they didn't get their way in a dispute, departs with a histrionic "I quit because of [insert alleged asshole's username here]" rant. Trying to chase off one editor because another editor says they were chased off by the former would rapidly result in no editors. I took a recent fairly extended wikibreak, directly because I felt badgered by Montanabw at Landrace (back in July, I think; time flies, little changes). See what I did there? I own my own emotions; I didn't take a break "because Montanabw badgered me off Wikipedia". Natureguy1980 and Sabine's Sunbird, who make the latter sort of claim about me, are both not taking responsibility for their own participation in disputes they actually renewed (I hadn't spoken up about bird capitalization in any notable way in over a year); meanwhile, both have returned repeatedly (usually as IP anons) not to do anything constructive, but just to more fights with me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was not about "defining articles", it was about style conventions. Imagine every two-bit, podunk WikiProject with its own MOS, its own standards for commas and hyphens, or British versus American English (don't laugh, WikiVoyage does that), warring with the Wikproject next door over who has domain over what. Isn't one MOS enough? Be careful what you wish for. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got reliable sources (The National Archives and The Cambridge History of the English Language) for the name, just not the translation of "Faber". Nevertheless I've toned it down to "it is documented that", which sidesteps that it's the truth (which we can't always do). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled at the assertion that [t]he OED does not provide definitions. Is there some subtlety I'm missing? My copy is in my office, and I am not, but I'll look up to see if I've misremembered.

I accept that a technical dictionary may be a better source for a technical word; I'd take Blacks over the OED is we are discussing a legal term, but that doesn't mean the OED meaning should be discarded, as it may well be the better known meaning so it may well be part of an important discussion.

The statement [d]ictionaries are primarily useful as sources for usage history is curious, my bet would have been on sources of meaning. Is this not true? Plus, many dictionaries do not have usage histories. The fame of the OED rests on it comprehensive, roughly once per century usage history.

As Eric notes, it isn't very interesting to state that the OED is descriptive rather than prescriptive. How many dictionaries are prescriptive? Fowlers, of course, but one might even question whether that should be called a dictionary as opposed to a style guide.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you beat me to it - of course the OED provides definitions. I have my two volume copy of the Shorter OED in front of me and it gives the present day definition(s), the pronunciation and origin of the word and how it has developed over time, where applicable. Richerman (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to http://www.oed.com/ and typing "landrace"; it just gave me one short entry, which was all about Danish pigs plus the option to look at draft entries definition, which was about "land races" of other species, before directing me to the sign-in page. Looks like it will only give one freebee, so if you can get that far, do a copy-paste, or screenshot, before leaving the page. —Neotarf (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC) This is a more typical dictionary definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landrace which would have lists of definitions rather than lists of quotations from sources as examples of the various types of usage, as OED or SOED would have. —Neotarf (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf, you mean well, but we are so far past that point over there. The problem is that SMC is doing this and this. By this standard, yes, all the snark Eric has ever unleashed in his entire on-wiki career makes him a lightweight. Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's just terrible of me to demand that you back up your views with sources, and point out where you're refusing to do so. I forgot that WP is a social networking site, not an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Draft additions February 2005 it says "gen. A locally developed breed of livestock or variety of a cereal or other crop plant". plus a number of quotations. Richerman (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone for your assessment of the issue. And I appreciate Eric's patience while I hijack his talk page. I have replied to a few comments above. I realize few people here are familiar with agriculture topics, but one does not have to be in order to assess the situation in terms of behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, Montana you come here asking for someone "who has previously dealt with SMcCandlish" but when I offer the benefit of my experience, I am suddenly "splaining"? If what you are really looking for is someone to kick his butt, look elsewhere. Addressing the issues he has raised would be an intellectual challenge, but if you could rise to it, in the spirit of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY the project would profit both from his expertise in style issues and yours in equestrian matters. —Neotarf (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)::[reply]

