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 September October November December
2015
January February
Molon labe!

A request that's totally not connected to females and their problems. Can you pop over to Kedleston Hall, and click on the thing that tells you how to pronounce it. I've always thought (and pronounced) it Kedleston to rhyme with kettle then 'stn' rather 'ston' with the emphasis on the 'e' as in kettle. However, that pronouncing thing makes a great deal of 'lest.' I suppose native speakers may know otherwise, and as you are from those wilds that are north of Watford, you may just happen to know. Giano (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry, it's now sorted [1]. At least I know now that whatever my accent is, it's not Derbyshire. Talking of accents, I do have one (I'm told) although, I agree with you all, it's hard to believe - so it's good time to say this, English people have no idea how irritating it is to those of us phonetically challenged, when they keep saying "Sorry?" (and are clearly not) and looking at us as though we are half-wits. FFS say "what" or as my middle son's girlfriend says "Wassat" (hopefully, she won't last long) or "I have left my deaf-aid at home" or even: "speak properly or go back you foreign bastard." Whatever, just something I thought I'd mention at this opportune moment. Giano (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keddùlstun. But how useful are these pronunciations? Who says "Dudley" like a… like a… like someone who comes from Dudley? Last time I heard some of 'em talking, I thought they were Swedish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wikipedia: "(/ˈdʌdli/ ^ⓘ DUD-lee)", though I don't see why we can't have the local as well as the national [ronunciation covered. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object strongly to foreigners trying to tell me how to speak the Queen's English. If you went to Gloucester or a hundred other places and tried to tell them how to pronounce their place of abode you would soon get short shrift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.216.137 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, would you be willing to take a look at radiocarbon dating? It's probably the next article I'm going to take to FAC, and it's a departure from my usual topics, so I'd really like someone with a good eye for poor phrasing to cast an eye over it. I am still tweaking it very slightly, but I doubt I'll be adding more than one or two more sentences, so I think it's ready to be looked at. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe not until tomorrow though. Eric Corbett 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- whenever you can get to it is fine. Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCityUK popped up on that red box notification thingie when I logged in so I looked to see what you were doing. Am I right in thinking I need to relearn how to cite references? I've noticed a couple of things you've changed in the past and having no interest in such things I have to declare myself baffled and somewhat disgruntled. I think it a pain, you do it and then something changes and you have to do it again. Why do we bother? Talk about wasted effort... but you have kindly put it all right. Thank you. (I shall use this page as my exemplar until it all changes again.) J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so. All the citation templates have been rewritten in Lua, and "updated" over the last weekend. Sadly, {{citation}} in particular no longer works properly for web citations, and I suspect it's only a matter of time before it's nominated for deletion. Eric Corbett 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they wonder why editors leave. I'm fed up with relearning stuff I never wanted to learn about. I hope that whoever rewrote it is going to rewrite all my citations, there are quite a few! Shouldn't editors be informed? J3Mrs (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about editors? Eric Corbett 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with J3Mrs. Why do "they" have to make life difficult for editors like us. Why cannot {{citation}} do for everything? I've used it for virtually everything. Why do we have to have cite this, cite that, cite the other, when one comprehensive one could (if the "experts" agree) cover everything. We simpletons get fed up. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the various citation talk pages it seems that the {{citation}} template needs to be given clues as to what's being cited, such as |newspaper=, |journal=, |work= and so on. But as you know, in the past the |contribution= parameter worked perfectly well for that purpose, until some clever-clogs decided to change things without any proper discussion among the users of these templates. It would be so easy to fix the citation template, but obviously that's restricted only to trusted users, aka administrators and their lackeys, who by and large don't understand what they're doing. Eric Corbett 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is to write articles and to compile list-articles, and to reference them in a simple-to-use method. I don't care about modes, separators, ps, etc. Just let the "experts" make things simple for me (and others), and stop going on technological jollies. It's this that will drive editors away (even more than misbehaving admins may do). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we all want Peter, but the recurring problem here is that who develop the software don't use it and therefore don't fully understand how it's being used. I don't know what it takes to become a template editor, but I'm quite convinced I could do a better job. Eric Corbett 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. See this. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When will the veil be lifted from their eyes? I was a software developer for more than thirty years, but I never developed what I wanted, I developed what the customer wanted. Eric Corbett 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that every day someone trashes our work. Eric Corbett 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's simpler than that: Experts are crap. Remember?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although Trappists don't take a vow of silence, they are not encouraged to speak much. I think that must be what the i.d. of the spokesperson for these changes refers to: lack of encouragement to speak to a broad base of editors about a change that will affect all content that should be referenced. Visual Editor, that strange media display thing, now this. It seems like writing content is becoming a major battleground between editors and the powers that be.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that very few give a fuck about writing content. Eric Corbett 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a systemic problem here with the development model. From all evidence, the boys and girls are correctly following their college notes. The first phase was investigation, where the examined the available notes and from that documented their perception of the module. (citations/visual editor--ot whatever). This was primarily a paper exercise. This document would be peer reviewed and signed off at phase meeting/keystage meeting. The clock is ticking and Wikipedia is growing and becoming more sophisticated and changing- but not for them- the document is fixed in time.

Coding now takes place- and the the boys and girls discover that there are incompatibilities in their model- the same incompatibilities that we have been hilighting since the previous generation of obscure changes. Their college tutor will have given them a ticklist of how to approach incompatibilites- so they will apply one of those strategems. KISS- keep it simple, then simplify some more- make the changes that affect the statistically fewest articles. I will keep to myself my POV about mentors that don't reference their work- and don't explain to newbies that the reference is more important than the trivia. But logically, being a prolific editor puts you in a statistically tiny group.