An expert is often someone who knows more and more about less and less. In the case of SMcC, the value of their expertise appears often to diminish disproportionately. MOS is a guideline with a ton of provisos, not a policy. There are times when pedants are a net loss. - 94.14.194.117 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single, tiny item of discussion at Talk:Landrace has to do with WP:MOS. You're conflating your disagreement with me on one topic, for someone else's disagreement with me on another. Cf. fallacy ad hominem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I've never claimed "expertise" about MOS. That's like saying you're an "expert" at Candy Crush Saga, or an "expert" and buying snacks. It's just a document on a website. The word doesn't really apply.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't raise a MOS question here, I raised if OED and FAO would be reliable sources. Someone else raised MOS, but you don't follow it, eitherMontanabw^(talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't talking to you; I was clearly addressing 94.14.194.117. Who's not following, again? Check your assumptions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, Neotarf, can you really be any more condescending? on other pages, I originally started out trying to engage with SMC on the issues only to be told basically, that the only "right" answer was to agree with him and to endure his WP:BAITing behavior. He is not being an intellectual, he's a bully who uses walls of text to attempt to impress others, and no, I am not impressed, so then he attacks. Further, I have already provided SMC multiple sources on various things across several different articles only to either be accused of misusing them or, as here with the OED, having them pooh-poohed. No, Neotarf, I am not impressed with the hollow intellectualism of SMC. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Not going to respond to this stuff. I like your "tired of arguing" post on my talk page; everything raised in it is completely mutual. Sounds like a reason to mutually back off. (Note that I'm crediting you here, not faulting you.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a usual page stalker who missed a lot and is unwilling to spend the time reading all this): I am a restricted woman, restricted to no more than two comments in a given discussion, and I can tell you: that is a blessing! It should be passed more generously ;) - Did you know an answer to gender questions, found on the Main page: Mucho Macho Man? (see also) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get ahead, make sure your shoulders are as broad as your bottom? Successful males get more sex in retirement? If you ain't in front at the eighth pole, give up? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Or maybe just: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08 ? Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad to see you are still here. I sort of lost track of you after I thought you were off Wikipedia for good. Only found your new page here because I was reviewing the history of Last Exit on Brooklyn and noticed your edits from long ago. Did I ever thank you for them? Well, thank you in any case. I have no idea what your opinion might be on linking to Wikia articles, but there's a discussion at Talk:Last Exit on Brooklyn#External links regarding linking to a pretty robust and accurate article on Seattle Wikia. If you have an opinion, I'd like to hear it, even if it doesn't agree with mine. If not, no biggie. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) (formerly Yworo) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, having accused me of chasing off thousands of editors, is asked by Giano to name a few of them [4] so that he can investigate the truth of the claim. In response DeCausa cites RickK, an admin who resigned from the project two years before I made my first edit and was subsequently desysopped for sockpuppetry. Jimbo himself of course, as is his wont when faced with an awkward question, has made himself scarce without replying. Eric Corbett 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you were the one that lied about Khazar2. I got you mixed up with that other liar, Count Iblis. Eric Corbett 10:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Apology accepted. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I unwatched the JW page, and perhaps you should do the same. You didn't chase me off, quite the contrary, there was a time when I stayed because of you (and a few other opponents). Use this statement by a woman if needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I find ironic about Jimbo's ranting is that the WMF has probably already chased away more editors than any single editor could reasonably be expected to do, and has publicly stated that it's quite prepared to chase off many more in the course of its software "improvements". Eric Corbett 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a theory that Jimbo doesn't really exist, but is a multi-shared joint account or committee, and every so often its members forget who they are logged in as, and that's why his age is so often a centre for bizarre opinion. Somewhat amusingly, it's now suggested that the thread, asking for names, be hatted because it's uncivil to Eric himself. If I didn't no better I may think that there were some double standards on that page. Whatever! I none the wiser about the vast army of unemancipated women, pre-school children and general upstanding Christians, Jews, Muslims and sensitive Americans who have been driven away by Eric. All I wanted was a couple of names, just to see if he had truly driven someone off. You see I've often been accused of the same thing, yet my detractors and antagonists seem to be like the poor and needy - always with us. Giano (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've come up with two names so far, neither of which were driven off by me and one of whom had retired two years before I made my first edit. Gerda on the other hand has drawn attention to something that Jimbo is blind to, one of many things, which is the number of editors I've encouraged not to leave. Perhaps my real crime is in encouraging and helping other editors, as that delays the WMF's clear target of driving all editors away? Eric Corbett 13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo won't reply, I expect he's been hoping one of his acolytes could come up with the goods but as there's no evidence for his mantra that Eric drives editors away, he hasn't achieved the expected pile on. It's a divisive, disruptive, rabble-rousing diversion from what really is wrong with the encyclopedia, but delivered in a spirit of kindness and cheerfulness. J3Mrs (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thoughtfulness. Don't forget thoughtfulness. Eric Corbett 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't think, I was too busy being kind and cheerful . J3Mrs (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so be uncivil an dismissive of Jimbo. I'm convinced that we will soon receive an answer that is both loving and compassionate. Giano (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thoughtful? Eric Corbett 19:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Eric, you clearly expect far too much of people. Giano (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean those such as the egregious Milowent? Dragging up a vote from a six-year-old RfA to justify his hatred? Does WP have no statute of limitations? No wonder so many editors simply abandon their accounts and start again. Eric Corbett 19:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's like speaking to a brick wall at times Giano, unlikely to a get a decent response, only the brick wall is more enthusiastic towards content and content contributors and has a better idea of how to build an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, Dr B; I've done there now. After three full real life days (that's a century in Wikiwonderland) I have all the proof I need. The occupying rabble and royal attendants, but curiously not the silent Jimbo himself, have produced one editor who left two years before Eric arrived, and another editor who claims to have left in disgust, but still seems to be fearlessly posting here. I've drawn my conclusion; it would be presumptuous of me to tell others what conclusions to draw - I'm sure you are all quite intelligent enough to work out your own thoughts on this. Giano (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the silence is the alleged sole founder's way to convey love, kindness, thoughtfulness and moral ambitiousness etc. Or he's communicating by hand gestures, like a Trappist. In which case I hereby reply with one of my own. Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you seen The Lego Movie? --John (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've seen The Leftovers. 140 million people disappear because of Eric. Writegeist (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should, it's fantastic. Whenever I see the bland toothpasty groupthink of a certain demographic here, it makes me think of the film's ironic theme song "Everything Is Awesome". And these horrible attacks by the co-founder which it seems he isn't able or willing to provide evidence for, on one of our most prolific and productive writers, make him look a bit like President Business in the film. Let's hope the happy ending of the movie is emulated in real life, though I am not holding my breath. Have you seen it, Eric? --John (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, no, but it sounds interesting. Eric Corbett 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really an excellent film, one of the best children's films I've ever seen. Do you have any nephews or nieces you could watch it with? If you need an excuse to watch a children's film...--John (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Hehe if you want to discuss films I'm your man. Yup I've seen the Lego Movie, thirdbest film of 2014 to date after Boyhood and The Grand Budapest Hotel.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All my nieces and nephews are grown up now. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ach well, just get it on DVD and watch it. Trust me, you'll love it.--John (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I've not lived in Scotland since I was 12, I still sometimes start sentences with "Ach" as well. Eric Corbett 19:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the same question a while back. Guess what the response was? question Parrot of Doom 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ach Parrot (as we never say in Sicily), had you persisted, you would have received the same very comprehensive answer as me. No one can ever say that Jimbo's not garrulous, verbose and ever ready to step up to the mark. Giano (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There you are all gone - it never happened. Now that we can all see that Jimbo is all mouth and no trousers (or whatever the idiom is), lets' hope he will now stop making these ridiculous attacks on you and that you you won't be stalked and bated quite so much, and that others who repeat these false claime will realsie that they will have no back-uo from on high, if you decide to officially pursue for their allegations. Giano (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Out here in the wild west, pardner, it IS "All hat and no cattle." However, I also am fond of "all foam and no beer." Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In Yorkshire, they are fond of "If you can't fight, wear a big hat". Swap "fight" for "prove" and you have Jimbo. - 90.215.149.82 (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ritchie333 for digging this up. It includes an analysis of two FAs that I did significant work on, Peterloo Massacre and Donner party, both of which I remember as being hard work but a lot of fun. It must all be a mirage though, because according to our god king I'm congenitally incapable of collaborating with anyone on anything. He on the other hand is simply congenitally incapable. Eric Corbett 15:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this report "Improving Wikipedia’s important articles", "Malleus Fatuorum" is listed as one of 18 "super collaborators" on page 51. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are mere facts, Jimbo doesn't care about facts. Eric Corbett 16:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the diff (or external link) never lies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the survey was? Are we missing a link? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://teachingdigitalhistory.ning.com/forum/topics/wikipedia-and-historiography, I assume. 80.43.239.185 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very interesting assignment. Interesting to see what the students think of our efforts (though it's very American-centric too, but oh well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request for either Eric, @Sitush: or another page stalker. Can somebody find enough on Ancoats Hall for its own article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing. J3Mrs (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Spotted it in the Manchester Mummy, an article which is so magical it wrote itself and got to FA all by itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... not quite, took quite a bit of blood sweat and tears. It's an article on an obscure unimportant subject anyway, so completely without value. I must say though I can hardly believe what J3Mrs has put together in such short order. I'm mightily impressed! Eric Corbett 15:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know where to look and I type notes!! J3Mrs (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going J3mrs! At this rate it'll be a GA soon like the cathedral! We've got a new road article out of it too in Great Ancoats Street. That's collaboration and what wikipedia is all about. Amazed that there's still a lot of notable missing articles in the inner Manchester area. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the request to do Ancoats Hall and did two sentences (the basic location and the demolition in 1827), and then got called a way, and when I came back, I thought, "aah, I'll do it tomorrow, maybe". No, J3mrs gets on with it and writing articles which is what we should all do really! Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the glory days of the GM project. Eric Corbett 22:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What fun! I certainly won't be taking any part in that, the case ought never to have been accepted. Any bets on how long it'll be before it becomes another civility crucifixion? Eric Corbett 15:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting is that both you and CMDC agree on the point that it never should have been accepted. I agree, but I also have seem the disasterous boomerang that occurred during the infobox wars (wherein ArbCom blamed the whole thing on two people and nothing has changed other than some other good editors retiring or semi-retiring). So I am going to keep an eye on matters there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it's supposed to be about. I think the best response would be silence, from everybody. What would Arbcom do then? J3Mrs (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What they normally do I guess, blame everyone and sanction a few of the least popular editors. Eric Corbett 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Silence is a good response, the least waste of time. My experience: they don't look at facts, but the fact of former sanctions. Easy. If you defend someone who has been banned before (and now even twice), you need to be sanctioned also. Easy. I came to love my restriction ;) - Remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for another shitstorm to take my mind of the clusterf--K at the landrace article and the animal breed naming wars in general (See WP Agriculture if anyone cares...) I'm not going to say much until people start to post evidence, though I am with a small group inquiring as to the scope of the thing, given that even CMDC didn't want it opened. If it becomes a Corbett pile-on, I'll have something to say. In the meantime, popcorn... Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like the Falklands Task Force, a fleet of battleships steaming towards Gender Gap? What happens when they get there? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the task force include Falkland Island car number plates? ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_RfC_tag_from_RfC. NE Ent 22:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know where all this stuff is being coordinated, and by whom. Eric Corbett 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, that one is a WP:STICK problem. I suspect if there is minimal attention paid and (if I may mix my metaphors) no further pouring of fat on the fire, that pot will eventually simmer down. Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clio. In Greek mythology, Clio is the muse of history, Clio, sometimes referred to as "the Proclaimer", is often represented with an open scroll of parchment scroll or a set of tablets. All of the Muses were considered to be the best practitioners of their fields, and any mortal challenging them in their sphere was destined to be defeated. The most common number of the Muses is 9, but the number is not always consistent in earlier mythologies. They were often associated with Apollo. The name is etymologically derived from the Greek root κλέω/κλείω (meaning "to recount," "to make famous or "to celebrate 'Clio' represents history in some coined words: cliometrics and cliodynamics.

CliodynamicS: Many historical processes are dynamic (a dynamic process is one that changes with time). Populations increase and decline, economies expand and contract, while states grow and collapse. A very common approach, which has proved its worth in innumerable applications (particularly, but not exclusively, in the natural sciences), consists of taking a holistic phenomenon and mentally splitting it up into separate parts that are assumed to interact with each other. This is the dynamical systems approach, because the whole phenomenon is represented as a system consisting of several interacting elements (or subsystems). In the dynamical systems approach, one must describe mathematically how different subsystems interact with each other. This mathematical description is the model of the system, and one can use a variety of methods to study the dynamics predicted by the model, as well as attempt to test the model by comparing its predictions with the observed dynamics. This is the approach that the cliodynamics suggests to apply to the study of historical dynamics.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Concealed shoes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a great article! A few years ago I found a woman's shoe concealed under the hearth footings of my 1880 house in northern England, and I didn't realise it was such a widespread thing. I put the shoe back in when I rebuilt it and put in a concrete floor, to respect whoever put it there in the first place. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great little article! Eric, I saw your message regarding withdrawals every Monday, so if you'd like I'll complete the review tomorrow. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also read that article, and in my opinion, it is excellent. It provided an insight into hidden superstitious aspects of European culture. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor going by the name of EastDimeBoxFrank is considering trying to take an article he's interested in through the GA process. He's been working on a couple different ones, so I'm not sure which he intends to try with, but if you're interested, he's a very teachable editor. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With three recent AN/I reports against me, an open ArbCom case and abuse from Jimbo Wales I'm afraid that I'm not in the frame of mind to help anyone with anything. Eric Corbett 02:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of offered in a "something to distract you from the bullshit" vein anyway, so I completely understand. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jimbo might be able to help? After all, every editor is equally capable, and easily replaceable. Eric Corbett 03:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust Jimbo to edit my least favorite article. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to support Lithistan's request for immediate intervention by Eric Corbett. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, which article is he trying to write......looking at contribs now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating to me that there is little or no recognition on the damage the "behavioral dispute resolution venues" (which draw mud-throwers like night lights draw bugs) cause to motivation of content creators. On the potentiality for motivational drain. The mantra "behind keyboards are people" is tossed and the thought of labelling those threads "disruption" would be laughed at by the common wisdom here, yet what could be more disruptive than draining a prolific content creator cold (a person not a machine). Or when a Sitush reaches his limit and has emotional blowout and walks because the thought of contributing further is no longer digestible. This subject seems incapable of being discussed, so as result no conclusions can be drawn and nothing is learned. (Not excluding Editor Retention project, which is typically mum on anything seriously wrong, and hasn't much care or clue, as usual.) So the WP rinses & repeats! (Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect from a "libertarian paradise"? Humanity? You know what libertarians are doing right this moment in Silicon Valley? They are working on replacing everybody with machines. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is something that I have been pondering on, even though I have largely been silent for quite a while because I can't often do much now when I am in China. A previous incident involving Eric was one reason I withdrew a few years ago, in protest, before deciding to return, and it is why I have been silent more recently. To summarize: some people go on and on about how many editors Eric and some others drive away by their so-called incivility, but I wonder how much the constant AN/I reports and the unequal treatment of those who bait and then cry foul also drives people away. Giano has discovered that not many can be found who have been driven away by incivility as defined by those who oppose Eric, but how about the number of those who have been silenced by the disruption caused by people who seem to do little other than become highly overly sensitive, specific, focused, and biased "civility police"? There could be disquiet if this was followed up, but what is sauce for the goose, must be sauce for the gander. However, given the inconsistencies and uneven handedness of the situation now, I wouldn't see much coming out of such an investigation.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame it's come to this. Eric, I'm sure the more people you helped out with GAs, the more people would get on your side, and the more likely that Arbcom cases would be thrown out. But as we all know, the workforce is voluntary and poking people with a stick to do stuff never works well. I'm particularly annoyed right now that Gender inequality in the United States has been awaiting a GA review for six months, and if one of the GGTF crew (who ought to have the right experience to check the "accurate and verifiable" and "broad in coverage" criteria) doesn't jump on it soon, I will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GGTF is all huff and puff, hot air. I've already helped literally hundreds of editors with GAs and FAs, and where has it got me? Being named public enemy number one, that's where. Eric Corbett 12:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Lithisman for seeking help for me. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Sitush, I stumbled on something yesterday (which I can't find now) where a user, who has now been user blocked, said that Sitush was an administrator and friend of Jimmy Wales who distributed child porn. It's not surprising he got fed up and left. Richerman (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Concealed shoes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Concealed shoes for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here rather than the talk page so as not to derail the GAN:

"Although deposits have been found throughout the United States they are concentrated in New England, first colonised by immigrants from the East Anglia region of England." What significance does East Anglia have here? There's no mention anywhere else in the article of East Anglia being a hotbed of shoe-hiding, and the English who emigrated to New England had a famously dim view of anything with the slightest hint of witchcraft. East Anglians made up around half the colonists to New England in later years, but never formed a significant majority, and East Anglia certainly doesn't have a uniform culture—even in today's world of high-speed travel and mass communication, Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk have about as much shared cultural identity as Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow-in-Furness.

"First colonised by immigrants from East Anglia" is also pushing it a bit—the first English colonists in New England are probably the best-documented colonisers in history, and had no connection to East Anglia.

"An analysis of the Concealed Shoe Index maintained by Northampton Museum, conducted by June Swann and published in 1996…"—is this an analysis of their entire records, or only those in England? I suspect the latter, as the mention of "country houses, workhouses, and public houses" are all British Isles-specific concepts.