I have looked at the syntax of Lua-and it seem deceptively simple, and it will be a fairly easy to patch after the boys and girls give up, but there is no excuse for them to start coding before fully understanding the required algorith, and changing that. The development model needs to be revised, but until them I suggest that an extra phase is added- alpha testing whereby- they ping this highly stalked talk page, asking for comments before passing te code round the office for peer review. Our comments may be vicious but they will be constructive. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use {{citation}} normally but when I'm "guest starring" on articles that do, I use that for consistency. It ain't broke and it don't need "fixing". I think Parrot of Doom's FAs all use {{citation}} too, and anyway, aren't there still a load of FAs with free text citations inside <ref> tags bouncing around? Lua doesn't look particularly out of the ordinary for those of us who've been writing code in any language you can think of (including ObjectPAL) before some admins were born, but the fundamentals of how to bugger up software development beyond the call of duty were well documented in Fred Brooks' The Mythical Man Month several decades ago and haven't really changed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask the person who's editing Module:Citation/CS1 to fix it? I'd have done so already, but I'm not sure exactly what the issue is -- "contribution" used to work and now it doesn't? NE Ent 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, but to no avail. Eric Corbett 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea, why doesn't whoever is editing Module:Citation/CS1 ask content editors what they want? There must be somewhere to on the encyclopedia to solicit opinions. I don't understand either but I am discouraged if I find red error notices in the ref section of articles I've written. This is something that particularly affects the most scrupulous of editors such as Eric and Peter I. Vardy. It doesn't make life any easier for new editors. I learned about adding ref by copying what experienced editors did in Good Articles not by reading reams of instructions. J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could ya'll verify the recent change is what's causing the ugly red warnings on MediaCity UK references? NE Ent 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what alerted me to the problem, it's been going on for a while. J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I'd be very, very interested in reading them, and not in an ironic sense. ResMar 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, certainly not written by me anyway. Eric Corbett 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you should consider writing it up, then. I find all the buzz on this talk page curious but amn't willing to dig through ArbCom and related clutter to figure out why you seem to be such a polarizing figure. ResMar 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unlikely that I would choose to waste my time on such an exercise. Eric Corbett 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This problem left as an exercise to the reader. ResMar 16:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the nuns smacking my palms with a wooden ruler for using the word "amn't". Fond parochial memories. . Buster Seven Talk 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I apologize for joining in the feminist bandwagon against you. I see now that it was a huge mistake, and I was blinded by my loyalty to women. I don't expect you to forgive me, nor will it matter much, as I think I'll be retiring soon. But the females here don't treat each other with the respect they demand you treat them with, and my number one pet peeve is hypocrisy. The prime directive of Wikipedia is content creation, and I applaud your accomplishments in that area. I finally get what Sitush and Giano tried to teach me about civility, and I am now in near agreement. E.g., what good are banned words if people you trust throw you under the bus the first chance they get, all the while acting civil in the strict sense, but speaking with a forked tongue in the other? I.e., I'd rather you called me a cunt than pretended to be my friend before stabbing me in the back. I'll stop rambling now, and I won't be surprised if you revert this edit. I just wanted you to know that I can see your side of it now, and I think you are right to stick to your guns, and others are right to defend you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a feminist bandwagon against me? All I see is a few females, at least one of whom ought to know better, jumping on a bandwagon the name of which of I'm not even allowed to mention. Eric Corbett 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; this is not true feminism, and it never was, and these ridiculous restrictions are embarrassing, but I wouldn't pay them any mind if I were you. Even if you were allowed to participate, nothing you say will ever sway them. That's why I wanted you to know that you've swayed me, or rather after seeing them for what they really are I realized that you, Sitush, and Giano are right to stand your ground. I'd rather be an honest cunt than a dishonest "friend". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More female editors here I can think of support Eric and praise his assistance in their articles than I've seen oppose him in "feminist" debates. In fact most strong female editors I can think of at some point I've seen a positive comment on here. He even gets on very well with Sandy Georgia (which is mind boggling how anybody could) but it's true. It's usually an extreme like Carol and few others who might make it seem like a "feminist bandwagon". Jimbo Wales has implied that Eric is the sole cause of female editors leaving wikipedia but it is a fact that Eric seems to get on very well with female editors in general on there (or at least those who I know of and contribute good content like Sagacious, Montanabw, Gerda, Pam, J3Mrs etc), whatever his views are on gender in editing wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sincerely regretful that I got sucked into the frenzy. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mere facts; never let the facts get in the way of a good story. My view on gender is very simple, but I'm not permitted to share it. Eric Corbett 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take you to task over your comment about Sandy Georgia though, Dr. Blofeld. I've always found her very easy to get on with, even when we haven't agreed. Eric Corbett 22:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for some reason we've never gelled. Perhaps she gained respect for you seeing your work firsthand at FAC. I think she's the only editor on here my relationship has not improved with since the early days. I'd rather be on good terms with her, of course. Occasionally when I've been around her for a while I get that she often has a certain charisma, but then I don't see her for months and when she turns up again it's usually a negative comment. See the comment she made on the Vivien Leigh talk page for instance, that was rude and arrogant apparently. I'm on good terms with Bzuk, I was just concerned that a great editor like SchroCat was scared off because of an infobox. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That can happen I suppose, but IMO SandyG is one those allegedly elusive female editors that WP needs more of. Eric Corbett 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add a little bit of meat to that. For quite a long time SandyG and I were locked in battle over what is now the commonly accepted little green blob that displays in the top right-hand corner of a GA. Yet I don't ever remember the discussion becoming personal; she made some good points, we tried to address them, notably by the GA sweeps project. Eric Corbett 23:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were pretty harsh with me, but it's nothing compared to what Victoria and Sarah have done to me this week. I'd take your approach to their's any day. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my above comment because I realized that I was rude to you before you ever acknowledged me, and anything that you said after that was provoked. I'm really sorry about that. I think I got some attention from a few editors when I said something rude about you, and I was too immature to stand by my real life principles because I wanted to fit in. That backfired horribly, so I suppose I deserve the grief I've gotten here. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all make our own beds, and then we have to lie in them. Eric Corbett 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Play a nocturne by Chopin, perhaps? One of the women mentioned above, and of the women with courage (still don't know if there was a single woman in the majority who supported) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will share something with you Gerda. The GGTF ArbCom case was a disgrace, but nothing less than I expected given the accusers and their supporters. What incensed me, and still does, is the vote delivered by the sole female arbitrator. Eric Corbett 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thoughtlessly mentioned the GGTF, mea culpa. I have only one last request. Can I please serve my next block on the Seychelles? Eric Corbett 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that you love women and "find brainy women so ... exciting" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do, a misogynist I am not. Eric Corbett 00:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just expanding a fascinating page on a barely notable country house, and finding all manner of notable things - hidden freemasonry for example. Anyway, it did have just one notable owner, General Sir William Gabriel Davy. Sounds a really interesting man; I've uploaded an image here and there's quite a bit of info here. I would write it myself, but I've become rather absorbed with his odd son's masonic habits and eccentricities. Giano (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the c/e. Giano (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: Apologies if you'd prefer that I didn't do it, but I just couldn't resist. (I read about military officers quite a bit.) I've started the article here. Please feel free to improve the article if it needs a copy edit or if