I know it may be impossible to source, but is there any record of what the Church had to say about the practice? If this really was a fertility rite or a mechanism to ward off ghosts, the religious authorities can't have been overjoyed at the mass practice of a pagan ritual. ("I don't have faith in our Lord to protect me, so instead I'll use this magic boot.") If you want a piece of WP:OR, this was the golden age of Biblical literalism and I wouldn't be surprised if the custom originated from a strict interpretation of Ruth 4:7 regarding the use of shoes as a token of property ownership. – iridescent 09:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northamptonshire is the home of English shoemaking and that's close to East Anglia (not sure what areas the industry extended to), so does that have anything to do with it? Neatsfoot (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the colonists. I'll check exactly what the cited source says. Eric Corbett 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The source actually says the "northeastern United States" was first colonised by immigrants from East Anglia, not New England. What East Anglia and New England have in common though is that they both experienced intense periods of witch panics, which I've added a note to explain. As for the Church's attitude to concealed shoes, the most likely explanation is that with the sanctification of John Schorne it was attempting to convert an old folk belief into a Christian rite. Swann must have been using the entire index, as there's mention of a Benedictine monastery in Germany. Eric Corbett 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thought I would drop in here rather than make a new section, hope all is well, I added link to Europe because Wales is in Europe though I suppose to most it will need to be added to Britain as the wider world would think Wales part of Britain first. Well done on GA. Edmund Patrick – confer 05:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Concealed shoes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Concealed shoes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more allegedly good content Eric, what are you thinking about? I can't really understand why that one took two nominations. Ancoats Hall made the main page dyk!?! I didn't nominate it, I didn't even know about it and the hook was wrong!?! Whoever nominated it didn't appear to have read it. Your article is so much better. J3Mrs (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the GA! Can somebody expand Albion Mills? Not sure on exact location and whether its now an office or residential building. One source says southeastern corner of Blackfriars Bridge but looking on google maps today Ancoats street doesn't run as far as that. The commons have images of an Albion Mills but they're much further southeast near Stockport. Would be good if somebody could locate it/correct if necessary and find more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only Albion Mill in Manchester recorded by Williams and Farnie, in their definitive study "Cotton Mills in Greater Manchester", was indeed in the vicinity of Blackfriars Bridge and the Rochdale Canal but I think the one Dr. Blofeld is referring to was at Bankside in London. J3Mrs (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was my concern, it is complicated the fact that there's also a mill of that name a bit further southeast!! Feel free to alter it or split into a different article. The Joah Bates article mentions he funded the Albion Mills. More likely to be London than Manchester isn't it? There were probably at least half a dozen mills of the same name dotted about which makes it tough to know which one is what. I think the article is mostly referring to the London one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better sort it yourself. :) J3Mrs (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've deciphered which one is which, but this I'm really not sure if it was Blackfriars Bridge in London or Manchester which will decide which building Watt contributed to. Can anybody here figure it out? It would seem the Blackfriars is the London one, see this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be resolved now, we got another article in Albion Mills, London out of it. If you or Richerman or anybody can find more on the Manchester one though that would be good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How strange! I've been told repeatedly that there's nothing left to write about, the project is all but complete, just needs a few admins and vandal hunters to guard its contents. Eric Corbett 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, long time no see. Hope you're fine. I'd like to ask you a favor, if you don't mind. Could you take a look at Juan Manuel de Rosas and improve the quality of the text? You're good at that. I thought it would be a good idea. If you can't, I'll understand. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of taking it to GA/FA? Eric Corbett 17:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA, as usual. --Lecen (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do it, Eric? --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I've got something I'm trying to finish off first. Eric Corbett 22:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eric for using your page for blatant publicity, but I thought one or two of the women (one dare not say ladies these days) who lurk here may want to expand this stub which I've just started. Fascinating woman - a feminist who actually made a useful difference to the world. I perchanced on her a few days ago. Her face was certainly not her fortune, and her husband was a bad lot who gambled and drank all their money, and she, I suspect, was a difficult old trout (horsey women usually are) - so that's a treble whammy to endear her to our feminist colleagues. So any help expanding this to at DYK standard of GA would be greatly appreciated. Giano (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AHEM!!!?!?! "A difficult old trout? (horsey women usually are)" **cough, cough ** Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good old Florence! That would make a nice little DYK for someone after a little bit of expansion. Eric Corbett 19:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is certainly a name I'm familiar with - Florence Nagle was a very well known dog breeder. She also successfully challenged The Kennel Club about its male only memberships! She bred Irish Wolfhounds under the Sulhamstead affix. I should be able to look out some information about her but I'm pretty tied up for about a week; hopefully someone can make a good start on it though! SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure it's the same Florence Nagle? Her ODNB entry doesn't mention anything about dog breeding. She must have had a obituary printed though, so that would be worth looking for ... after stoor worm. Eric Corbett 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the worm's about done now ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's all here. Funnily enough when you google her name it says at the bottom "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more". They must be accepting requests from beyond the grave now. Richerman (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that dog breeding stuff is an amazing omission from the ODNB entry. Eric Corbett 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She does have a full biography, but it's out of print and looks to be quite pricey. – iridescent 19:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots in the BNA and this. I think the GM project can claim Florence! J3Mrs (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? - a snip at £999 for a used copy. Richerman (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And they've got the bloody cheek to ask for £2.80 delivery on top! Eric Corbett 19:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to get a copy of that ... not sure but will make enquiries as soon as I can. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to buy it but I'm not paying that for postage. Richerman (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just made my weekend! TYVM Keri (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the reasonably priced bio, they are currently doing it two for one in Tesco. However, I have an article about her from Stud and Stable from sometime in the early 1970s - she was doggy too. I'm looking for it as we speak. Giano (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can see her in the flesh (in a manner of speaking) here. There's something about her walk which reminds me of my beloved aunt. 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She rather reminds me of one of those old eccentric aunts in the Just William books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's v interesting that the ODNB says that the Jockey Club took legal advice and capitulated after she threatened legal action - so that's what I originally wrote in our article, but the Stud and Stable Magazine (I found it this morning) states that the Jockey Club blocked her in the High Court, and then gives damning quote about the Jockey Club from two highly respected Law Lords following a successful appeal in the Appeal Court. The ODNB seems to have a very sanitised and limited version of her life - perhaps it was written by a Steward of the Jockey Club? Giano (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB article does indeed seem to be rather limited, I'm sure we can do better than that. Eric Corbett 10:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was quite a prominent dog breeder in the 1930s, I've added a fair bit on what I could find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we the much maligned members of Eric's "coterie" have discovered one of the greatest and most unsung members of the British feminism. Jimbo should give us all barnstars for this. Giano (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the Gender Gap Task Force Mind the Gap award? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, whom I helped out quite a lot in her fledgling days on Wikipedia, has just got Kate Millett passed as a GA. I was surprised to discover how poor that article was prior to Carole's involvement, given Millett's reputation as a feminist etc. We seem to have quite a few people shouting but not necessarily doing an awful lot where it really matters: casting aspersions about the alleged incivility, misogyny and driving away of editors by Eric (and his "wife"), myself and Mancunian contributors generally merely slows down the improvement of content. Thankfully, Carole is most definitely a content person, not a yakker, and I rather think that Millett might be suitable for a run at FAC before too long. I wonder if she qualifies for the GGTFMTG award? And if she would care? - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the myth of the Manchester mafia. Carole sounds typical of the many female editors I encounter, or at least the many who are more interested in content than yakking about some alleged gender gap. Eric Corbett 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I almost got confused with User:Carolmooredc then!! I was going to say I was surprised!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women with courage

As said before, Eric, you helped me to stay here, on 14 October 2012, supported by Neutralhomer, GFHandel, Worm That Turned, Wehwalt, Kumioko, 28bytes, RexxS, Nobbody Ent, Jc37, HJ Mitchell, Boing! said Zebedee, Scottywong, Gilderien, John, me, Chedzilla and Dianna,

on 15 October supported also by Reyk, Drmies, Dr. Blofeld., Chris Cunningham, Sphilbrick, Floquenbeam, Keilana, Nathan Johnson, Montanabw, Mark Arsten and Churn and change, - thank you, all!

If my math and my assumptions about gender are right, that means 18 (2 of them women) + 11 (2 of them women) = 29 (4 of them women), in other words, you, Eric, leading a minority group with 13% women. Was there a single woman in the majority for a ban? I never had the heart to count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get a lot of bad press here on WP about my alleged misogyny, but really I love women. I even married one. She's a PhD with a brain the size of a planet; I find brainy women so ... exciting? Tits and bums and so on are all well and good, but when you choose a partner for life there has to be a little bit of spark. Eric Corbett 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell your wildflower-loving wife that she chose well ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a posting on another site earlier today which for me perfectly sums up the relationship between the WMF and WP's editors. Quite simply, our priorities are completely different. To justify its ballooning bureaucracy and developer fiefdoms it needs to produce software that readers want to use, not too bothered about editors, as the VE/MV/Flow debacles demonstrate. But they're faced with an increasing number of sites such as Wikiwand that format WP's content in a far more attractive way, so they're in grave danger of becoming irrelevant as a software organisation. Which is what they mainly see themselves as these days despite their appalling incompetence.

I understand that the WMF's salaries are at stake, but does any editor really care whether their article is viewed via WP or some other front end? I certainly don't. Eric Corbett 20:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a big divide as I was saying recently on Jimbo's talk page. I feel completely alienated from the main foundation. The foundation really need to show more support to the core editors as they're the future of the website, not Jimbo. If they don't start listening to the ideas and suggestions of editors at some point more attractive projects are going to come along which use current content and find ways to outdo us and lure in more people. Perhaps then they'll wake up and realise how much they're stalling growth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of the misleading fund-raising banners of course. The truth of the WMF's budget is that it's spent largely on paying the salaries of a bunch of incompetents, very little to do with Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what salary any of them are on, I'd imagine they are certainly overpaid for what they actually do, but I do find it incredible that nothing of over 20 million dollars goes back into actual content production. They've completely got their priorities wrong. A sizable percentage of the money should be going into the actual promotion of content and bringing in the experts and people we need to make it many times better as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's 40 million ... and 50 (I think) next year. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it helpful in dealing with people to try to put oneself in their place and view the world as they do. Organizations like WMF run on quantifiable metrics that can be shown to donors and other constituencies. Number of readers and number of editors are examples of such metrics. "Article quality" is squishy and non-quantifiable. So none of what we have seen comes as a surprise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But article quality is quantifiable--it just takes more work than writing code to quantify page views and working to solicit donors. It requires bringing actual recognized experts in various fields into the equation, to measure the quality of articles in a given area. It requires giving those experts broad latitude in organizing the content in their field, and paying them well to do so. But that doesn't happen, because it would require that WMF let go of some middle- and upper-management types that currently suck up the money donated to the project. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Budget is now $40-50 million? Even worse. Completely agree LHM.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At the heart of Wikipedia, we are a giant database, stuffed by contributions by you, me, Doc Blofeld and thousands more like us. The reason we do it is for the readers. There is no reason why we can't have multiple ways of viewing and editing: it all gets stuffed into the same tables. There is no excuse for shoving software down our throats if they can give us a choice. As an example: I keep a virtual machine on my computer because I want to use software from the 90s. It isn't that can't learn new software, or can't afford it, it is simply because I already know it and my concern is on the end product, not the prettiness of the interface, and "old ways" tend to be more stripped and faster and I only care about the fastest way to get a good end product. The same holds true here. I don't want WYSIWYG. Offer it for others, that's grand, but don't force it on me. And you are correct that the Foundation is NOT a great software company. What made Wikipedia so revolutionary wasn't the software, it was a kludge of fixes from the start. It was the very idea that you could crowd source an encyclopedia, it was the IDEA that was revolutionary, not the software. What makes Wikipedia remarkable isn't what we can do for a dollar, it is what we can do for free. Dennis 2¢ 22:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not agree more strongly. I hate and despise WYSIWYG; my favorite coding tool is Textpad. KillerChihuahua 23:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WYSIWYG doesn't work for this sort of thing. You have to be able to tweak (and avoid mangling) very detailed bits of code.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boobrie you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Huge thanks for helping improve Bonshō to FA status, for the comments and for the many helpful tweaks - couldn't have done it without you. Yunshui 雲水 09:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear the bell for peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pick your brains again (or those of your talk page stalkers). In the sentence "A univallate Iron Age hillfort which has been investigated three times" should it be "A" or "An" to begin? I've been having discussions about which English grammar rules apply eg "An umbrella" or "A university" & whether it is the sound of the "u" or the whole word which makes the difference?— Rod ^talk 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say that it depends on whether the following word starts with either a consonant or a vowel. If the former, then "A" would be correct; the latter "An" would be the one to use. In this instance, I would suggest "An" is correct. Cassianto^talk 20:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He got an F on his report card. It took an hour for him to explain it. He told his teacher that a unicorn ate his homework." That is a nice rule, but there are so many exceptions, I would have come here and asked as well. My guess is "a", but that is only a guess, based on the unicorn rule. Dennis 2¢ 21:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to agree with me. the "Y" sound is why "a" is used. Assuming I'm pronouncing that word correctly. Dennis 2¢ 21:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you, Dennis, - like "a university", it goes by sound, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even a broke watch is right twice a day, so eventually I had to get something right ;) Dennis 2¢ 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you are right, - we might both be wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an A as the u is pronounced like a y - i.e. 'yoonivalate'. As Dennis and Gerda say, it's the same as university (or unicellular, unicycle, uniform etc.). Richerman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see that curve ball surrounding the pronunciations. I'm now inclined to agree with Dennis on this. Rodw, see this helpful page. Cassianto^talk 07:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I ended up with a copy of this issue of Time. It was useful for waving in front of the faces of pedants when they insisted that "a historic decision" should be "an historic decision", as stress is on the second syllable of "historic". Both are grammatically correct, as they are equally understandable. From my staunchly anti-prescriptivist but pro-good grammar perspective, "correct grammar" means "clear and understandable". Which is why I'm a stickler for good spelling and punctuation. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this that says that form is a historical leftover. Of course if you drop your aitches it makes more sense anyway:

What's that building over there?

It's an 'otel mate. :-) Richerman (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As in Sydney Arbour Bridge? Pete "I once had a hair-cut just like Marc Almond from Soft Cell" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its "a univalate...", and "a historic..." because neither adjective starts with a vowel sound in modern English. I remember once having a reasonable discussion about "herb"; most Americans do not pronounce the "h" and so say (correctly in their dialect) "an herb". Even after living in the States for 5 years, this looks bloody ridiculous to me. Worse than "gotten" which is at least kind of cute. But yes, we go by the sound. --John (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotten actually dates back to the use of Middle English [5] and, although considered archaic in British English, seems to be creeping back in because of its use on American television shows. Richerman (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm at the job, and fixing to get to work. I'll let you Brits roll that one around a bit and poke holes in this old Texan's grammar.... Dennis 2¢ 15:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all for your contributions. I will leave it as "A univallate..." and if anyone challenges it point them to this conversation. Why does English have to be so complicated?— Rod ^talk 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so complicated; we don't have to decline definite articles like they do in German for instance, or worry about what the gender of a young girl is (neuter in German if you really want to know). I think much of the problem is that we're taught rules in primary school that are basically wrong, but the teachers were taught the same nonsense themselves, therefore know no better. Just think of the ridiculous "'i' before 'e' except after 'c' for instance". Weird, just weird. Eric Corbett 18:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such stuff is passed on. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I couldn't read that beyond the first line Sitush, as it's full of profanity. Larkin may have been a great poet, but there's no excuse for that kind of industrial language. Or at least there isn't if you live in downtown Smallville, USA. Eric Corbett 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting one. Spokane, Washington is at FAC (nice to see some core-ish geography articles). I find that once I read through and copyedit a few times I start to miss things as well (so something to be said for buffing as much as possible before FAC...) Anyway, would be intrigued to see what other folks find that I've missed (a bit of self-analysis to check blind spots). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something's wrong with the crime table- it seems from the FBI report that there were 13 murders in Spokane in 2012- this is shown as 13 murders per 100,000 population in the table. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did learn (after looking it up) that "Werd [sic] word" is the proper format for inserting a sic in a quote, not after the quote. Then real life got in the way and I haven't looked at the rest. Dennis 2¢ 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. Just one small thing, I always though HM was The Queen, with both the T and Q uppercase or is that showing a sign of how long ago I learnt my English? Giano (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions probably vary, but I reserve capitalisation for proper nouns. Eric Corbett 13:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales' latest stupidity today actually made me laugh:

That Eric Corbett is still allowed to edit Wikipedia is a clear governance failure.

The clear "governance failure" is that Wales hasn't been shown the door, given his mad fantasies that he never delivers on and his conveniently poor memory. If the great leader makes one more disparaging comment about me on his talk page, from which I am banned, then I will be taking his sorry arse to AN/I. Eric Corbett 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't someone block him for disruption once? If so, that took guts. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you may have heard a scrambled version of the time he blocked me and I took him to RFAR over it. Long time ago (2009), but he was out of touch with community norms even then. He's worse now. BTW, he has been warned by John against "repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked". John described it as "definitely worthy of a block". [6] Bishonen | talk 19:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