there's anything else to add. --Biblioworm 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, that's lovely: I'll link to it from Tracy Park. I'm sure Eric will be pleased to have one chore less. Giano (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This auction listing for his medals here seems to have plenty of detail- Field Officer’s Gold Medal 1808-14, for Roleia, Vimiera & Talavera, 1 clasp, Talavera (Major Willm. Gabriel Davy, 5th Batn. 60th) complete with gold ribbon buckle is probably the one mentioned in the article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll include that today if I get the chance. --Biblioworm 14:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By the way, Eric, would you mind taking a quick look at the infobox and things to make sure they're correct? Thanks. --Biblioworm 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never bother with infoboxes, so I'm not the best person to ask. Eric Corbett 00:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm probably did a better job of it than I would have done anyway. Eric Corbett 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, This article was put up as an FAC over a month ago with a view to having it on the main page for his reburial on 26 March - which is something I'd like to see. It seems to be progressing through FAC all right but, to me, the text doesn't seem good enough. I've done some fixing myself but I'm struggling with some of the odd sentences. If you have the time, and the inclination, could you have a look and see what you think? Richerman (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a worthy cause. I've had a quick look and made a few changes, but I think it's some way off being FA-ready yet. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to spend on it tomorrow, and of course Monday is my day off, but I'll see what I can do next week. Eric Corbett 01:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, you're a fine man and don't let anyone tell you any different. I thought it had some way to go too and I'm trying to fix some of it myself but I'll probably have to flag some of them up for others to fix who have access to the sources. Richerman (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, I notice that you've twice reverted a date range on Tracy Park. I might be wrong, but the MoS seems to suggest that for birth-death ranges, the format is (yyyy–yyyy). Quote: "birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) was ...; not (1304–74)". What do you think? Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Twice? Only once surely. But as it does seem to come under the heading of "birth-date parentheticals" I've reverted myself. Eric Corbett 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was never sure whether @Kevin Gorman: agreed to back up his opinion by putting his money where is mouth is or not: "I'd bet $20 that either no civility block sticks to Eric or it ends in another arb case within four months." (Posted on the Gender Gap mailing list on 26 November 2014). Eric Corbett 01:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He may not see the ping, Eric. He's been ill with septicaemia/other things. FWIW, I thought he was serious. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll forget about it then. Eric Corbett 12:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kevin Gorman posting on the Gender Gap mailing list - I thought it was only for women. Kevin sound like a man's name to me. Giano (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he runs it. Eric Corbett 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's short for "Kate". Bencherlite^Talk 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--if I block you, does he get $20? I've had dealings with Kevin in real life: I like him fine. No comment on that ill-placed bet. I just ran into someone you know--someone who did a GA review for Sitakunda Upazila back in 2008. That person might be sad to see that it's not so clean anymore, but let's let Sitush take care of it. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Malleus! Whatever happened to him? Chased off by a bunch of screaming harpies? Eric Corbett 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just got done teaching books 7-9; we covered the harpies last week. They get a bad rep, but when you read Ascanius's joke you understand that Celaeno was uttering a prophecy, not a curse, and that they in fact furthered Aeneas toward his goal. Also, Sippy attended the lectures for the Aeneid. She did not score worse than the upper-level students on the reading quizzes. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sippy is going to grow up to be a formidable lady. Eric Corbett 02:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Reading the bet, I think if you block is only the beginning, then it also has to "stick" - whatever that means, and for how long seems not defined. - Kevin listens to me. Not everybody: I started a little article with a lead image in the infobox, the image was placed elsewhere three times, but I want it first glance. I promised myself to revert only once. Anybody to add it back, like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has actually answered my question - why is K Gorman allowed in a woman's group? can I join it too? Giano (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he set it up and he runs it? My understanding is that anyone approved by the moderating team is eligible regardless of gender, which probably rules you out just as much as it would me. Take a look here. Eric Corbett 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought it was exclusively for females, but then until I saw Slim Virgin was on it a couple of weeks ago, I thought it was for transvestites and the sexually confused. That's the second thing I've learnt today. The first was altogether far more useful. Giano (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eric. I realize this is a long-shot, but an article I wrote, Rose-Baley Party, has recently come under fire for alleged concerns about paraphrasing and overall quality (please see here and here). While I am convinced that the article meets the GA criteria and stays within acceptable paraphrasing boundaries, I fear that, despite two neutral and uninvolved opinions that support my position (please see here and here), the reputation of the article will likely suffer from "bad press". Anyway, I would be forever in your debt if you took a look and commented regarding the GA criteria, which nobody knows better than you. I know we've had our differences in the past, and I'm probably really low on the list of people you're willing to help, but no one could put this issue to rest better than you. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you cannot be serious. Eric Corbett 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was worth a try, as I always assume people are as forgiving as I am, particularly when I've apologized. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I leave forgiveness to God. Eric Corbett 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I can't say that I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend anyone, preferably with an interest in Old West topics? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Eric Corbett 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, there is a bad case of OWNership there and there are legitimate close prarphrasing concerns, this editor is rather inexperienced with the way Western History is handled these days; this account is pretty much an uncritical retelling of the saga, absent analysis or historiography. Though the comparison of cut and paste is low see here, the close paraphrasing would defeat a GAN at this point. JMO as a member of WikiProject Old West. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations of close paraphrasing have been independently refuted by two neutral editors: here and here. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's ONE editor who didn't "refute" so much as suggest other ways to do things. The wmflabs assessment of 37% (or whatever it was) is enough to suggest that the article be looked at much more closely than it is. But basically, that article is not ready for GAN, it is not stable, it is contested at its talk page, it is taking an awful lot of raw history and just plopping it all into the article. And it's kind of boring. So, clearly, it is not one to be wasting Eric's valuable time on yet. I don't know if you have ever submitted an article to GAN before, but lots of pictures and end-of-paragraph footnotes aren't enough (particularly when some of the images just seem random too). Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, It became a Ga on 16 February with this version.[2] See Talk:Rose-Baley Party. EChastain (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we save our fire for FAC, where it should be properly critiqued. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While climbing the mountain, they came across a large snowfield and were surprised to see snow and ice in late July. Before their decent, they entertained themselves by pushing a massive boulder down the mountainside." Is "decent" an American version of "descent"? Eric Corbett 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You feel sorry for me? Plleeezze. And why are you so certain that publishers haven't paid me to write something? I'd bet that I've been paid for my writing more times than you have. I think now we see your true colours. Again. Eric Corbett 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no wonder editors aren't queuing up to help Rationalobserver. What a nasty spiteful thing to say. J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have no self-awareness. If Rationalobserver wants her work assessed she must accept scrutiny and criticism. Only yesterday she asked Eric to look through the article, when he did, she did what she always does, deflects the fault onto the person who is right. J3Mrs (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That article has issues with context and tone, among other things. I'm somewhat involved in the Kit Carson article and am dealing with similar stuff there. No, Eric is wise to steer clear of this one. And a publisher paying someone is no guarantee of either intelligence or writing ability... Intothatdarkness 20:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His big example was one typo, how trivial. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you continue to humiliate yourself here. J3Mrs (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I think about you guys. Bye-bye! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You came here under the pretext of asking for my help. Please don't come here again under any pretext. Eric Corbett 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a reminder to Rationalobserver, along with @Karanacs: and @Moni3: I was one of the principal authors of the Donner Party. My final piece of advice would be to read that and see how it ought to be done. Eric Corbett 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  And viola, there suddenly appears this. Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, please don't give Rationalobserver or anyone else more ammunition here. I have warned RO about behaviour on RO's talk page (and had the predictable response by another editor).  DDStretch  (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're suggesting that I'm in some way obligated to help everyone who comes here asking for my assistance I don't see what "ammunition" you're referring to. Eric Corbett 12:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are not obligated to help anyone. All I was suggesting is that you just say "no" and "Go away" (just those three words), and perhaps "I don't want to see you here on my talk page ever again", and some of these people's vindictive and baiting behaviour will be easier to deal with, that's all. As it happens, any repeat on the part of that editor of this behaviour on your or anyone else's talk page will be dealt with firmly, given what I now know of the past history.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather impractical counsel of perfection. Just look at how my reply of "I'm afraid not" above after being asked whether I could recommend another reviewer has been interpreted as yet another example of my inherent wickedness.[3] It doesn't matter what I say, and soon enough I won't be allowed to say anything of course, if ArbCom has its way. Eric Corbett 13:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are correct, and I apologize for not being so on the ball to take immediate action about that. I have warned RO about what she did, and then found out that she's done it before to others. I'm not so sure I can do more given the warning I gave her before I was told of other incidents not involving you. I do think enough is enough about this baiting and harassment you are getting and the partial interpretation of it against you by some who should know better.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of ArbCom; they basically declared open season on me from the likes of RO and her hangers-on. Eric Corbett 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What worked for me was this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of behaviour clearly wasn't a one-off, but I suppose she gets away with because she claims to be a female. Eric Corbett 14:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in all respects Eric, I would say though that most men I've come across, in real life as well as here, aren't nearly so spiteful or vindictive as some behaviour on your page illustrates. She should be blocked on sight if she returns. She can keep away from my page too, I prefer the collaborative sort of editor especially the sort who improves my prose. And women should absolutely not be treated differently to men. J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, and speaking as a man, I really don't think that "spiteful and vindictive" are typical male traits. I have rather a short temper and an equally short memory, so once something is over it's over. I don't harbour grudges or plan my revenge. Eric Corbett 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J3Mrs:, she'll be back - it would appear that life holds little other for her than dancing around Eric like a lame, vexatious, spitting Salome. What ought to surprise me, but doesn't is that Administrator Sandstein and his mates never seems to notice these things. As for the Arbcom, well one can't help blaming them for this stupidity. This current lot seem to be a body with no experience of dispute resolution or ability to apply logical common sense. Giano (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've toyed with the idea of appealing my sanction against saying anything that's not nice about RfA. But so far I've thought better of it, as I know it would just degenerate into yet another civility bun fight and give those such as @GorillaWarfare: another bite at the cherry in trying to have me banned, because I'm not of her gender. Eric Corbett 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but come to the conclusion that Ms GorillaWarfare just defends her sisters and plays the female card as second nature. Who can forget her agree with poor little me or you a misogynist comment. Neither have I forgotten her plaintive, pathetic bleating about me on Wikipediocracy - which she doubtless hoped I wouldn't see or else she would have said it here. To think that she is ab Arb ought to be worrying, except fortunately it serves to publicise what many of us already know. I believe women like Edith Cavell and Mrs Pankhurst would weep if they saw such soppy tricks from the sex they helped to prove were equal to men. Giano (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. They were strong women you couldn't help but admire whether you believed in their mission or not. GorillaWarfare not so much, just a band waggon jumper. Eric Corbett 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great pity that Ms Warfare could't have spent a couple of months with our mutual heroine Mrs Nagle; she'd have soon sharpened Gorilla's behavior up. Giano (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle is another of those women you wouldn't want to cross. But of course the young Gorilla has probably never heard of any of them. Eric Corbett 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discovering just how poor articles about suffrage and the women who fought for the franchise are. I've been tinkering around the edges after a friend introduced me to a church near Leeds University. Another formidable little woman was Elizabeth Elmy (who I just added to that awful GM Project!) who scandalised her compatriots by getting pregnant before she married! And to achieve their aims (shock, horror) they worked with men. J3Mrs (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've long thought about having decent articles on the prominent suffragettes, but of course that's now impossible, as they'd have to be written solely by women. Eric Corbett 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous of course you could, nothing whatsoever to do with that taskforce. J3Mrs (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to even mention gender, as you can see from the report below. Eric Corbett 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did manage to write Margaret Bondfield a few months back – not strictly a suffragette but of a similar stripe. I had no idea there was a "taskforce" that had pre-empted these things. Bondfield's up for TFA on her birthday in a couple of weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fucked up about all this feminist crap, I simply don't understand it. I write articles. I try to help others who also want to write articles. Where's the crime? Eric Corbett 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me, why not try to address it instead of pinging me to make sure I can watch you two go back and forth making shitty remarks about me? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have many problems with you, but perhaps best left to the next ArbCom elections? Eric Corbett 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me; certainly seems more appropriate than this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not feminism that's the problem...it's the mindset that allows passive-aggressive bullies to wrap themselves in a politically acceptable cloak and carry out their campaigns that is the problem. Forum shopping, baiting, and general shittiness is obviously acceptable if one can claim to be the victim of something or another. The toleration of that sort of behavior is, to me, a bigger problem for editor retention than the occasional curse word. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's tendentious editing under a different banner, and it is that type of editing that drives away a lot of editors. No one had come up with a solution before I retired (because of that type of editing) a few years ago, and it looks like no one has since either. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Their failure to respond intelligently to this sort of provocation is disgraceful. Intothatdarkness 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Eric Corbett, for your copy editing help on an article I improved in quality as part of my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say more, but I'm presently under an ArbCom imposed gagging order. ;-) Eric Corbett 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, thanks again for the copy editing help, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you and Giano have done on Tracy Park - absolutely superb how you the pair of you can turn around an article like that. While we're talking about "gagging orders", since I brought it up elsewhere, I wonder if you were aware of Linus Torvalds' civility policy (or rather lack of one), where he thinks nothing of flipping the bird and telling developers to fuck off if it means maintaining the quality of one of the most widely used operating systems in the world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever credit is due must go to Giano, as I wouldn't know a courbelle from a crow. Eric Corbett 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you Eric; may all of enemies have flaking corbels, guttas that fail to protrude and metal spikes in their acroteriums. Giano (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comments by Torvalds BTW, pretty much chiming with what I think about the nonsense that's allowed to go on here. Eric Corbett 17:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric Corbett. Please see the above request for Arbitration enforcement in relation to your post at WP:ANI#Request IBAN with User:Hell in a Bucket. Thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

The Wikipedia slime is inexorable, impossible to halt. Eric Corbett 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Wikipedia slim that's impossible to halt; I can hear four horses chomping and waiting impatiently for their stable door to be opened. They will be equally unstoppable and I suspect cause far more damage. Giano (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a link on my talk page, Gerda reminded me of something I said a year ago this week: "I have always found Eric a pleasure and delight to work with". That statement still holds true today. I have no doubt that Mrs Nagle would be as appalled, ashamed and embarrassed at some of the shenanigans taking place as I am. Now, I expect you're going to be cross with me for being all "feminine" and "soppy" - but, hey, I'm allowed because I'm female! I don't say it often enough but your help, guidance and advice is always very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We love you for who you are Sagacious!... "Soppiness" and TLC on a website like this is always welcome in my book..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for for violating your GGTF topic ban, as discussed in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Absolutely ridiculous. Eric Corbett 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have used that same term and no one blinked. militant feminism is a political viewpoint; it is, IMO just like, in the US, calling someone left-wing or right-wing. I guess we should all add that to our "do not say" list. SMH. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I think I'll take the weekend off too, see you on Tuesday. If they carry on they'll drive more than you away. J3Mrs (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am about to log out for 72 also. The sooner the admin corps come to their collective senses and realise where the problem actually lies, the better. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They won't (and not just in this case or with this user/group of users). It's far easier to work this way. There's nothing complex to consider, they don't have to look at their own conduct, no assumptions to consider or question. My contributions aren't much, but they're going to go away for a time now, too. I don't like the prospect of being bullied by passive-aggressive types. Intothatdarkness 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I won't be doing the same, considering I just came off a one-month block, and, for various reasons, I won't go into detail about my own opinions about possibly in the eyes of some overreacting or not in the face of long-term stalking. Otherwise, I would join you. Also, if anyone wants, I can try to maybe make a transcludable template which might be used by people who want to state their long-term objections to the sort of thing we have all seen recently. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On strike till Tuesday, March 2. . Buster Seven Talk 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gandy joins hands with Buster and begins to sing "Solidarity Forever", the union marching song. ( John Carter, I'd like one of those banners.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It still needs a lot of work, including regarding the overlong phrasing and the background coloring (I might prefer something more red myself) of the text, but User:John Carter/Anti-PC is at least a start. Anyone is free to make or discuss any changes they think would improve it. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How apt that the admin who placed this deeply stupid block has a carcinogen for a username. Writegeist (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I lot of us wouldn't be of much use without regular use of that particular carcinogen or its caffeinated substitutes. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh Writegeist, feel free to remove that stupid remark. Come on now--it's entirely unclear what the fuck it is supposed to mean, but it can't be anything good. Insulting the blocking admin? What good does that do? If you want to vent, get back on MySpace. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(inserting) By our actions we are known. I think that when a block prompts a desysopped user such as Ironholds to send the blocking admin a creepy note and an ecstatic love song in support, it helps corroborate the view that the block was a really, really dumb one. Now that Coffee has followed up with another, this time on Giano, and extended it, also on bogus grounds (until Jehochman lifted the block), I regret striking the words "deeply stupid" above. The rank incompetence of the second block puts the stupidity of the first beyond doubt. I've undone the strikethrough. I hope Drmies won't mind. Writegeist (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If we go on strike it's a signal that a AE sanction means anything. Sadly, it seems meaningless, only pointy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They do mean something: Eric is blocked. I have asked Coffee to...well, I don't know. I think Eric's comment was ill-advised and probably fell within those restrictions (restrictions that I didn't like in the first place), but I'd never block for something like that. The moment I unblock Eric, though, the shit is really going to hit the fan; it's a pity Eric finds it more difficult to grovel than others. Come on Coffee. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't do grovelling. Best not to get involved though Drmies, it's only effectively another 48-hour block anyway, as I don't do Mondays. Eric Corbett 20:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Eric. You know what, I got plenty of stuff to do anyway, school and other stuff. Maybe I'll see you on Tuesday. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I should have said pointless. If there was consensus it was because people like me didn't even go again, - sorry Eric. Coffee, you were not here I guess to see a thread or two degenerate from the pretense of an apology ... - I don't share your hope that this block will achieve anything but making people like me loose more hope. Eric and I and women with courage have a habit to go against consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I read your email Drmies, and I definitely took it to heart. But, Eric deliberately stepped over a line he knew he shouldn't have, and the consensus by the admins at AE was overwhelmingly in favor of his sanctions being enforced. This type of business is always messy in my opinion, but it sadly needs to be done. Even if I don't personally think that this block will have much of an effect on the way Eric behaves in the future, it's not my habit to go against consensus. I can only hope that Eric has the personal fortitude and lack of ego to be able to realize why this block happened, and not repeat inflammatory behavior like this in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You understate the case by an order of magnitude; it will have absolutely no effect on anything I might or might not do in the future. Eric Corbett