  Ah, yes. I was conflating the two: his block of you with the later Arbcom regarding him. What does he really contribute to improving the project at this point? LHM^{ask me a question} 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing? Less than nothing? My vote is for less than nothing. Eric Corbett 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just made a comment about his hypocrisy there. His comments don't in any way reach blockability yet, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But if he keeps doing it? As he will? Eric Corbett 19:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no, sod it. AN/I is the best place for this. Give me five minutes. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's not; now archived by someone presumably from Jimbo's camp. Cassianto^talk 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much dishonesty here it was hardly a surprise. But if Jimbo continues in the same vein on his talk page I'll take him to AN/I as many times as it takes for him to lose all his precious founder bits. Eric Corbett 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has given you "permission" now to post on his talk (not that you'd want to). Apparently, initiating an ANI discussion resets the rule of being banned from a user's talk page. Cassianto^talk 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Wikipedia any more. I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia, but obviously I was wrong. WP exists simply to remind me every day, again and again, of what a shit I am. Eric Corbett 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has to be the focus for all the resentment from people who can't write useful articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add more fuel to the fire over there. I just removed your personal attack per NPA KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @KoshVorlon: yet you didn't see fit to remove actual personal attacks on Eric by others? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What attacks ? I saw none, just facts, Malletus, however, left a blatant attack on Jimbo, and he knows full well that NPA is not allowed. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove Jimbo's comment from his talkpage as well then, won't you? No? What a surprise. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just sycophantic cowards, all of them. Jimbo needs to be knocked off his perch, and soon Eric Corbett 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's interesting how insults such as this one from an admin go unremarked.[7] Eric Corbett 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Foundation gets involved in how the community is run, do we get to vote on which brand of servers they use? I had previously thought these things were exclusive domains, but I guess I was wrong. Dennis 2¢ 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a comedy sketch like this be allowed on American TV? Eric Corbett 22:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Network, no. Regular cable, no. "Premium" cable (HBO, Showtime, etc.) yes. It was a big deal the first time they said "shit" on network TV, and not something you see often or early. South Park had a special episode celebrating it (parodying it), where they said shit 100 times or so, including a counter. It is shown late at night, and in every episode before and after, they bleep the word: Only that episode went unbleeped. Some TV shows have made reference to the word. In an episode of Family Guy, Quagmire had an RV with something like "Cross country tour" on it, and Peter asked "Isn't "country" supposed to have an O in it?", and Quagmire said "nope" (or something to that effect). That is pushing it as far as it can be pushed on network TV. There have been some slip ups with the word (I won't labor them here), but it is considered even worse than a nip slip, which the media would have you believe, most Americans lose their mind over. It is about the biggest trigger word short of the "N" word. A product of my upbringing, it is a word that I personally find distasteful and even disturbing to hear used against anyone, as in the US it is often used as a weapon particularly against women, not an off the cuff remark. I don't force this view onto others as I understand not everyone uses words the same way. While I wouldn't ever recommend banning or getting trigger happy with the block button over it, I would honestly prefer some other word be used. It really is a big deal with most of the 330 million people on this side of the pond. Dennis 2¢ 23:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that it's a word I have never seen or heard used against women. I can understand why you don't like it though. As a teenager I was quite shocked when I heard my grandfather use the word "bugger". Eric Corbett 23:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand that shock, and it isn't a word I would use here because I understand that it is unnecessarily offensive to some people, even if the word is basically meaningless in the USA. I remember hearing it, then looking it up. It sounds more innocent than it is, at least to a yankee's ear. I hate telling someone "you can't say this or that", but there is a right time and place for everything. Sometimes, Wikipedia just isn't the right place, simply because it is so global, so multicultural. I would prefer it be a matter of choice than of demand. Dennis 2¢ 00:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's too general. It's quite obvious to me there has to a be a separate American WP, to allow the rest of us to get on with building a proper fucking encyclopedia. Eric Corbett 00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, no friend, we must word together. We are two countries divided by a common language. We just both have to compromise a tiny bit. We don't have to agree, or even understand, just find the middle, which means not using some words/phrases + not going overboard if it slips out. At least that is what I'm living by. Like it or not, we all need each other. Dennis 2¢ 00:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really? Apparently the "Manchester mafia" are bad, bad people. WP is sick, and I don't see any way to fix it other than to eject Jimbo Wales. Eric Corbett 00:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for gross incivility[8]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Chillum 23:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in that time you and your god will add nothing of any value to this encyclopedia. How do you square that circle? Eric Corbett 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had to know that was coming, and you have to admit Chillum was rather reserved in his application of the block. I like you Eric, I really do, and I love working with you on articles, but you literally asked to be blocked here. Dennis 2¢ 23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that I give a flying fuck? Eric Corbett 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this spectacle of Chillum, one of the life-appointed early legacy "admins" and least prolific content contributors on Wikipedia, blocking one of the most valuable contributors encapsulates everything that is wrong and unjust with this site. As does Jimbo Wales's constant attacks on Eric and other high profile content builders, and his unseemly campaign to rouse a rabble to provoke able contributors. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, for chrissake, why is calling Jimbo a cunt any different from calling anyone else a cunt? And the block "request" should taken with a grain of wet sand (usually called mud).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is really not helping anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Eric. It was hand crafted by you to happen. It is frustration, and I understand that. I haven't walked in your shoes, but I'm not blind. Anyway, I need tea, you need time, Wikipedia needs articles. And no one should be blaming Chillum, this is much more complicated than it looks, and had Chillum not blocked for 48 hours, someone would have come by with a silly indef block, so I can only say to be grateful that the punishment fits the "crime", which is as fair as it gets. Dennis 2¢ 00:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Chillum that the block was inevitable and that you did not make a disproportionate block. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric, for fuck's sakes — just zip it. Lightbreather started this whole thing on Jimbotalk TO TRY TO BRING YOU DOWN. It is a provocation from start to finish. You have never once been able to avoid these traps, transparently obvious though they may be. You dive right in, fists flying, and they've got you. What are you even doing watching Jimbotalk, let alone posting there? Hello, there's an ArbCom case against you — it would seem like a better use of your time documenting the bilateral nature of the Gender Gap Task Force stupidity rather than giving the shrill dramamongers more ammo to work with. Take a break. Have a beer. Relax. Come back calmer and more politically astute about what is going on. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

......And a 48 hour block is a favor to you, not something to be scorned. Others would have indeffed you. You owe Chillum a thank you... Carrite (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke I presume? Eric Corbett 00:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. Had I seen it first, I would likely have done exactly the same thing Chillum did, for a personal attack (rather than civility), to prevent someone from overreacting and indef'ing. Wait a day or two, then decide if it was a favor or not. Dennis 2¢ 00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised that the block was only for 48 hours. What will have changed when it expires? Eric Corbett 00:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully both your strategy and tactics. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that's likely? Eric Corbett 00:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell not? What is the point to your behaviour? What benefit does it achieve? You have the support of half the community, just behave as well as one might expect a small child to and you can defuse the other half too. It is surely not beyond you to rein in your language. I know you think we're all idiots, you're allowed to think that, just bite your tongue and stop saying it out loud. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparing Eric unfavorably to a small child should really defuse the situation. Good work. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's how he behaves (and demonstrated again tonight). Unlike some, he's capable of better. I'd like to see that. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Google might buy out Wikipedia. The sun might explode. I might have won the lottery. Who knows? I don't even know what I'm having for lunch tomorrow, or whether I'll have Earl Grey or Darjeerling with it. I will worry about it then. I suggest doing the same. Dennis 2¢ 00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Who knows. For better or for worse I opted to use my real name here. I wish others had the same sense of honesty. Eric Corbett 00:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Eric, as much as you are a good editor, you did ask to be blocked. Maybe it's time to stop calling other editors by the synonyms of vaginas. Take a break. Relax. Go to the beach or something.... – Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really think I care what you think? Why would you think that I cared? Eric Corbett 01:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you don't care. I never asked you to care. I just made a suggestion. FTR, I knew you'd respond with something like this. So maybe you could not care less... – Epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Epicgenius, why play "mommy"? (Can't you see how your comments patronize?!) I've rarely seen a post by Eric that wasn't dead-on and survived scrutiny/analysis. Besides writing talent Eric possesses exceptional intelligence. A more responsible reaction to his posts is to think better/deeper/more. (In fact if you notice, many of them literally prod to do so by ending w/ "?".) If you take that as clue you might discover something quite new and amazing. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you "knew how [he'd] respond" and still posted what you did, then it was nothing more than trolling, and very bad form. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric, since you have a 48 hour break, do you want to call Comcast for me? They deserve a taste of you.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric, my name is James Cullen Heaphy III. I was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 28, 1952. You were right to abandon anonymity, as I have also done. You helped me with a Good Article, Harry Yount a while back, which I appreciate very much. Would you please consider restraining your insults, which, in my opinion, accomplish nothing except divisiveness? I would like to collaborate with you on other articles, but am deeply reluctant to even ask for your help, because of your past propensity for insulting people. If you gave that up, I believe that Wikipedia would be a better place, and you would thereby set an excellent example for editors who respect your wonderful content contributions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Eric Corbett 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks, anyway. I appreciate the polite, concise response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For telling things how you see it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An admin with right about 11% of his lifetime edits to article space (only about 5% in 2014) just blocked Eric Corbett. This is my shocked face... LHM^{ask me a question} 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't 4chan... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if you're aware of just how much I don't give a damn what you think. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If that were true you would not have replied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If you say so, Ironically-named-guy-on-the-internet. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is going no-where so I will end it with a question, I just want to ask why you are taking someone's edit status and using it as an attack against them? I can see kids on 4chan doing that not editors here on Wikipedia who are supposed to be working together. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out that of the two (Chillum & Eric Corbett), one is here to build an encyclopedia, while one is here to... do something else, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And everyone else is here to use the latter's talk page like a subreddit on Reddit. ... – Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the mainspace% of those who support Eric (and Eric himself) with the mainspace% of those who fiddle around at Wales' talkpage and ANI the most, then get back to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lithistman, while there is no policy requiring a certain percentage of edits to the mainspace there are other policies that can result in a block as has happened here today. If you look at my block log you will see that the community has never seen any of my behavior as something warranting a block.