  The community will inevitably in due time indefinitely ban you then, and that to me makes no sense at all when you could just step away from your pride. All I'm hoping for is that you collaborate, not capitulate. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you leave that to me to worry about? Or not, as the case may be. Eric Corbett 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• coffee? What a curious name, I've never before heard of you, but doubtless you have now found a way of promoting yourself. It seems to me you've had a little too much caffeine and over stimulated yourself - I do hope it's not too uncomfortable. Whatever, for your much necessary enlightenment, the community will not in due time ban Corbett - it will see the error of its ways. However, we are obviously in for a long and painful process before that happens - what a very unenlightened person you must be to not see that. Giano (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit war with a troll, but I do feel this needs to be seen [4]. Giano (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, this has nothing to do with women. It's about content, and it's about a lot more. See my apology below. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Victoria, it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables (Eric, spell that for me can you? and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends. Giano (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think anybody who still thinks it is a good idea to impose short (ish) blocks on Eric in 2015 is either craving the attention or brownie points from Jimbo or is genuinely super into wiki policy. History keeps repeating itself and it really solves nothing, a bit ridiculous. Administrators know the reaction that blocking Eric will get so I think if they have any sense they'd realise that less trouble will be caused overall by ignoring him. There seems to be some inherent belief among some here though that if Eric is not given frequent blocks then the site will degrade into chaos where everybody violates policy. I can't see any other reason why an intelligent being would still think it the answer in 2015... @Coffee: I'm sure you feel you've done your sense of duty here but your comment "This is a clear violation of his sanctions and he knows it. I suggest at least a 1 week block to deter future behavior like this." really illustrates a very poor understanding of Eric. You could block him for three months, it's not going to change him. That after his dozens of blocks over the years you still think this an effective solution is rather concerning... And it's not as if arb didn't have the chance to ban him... There was a reason why they didn't...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Criminy. I go offline for 48 hours and this happens! Corbett, dammit but can't I, your token "feminist" buddy, EVER get a break - even for cataract surgery? Curses! Ok, repeat after me: stop calling trolls who play the gender card "militant feminists." *I* am a feminist. Trolls who happen to express feminist concepts in the midst of their drama-mongering are TROLLS. Just like cricket fans who behave like trolls aren't "militant cricket fans" - they are TROLLS. But see you Tuesday! Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do be careful Montanabw, what you've just said is now a blocking offence by User: Coffee and his loyal band of the not so merry wimmin. Giano (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Piss poor block, User:Coffee. --John (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I apologize deeply that you got pulled into this. It was a dispute between me and RO and should never have spilled over here and onto so many other pages. I've found that disengaging and walking away for a few days is best, and so that's what I did (well, I was busy in RL too). Now I wish I'd left a note on your page before leaving. I am sorry. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing for you to apologise for Victoria. This block will pass soon enough. Eric Corbett 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here Eric, some Wiki-ball-rooms to dwell in while blocked. Today I understood how it has to feel like - the things you go through. Not fun. Have a nice time in your personal palace. Hafspajen (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 55