My contributions in the mainspace are mostly rewording bad grammar and such as well as contributing a few dozen images, one of which is a featured picture.

Much of my work is taken up stopping and reversing vandals, chasing sock puppets, discussing things with disruptive users. If not for this work I doubt even the best editor would get far.

Really all of that means nothing in this context as a greater contribution history by me would not make the block more fair and no amount of contributions by Eric would make it any less fair.

The community has made very clear its expectations. These are what are being enforced. Chillum 03:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Jimbo made clear his expectations. And you did his bidding. And I find that unsurprising, since you have only used about 5% of your edits to help build the actual encyclopedia this year. Perhaps if you did more of that, and less blocking of editors like Eric, your perspective on things would change. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was talking about the community consensus at WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA when it is demonstrated that the community does not want people engaging in name calling on what is supposed to be a collaborative project. What Jimbo thought on the matter was not really on my mind. Chillum 04:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not personal to you Chillum, and I agree your contributions generally are helpful. The issue is the crazed system you operate under, which should not allow you to block highly able content builders. Why should over one thousand legacy admins, appointed for life many years ago when standards for becoming an admin were basically non-existent and who have no real experience building content, be allowed to jerk around serious content builders, blocking them, even blocking them indefinitely and demanding that they crawl before them, even escallating to the point where they block their talk page access if they get upset. And no change is possible because the legacy admins, many of them appointed as school children, control the terms of their own appointment. As the years roll by, these life-appointed admins become ever more powerful. The vulgar lunacy of this system is way overdue for reform, and does not give a fair go either to the better admins or to the content builders. I hoped once that Jimbo could see what was happening and would intervene. But it clear now that Jimbo is not up to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this, users even established users should not be held above everyone else here, if Eric is acting like a jerk and has a disruptive behavior past which he does it should be no get out of jail free card here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with what? You didn't read a single thing I said, did you? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the whole thing, I am talking about this: "The issue is the crazed system you operate under, which should not allow you to block highly able content builders" the rest was about an admin conspiracy theory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's thoroughly naive. There's no "conspiracy theory", just the demonstrable reality of how the system is maintained. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to with admin conspiracy, or admin standards or even admin tenure. There have been probably more than a dozen proposals that great content contributors be allowed to engage in personal attacks without being blocked. Every time the community gave a resounding no way to that idea. The community wants these rules enforced and as an admin I enforce those rules.

It has nothing to do with admin conspiracies, commands from the powers that be or anything like that. It is merely admins doing what admins are supposed to be doing, which is enforcing the community expectations that gain consensus.

While there is a fringe group of editors who think that content contributors should get a free pass with civility this group has not even came close to gaining consensus for the idea. Perhaps one day the community may be swayed by these ideas and they will gain consensus. When this day comes are best editors can be as nasty as they want, and I will go contribute to another project. Chillum 04:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute what? You do fuck all here. Eric Corbett 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to look at my 26188 contributions I have made with this account and the 23582 contributions I made with my prior username. Check out the barnstars on my user page.

Check out my image contributions one of which became a featured picture which was displayed on the main page.

I also have contributed several bots to free up the time of our human workers.

I am very proud of my contributions here and you cannot belittle them in my mind with your words.

I don't feel like getting is a pissing contest where we compare whose contribs are longer, or bigger or thicker or whatever. Suffice it to stay I have contributed plenty to the project and continue to. Frankly you should look a little harder in someones contribution history before trying ad hominem attacks. Chillum 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: Don't feed into it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea for a drug-addicted hillbilly not to get into a pissing contest, I agree. Eric Corbett 05:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, you remind me of admin Kafziel, badgering Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his Talk triumphantly after blocking him. (An admin s/b unheard of on the blockee's Talk, unless questions. What a fucking unprofessional disgrace you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked again means nothing to me. Chillum already knows that I think he's a piece of shit. Eric Corbett 04:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incisive critique. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See if it were another editor pulling this crap they would have been Indef'd long ago for turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the same conclusion about that admin, independently. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take your overall admin issues to the wikimedia foundation then, although I feel it is a WP:DEADHORSE argument by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "issues" is plural, "it" is singular. And what the fuck are you talking about, anyway?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe that anyone gives a fuck what you think kid? I certainly don't. Eric Corbett 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for you actually, lashing out at so many editors. In the end this is a website, we all have our real world crap to deal with, what I don't understand is why you would need the extra drama to deal with as a result of your outbursts? Why cant you just treat other editors with basic respect here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your crap to yourself, don't shit on my talk page. Eric Corbett 05:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric neither minces nor wastes words -- ever! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Take it easy Eric. Best, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this talk page until the end of Eric's current block. Technically the talk page access should be removed if the talk page is being used inappropriately but Eric is not the only guilty party in that regard and I really don't wish to see any other blocks resulting from the discussion here. Those of you wanting to continue throwing insults back and forth, please stop. Those wishing to express sympathy, my apologies for the inconvenience. Admins wishing to continue commenting or unprotect, please consider carefully whether doing so will reduce drama and promote "encyclopedia building". ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite apparent to me that the nasty vicious atmosphere here on WP is entirely attributable to Jimbo Wales and his disciples, nobody else. After all, the fish rots from the head. But what I hadn't fully appreciated until it was pointed out to me earlier today by Dr. Blofeld is that I sometimes give Jimbo and his mates just enough ammunition to allow them to divert attention from their own nefarious activities, as evidenced by the unregulated nonsense on Jimbo's talk page today. No more. Eric Corbett 01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Lesson learned. If only I could learn mine <sigh> - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon really seems to have it out for you. It's like you peed in his Cheerios. What did you say to him? He acts like a district attorney indicting ham sandwiches. I know Arbcom is not supposed to be a court, but it certainly was treated as such years ago. Calling editors at Arbcom "defendants" and speaking of their guilt, the language now may be different, but the song remains the same. I don't know if you saw the prankster on Wales' page yesterday, but he fiddled with some template to replace the cheeta picture with a CC licensed picture of a vagina from a feminist site called Courageous Cunts. I doubt few saw the irony. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any possibility that this is a sockpuppet of one of your other enemies? Matisse perhaps? Just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, got to be said that there is a certain element here who seem to enjoy blaming you for all of the site's incivility problems. It's as if you being banned would suddenly make wikipedia this wonderfully happy place. If they were really were that concerned about you they'd have found a way to ban you long ago. It's sort of become trendy to attack you and the best way to earn a pat on the back from Jimbo by slagging you off on his talk page. Funny really, as yesterday evening was one of the most toxic situations I've ever encountered on here, on his very talk page by gate crashers complaining, That you're still here says it all and that you're more valued than they let on. Rise above it I say, don't give them fuel and continue to show them up with your content contributions and criticism of the way the site is run.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish it were just Jimbo and his fan-club. But I'd encourage you to stay off his page if at all possible. He isn't worth it. (And welcome back and please stay around, despite our disagreements.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Jimbo has banned me from his talk page anyway, which is why I take exception to his hosting this witch hunt against me. A strange notion of civility. Eric Corbett 13:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite. As I say, I wish it were just him and his fanclub. In case he's watching, I'll remind him of the e-mail I sent him a few weeks ago. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put a too fine point on it, but I gather as long as he talks about you there, you can respond if you wish per his message at ANI. However be the bigger man and just ignore him.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've said everything I want to to Jimbo. That he continues to host these personal attacks on his talk page says far more about him than it does about me. Eric Corbett 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last time I checked, Jimbo doesn't POV push-revert on articles, add vast swathes of unsourced fancruft, engage in subtle vandalism, or ride roughshod over hundreds of articles with AWB without even stopping to think what he's doing. So I'd say we've got far more severe problems than what he's up to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't, but then he doesn't edit articles. The fish rots from the head. Eric Corbett 19:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More and more I realize how much shit arises from that page, stick around eric we need you here and the fish may rot from the head but it will sure piss em off more if they can't run you away or make you the scapegoat. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going anywhere. People deserve to know the truth about Jimbo. Eric Corbett 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chin up, it's good to figure out how to separate the generals from the buck privates. always helpful to choose your battles. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric, I agree with you that that conversation is disgusting and that Wales is behaving disgracefully by encouraging it, but I strongly recommend you stop posting there. It will only fan the flames. I'm sure there a great many articles that would benefit more from you attention than that silly discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a limit to what anyone should reasonably be expected to put with: Jimbo's hate campaign, an open ArbCom case, and continual lies about me being a misogynist and disrupting GGTF. Eric Corbett 18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course. But how much do any of those things contribute to the encyclopaedia? If people want to spend their time bickering in the projectspace, let them; at least it keeps them from causing problems in the mainspace. Don't let them provoke you—every time you respond to that idiocy, you play right into their hands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me how similar a lot of the civility police are on here to HAL 9000. They may not issue sweary personal attacks and might speak calmly, but are grossly uncivil to the people they're supposed to be serving!! At this minute there's an editor on the Paris talk page who is definitely deserving of a c word attack but I know if I say exactly what I think I'd be blocked even if it would give me great pleasure to say exactly what I think. If somebody is acting insufferably like one, then we should really reserve the right to say so. The problem though is that wikipedia is full of annoying meddlesome little turds so the frequency of saying something is likely to be high. I'm not saying that everybody Eric gets into a tiff with deserves it, but all I know is if they're acting anything like some of the assholes I have to deal with then I understand perfectly well and would do the same thing if I didn't want to avoid the bullshit that comes with blocking. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing also happens in quite normal academic debate. It isn't treated as a way of bundling people out of the room or conference, or of banning them from any kind of academic debate. Instead, people just usually ignore it it, or quietly "tut tut" to themselves and soon, everyone forgets it and the debate just continues. I think if wikipedia wants to stop pretending to be a learned organ, and actually become one, it needs to encourage a real and mature approach to civility, rather than be like a room full of toddlers who have tantrums all the time and run to Mummy saying that someone said a naughty word. (Yes, I know, people will say I am being abusive, but in contrast to a systematic labelling of some as being toxic, this is small fry)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(As an addendum): I think one major point is that many of the people who act as "civility police" really don't have anything to get on with: they don't contribute content; they often just hang around being titilated by all the drama, with which they indulge themselves at the same time as saying "Ooo, Isn't it awful, dears!" and some such.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. What really, really gets on my tits is being treated like a naughty child. Eric Corbett 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't want to be treated like a naughty child, then don't act like one." ;) But on a more serious note, don't underestimate the sincerity and endurance of those that make it their mission to make Wikipedia a more "civil" place. I do think they have a utopian vision of the place, that if they just banned Eric and his ilk, and got rid of the abusive admin (you know, like me), then we could all sit around holding hands, singing Kumbaya around the campfire. I'm not sure exactly how that will build an encyclopedia, however. But yes, this IS their contribution and they are dedicated to it, just as dedicated as you are to creating FA and GA grade articles, so again, don't underestimate their determination. You are focused on the articles, they are focused on the social aspects of the place. "Think of the children" and all that. I will leave it to each of us to determine which has lasting value to the reader. Dennis 2¢ 15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't underestimate their zeal, I simply don't value their contributions. Eric Corbett 15:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because women girls don't swearTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an inkling of truth in that, as on the whole I've found women more willing and better suited to communication on average, thus somewhat less reliant on spicy language. I'm sure that someone will probably find something sexist in that remark, but then they would be missing the entire point. Mrs. Brown seldom swore til she met me, and is still more selective than I am. I've been a bad influence on her, but fortunately she has been a very good influence on me. Dennis 2¢ 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a great link, btw. Dennis 2¢ 16:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why this idea that swearing is a sign of a restricted vocabulary has caught on. The purpose of swearing is to act as a linguistic intensifier, which is why it's so ridiculous to hear those who swear every other word in a sentence. It's actually those who never swear who restrict the scope and range of their language. Eric Corbett 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Dennis what you said about wp:Don't be a dick being a meta page is no longer true as it is now been changed to wp:Don't be a jerk. Funny thing is the derivation of of jerk according to this may owe something to 'jerk-off', so you could say calling someone a jerk is similar to calling them a wanker. There's filth everywhere you look isn't there? :-) Richerman (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ. I've really been trying to work on articles, and keep getting sucked into all the busy body crap, but this is the kind of crap that makes me want to drop my bit off and find something fun to do instead. Dennis 2¢ 17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. BTW, girls do swear, we just get yelled at more for doing so. (Including formal writeups in employment... sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. Mrs. Brown used a few choice words when I showed her some of what is going on here. As an independent woman, she was offended by some of the ideas floating around, that women are such delicate flowers that we can't just have a level playing field, we have to bend the rules in their favor so they can compete. Those ideas only serve to give the impression that women aren't every bit as capable as men, when they clearly are. That whole, tired 1970s version of feminism is quite offensive to a lot of women who just want equal opportunity, and have no interest in constantly playing the victim; the damsel in distress. She's been on the receiving end of real discrimination, so she actually has something to compare to. Dennis 2¢ 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Brown sounds like a very sensible person. Meanwhile, I've been wondering what the civility brigade might make of Agnes Brown, who has gone down a storm in the UK. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking along these lines too. The women I know aren't easily cowed and subdued. Least of all Mrs G, who has been arrested for threatening behavior to a 200lb Palermo traffic cop. I don't think women are getting the credit they deserve here. Giano (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of funny. Mrs. Brown has a habit of showing up at Gay Pride rallies and Animal Rights protests. She isn't one to use a lot of words (unlike me), but she makes each one count. I've seen her get bumped out when she was the #3 salesperson (she would say salesman) for a large company, instead of the men that did half her sales, to make room for a golf buddy. So yes, she's seen real discrimination. She didn't pout or sit down and cry, she literally said "fuck you", and we opened up a shop with her name on the front, and she ran it. We sold it successfully 6 years later. Again, she didn't need coddling or adjusted standards, just a level playing field. When I told her about the "it takes two men to revert a woman" proposal, she was genuinely offended. The world is full of inequity for women, but Wikipedia is more gender neutral than most Fortune 500 companies. There is no glass ceiling here, demonstrated by the leaders of the Foundation, Arbs, etc. Dennis 2¢ 14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completly off topic, this is the funniest thing I've read this year[9]. Pinging our legal resident Newyorkbrad as I suspect he will enjoy it as well. Assuming he is a lawyer who likes a good lawyer joke and won't take this personally. I hate having to put caveats like this, but if you don't someone will take offense.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::::::Yet another subtle reminder of why I opted not to go to law school... :) (158 on the LSAT) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We in the profession collect these and share them amongst ourselves... and this stuff too. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all those talk page stalkers who earlier contributed to a question I posed, about which folk tale my oldest daughter should pick for a school presentation, let it be known that she chose "The Twelve Dancing Princesses", retelling the tale from the POV of one of the nameless daughters, dressed in her "Queen Elizabeth" costume. She got an A, so she did something right. Thank God there was no forced seduction in that story, or I'd have to give her proper training in feminism at age 8 already. Thanks again to all of you for your comments. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about taking The George Hotel, Crawley to FAC at some point. Any chance you could take a look at it? Hassocks reckons he can find more on it but it's already pretty comprehensive on what exists about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, but there's some inconsistency in the use of the definite article for the name of the inn. For instance, "... and The George—as the town's largest and best-equipped hotel ..." vs "... a major local attraction from which the George benefited". These are by no means the only examples. "The northern section are believed to have been a two-bay open hall-house with a parlour wing". Should that be "sections"? There also a {{citation needed}} tag that needs to be dealt with, and the Nairn/Pevsner book listed in the bibliography doesn't appear to be being used as a source. Eric Corbett 19:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted, will look at it tomorrow. Enjoy your day off!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stoor worm you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think he'll answer? I'm genuinely interested to know more about this "delete 10 Users" idea. I can't imagine that alone having the effect that's being alluded to, but I haven't been on this site for as long as the key people involved. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]