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;

Than unswept stone besmear'd with sluttish time.

When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

And broils root out the work of masonry,

Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity

Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room

Even in the eyes of all posterity

So, till the judgment that yourself arise,

You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.

• A militant feminist walks into a bar and asks, "Where are all the women?".
• A feminist militant walks into the same bar and asks, "Where the fuck are all the women?".... Buster Seven Talk 12:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might come across as flippant, but it isn't intended to be. As I think most of the editors here know, there has been a page created in the userspace of another editor which can only be edited who "qualify" by certain rather arbitrary self-selection requirements. I've argued elsewhere, particularly regarding WikiProject Editor Retention, that we maybe allow there to exist a few pages other than Jimbo's talk page which can be perhaps exempt from some policy or guideline requirements but actively overseen by a few generally trusted individuals who are by definition free to revert or revise anything they see fit to. Most user space pages by definition qualify as such. In fact, Doncram has more or less made such a proposal at the talk page of that project. I would be interested, considering that Eric here seems to be one of the primary objects of attention of some of those associated with at least one such wikipedia userspace page, whether he might be interested in being the host of another one, maybe called "Eric's pub" or something like that?

I realize that there would need to be some proposed changes to policy and/or guidelines to llow that, but would be willing to propose them if the idea was one that had some support. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this page is Eric's pub, open for free speech even in absence of the host, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Eric's Pub" is such a foreign sounding name - being based in northern England it should have some sort of gritty name like "The King's Head" (which, being in historic Lancashire would have to have a picture of something like Henry VII) or the "Miners' Arms". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Free Speech"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a link to this page, or are we mere mortals not even allowed to look at it? Giano (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch NE Ent 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that page! I call that something else entirely. I might start a private page of my own, for all my kindred spirits User: Giano/Giano's gin palace only for the educated, urbane and broad minded. Giano (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the corner of Reality Blvd? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see a page in an individuals user space which has qualifications which the editor whose space it is in would not meet, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Carter see [[5]] it's in one of the bullets lol, it's the one under complaint in bold I think. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that sort of fast repartee, I may well ask you to be a founder member. Nothing worse than being surrounded with dull people and sycophants. Giano (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a encyclopedia building note I started Erwiana Sulistyaningsih and was unclear on notability but in the end this was a very very notable incident and is near and dear to my heart due to my observations when I lived in Hong Kong. I want to get this article to GA or FA status would you care to comment? I don't think it infringes on your topic ban but feel free to decline because god knows we don't need to hand them ammo but a large amount of this saga just ended with a 6 year prison term for her employer and so seems like a good time to polish it off. Truly anybodies help is welcome there or here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a potential minefield in the current crazy climate, so no articles on females or female-oriented topics for me. Even mentioning the word "female" is probably a blockable offence these days. Eric Corbett 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an offence. Better say "women" and reserve female as an adjective ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the recent finding on ANI that Coffee's blocks are unsound, heavy handed and often unjust, the time has come to unblock Eric for the reasons posted here. Coffee publicly eating humble pie is not helping Eric. Giano (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is moot. It is an arbitration enforcement block so you need a consensus at AE if you want this reversed. Chillum 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there has not been a finding that "Coffee's blocks are unsound". Chillum 21:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any unblock would be irrelevant now. For all practical purposes Coffee's block is effectively expired, as I don't edit on Mondays anyway. But Coffee's naivety has made it very clear to me that Wikipedia and I are fundamentally incompatible. Obviously I think I'm right and equally obviously so do those such as Coffee and those who support his actions. I see no middle ground, it's a bit like the police trying to force an innocent man to plead guilty for a lesser sentence. What's equally obvious to me is that the increasingly elastic ArbCom sanctions against me are stretched beyond any reasonable breaking point by a group of editors that the administrators are, for whatever reason, reluctant to deal with. I suppose it's much easier just to chuck blocks at the likes of Giano and me rather than address the underlying issues. So, regardless of any further blocks, or extension of this current block for speaking my mind, I won't be back on Tuesday as per normal. In fact, I won't be back at all unless and until I see some resolve to address these problems by, for instance, blocking the right people for once. Eric Corbett 16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it is, when one's under an Arb restriction. It's going on 3-years now for me, so I should know. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suppression of free speech by these ArbCom sanctions is a complete anathema to me, as it ought to be to any right-thinking person. Eric Corbett 17:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You might as well hang on: It seems Coffee has deleted his pages and gone, LB said farewell to ANI and RO about to be blocked. You's better edit tomorrow before everyone changes their minds. Giano (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tomorrow is Monday, I don't edit on Mondays. Eric Corbett 17:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That'll be too late; the status quo will be restored by Tuesday I expect. Giano (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  C'est la vie. One has one's principles and one must try to live by them. Eric Corbett 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was of a mind not to return today until a few editors had been properly dealt with – I don't think that Coffee running off is anything like good enough – until I saw this latest posting from Ironholds.[6] In a nutshell, anything that makes him unhappy makes me happy. Eric Corbett 12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, however inappropriate Coffee's blocks were, we wouldn't want him doing something to himself in RL if he's encountering issues as claimed in his edit page space.. I know I wouldn't want to be responsible for that sort of thing, and you never know with some people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee makes his own decisions, I'm not responsible for anything he does. If he's unable to make rational decisions for whatever reason then he ought not to be an administrator. Eric Corbett 13:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's true of course...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, he's back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have noticed, and I am waiting for him to announce that he's giving up the blocking tools. Giano (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And right on cue, here's Ironholds on IRC:

12:59 am <Ironholds> if Eric and Giano didn't have gender discussions to compare to the Gestapo or offend or inflame, they'd find something else, because they are essentially self-centred trolls.
12:59 am <Ironholds> it's not about gender, to them. It's about why is nobody nice to them?

I wonder if he was speaking on behalf of the WMF or just for himself? Eric Corbett 17:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that's the same IRC where a few years ago I was assured I was never mentioned? probably not. Apparently admins only use it for emergencies and matters of vital importance. Is that this User:Ironholds or is there another? I'd rather be criticised for what I say openly here than moaning and winging off-site behind people's backs on IRC and Wikipediocracy. Giano (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was on the WMF's throat-stabbers support group? Eric Corbett 18:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was the Arbcom mailing list - is that on IRC? That's about as leakproof as fishing net. Giano (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not privy to such secret information. Eric Corbett 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well not being as handsome as me, you've never had the cache and in that I've enjoyed, so you wouldn't know. However, thinking about it; have you ever compared gender gap to the Gestapo? I don't think I have. I have privately thought that, in some people's odd minds, denying or doubting Gender Gap seemed akin to denying some realty horrible other things; but I'm always very conscious of Godwin's law, or at least some people's love of applying it, so I tend to avoid Nazi analogies. Giano (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never. And that comment about the Gestapo puzzled me as well. Eric Corbett 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, someone will doubtless provide the diffs if one of us is "guilty" of such a crime. Perhaps it was me, without realising; I do have a tendency to break into other languages without being aware it. That can be misconstrued. Were you here when a poor old friend of mine was banned as a vivacious, dangerous sock because some half-witted Jimbo-sanctioned-mailing-list decided anyone who spoke German was a danger to the project (I exaggerate not)? He was actually one of greatest DYKers and politest Englishmen I have ever virtually met, and was personally devastated - he never returned. Giano (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh mega-brill; his talk page is still here after all these years [7]. Giano (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't no, but I have seen the ability to speak a foreign language used as behavioural evidence in sockpuppet investigations. Eric Corbett 20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Ive just had ten minutes wallowing in nostalgia for the dear old Wiki days, and came across this edit. It's obvious why an "approved" mailing list labeled him so vicious and dangerous. Dear old !! furiously stomped off years ago, with just indignation, but has anything changed since he made that edit? Giano (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Jimbo Wales certainly hasn't changed. Eric Corbett 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano did anyone notice Coffee quietly came back...sounds like they were trying to avoid a cloud...is the arb request still an option? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He came back less than 24 hours later, or has he been "away" again? - I don't really follow him. At the time, I shut up because I was advised that he was troubled - perhaps he is - who knows? One thing I do know, is that if there was anyone at the top of the Wikipedia tree with a gram of social responsibility, when an editor announces those sort of problems, he should be receiving some help and advice especially regarding his admin responsibilities from the Arbcom/Foundation/whoever claims to be in charge. Such incidents can be neither good for him or the project. Anyway, I don't want his problems on my conscience, so I shall say no more. To answer your final question: With vast experience of these matters, I doubt an arbitration case would be beneficial to anyone. Giano (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen especially to the last line. Spoken under AE (again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And amen to your amen Gerda. Eric Corbett 20:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this must be some kind of mistake. I don't improve articles, all I do is drive editors away, particularly female editors. Eric Corbett

So far you achieved the opposite for me, try harder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easily replaceble apparently, as there are so many other good writers queuing up to be equally abused. Eric Corbett 22:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The others equally abused left, miss the photographer of this and this, - thanks for being more resilient. - I approved the above, - how could that be nominated without a pic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a woman. How can I possibly comment? If you take offence then I'll just be blocked again. Eric Corbett 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only today I was pointed at Giano's great essay A fool's guide to writing a featured article, - not as outdated as the top says, excellent reading. "A significant number of Wikipedians no longer value high quality content." (That was written in 2008.) - How could I write FAs without knowing that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy is a female name, so out of bounds. Eric Corbett 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the reason I left, obvs. Lara 04:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very interesting article, and I have taken the liberty of doing some copy editing. If any Americanisms or my own errors have crept in, please feel free to revert. I won't mind. I noticed that a "Helena Augusta Davy" is mentioned, but then referred to later as "Helen". As the source is offline, it would be wonderful if someone with access to the paper source could resolve that discrepancy. Take care, Eric, and I hope that you will return to editing soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find an interesting DYK hook in Geoffrey Talbot (died 1129)? I'm so bad at it... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... that Geoffrey Talbot held lands around Swanscombe assessed as owing 20 knight's fees, as recorded in the Cartae Baronum? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... that after Gundulf came to England he gave Geoffrey Talbot a castle? – iridescent 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... that in return for being given lands in Kent, Geoffrey Talbot had to help protect Dover Castle? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what method people here use for researching new articles or large expansions, specifically in the situation where there are 100's of sources containing potentially useful bits of info. It's easy enough (though time consuming) to read everything and note down stuff that looks relevant to the article as you read. The trouble is when something doesn't strike you as relevant until you notice it's appeared several times, and you didn't note it down the first few times, so now you have to find the other sources. When I've written stuff using just a few sources, it's been easier to just go through each source from beginning to end summarizing its points, and then write from the summaries, but that doesn't seem to work when there's 100 sources saying mostly the same things with little differences here and there. The article I'm trying to expand is Citizenfour, sourced mostly from online reviews and interviews that as you can imagine make points that overlap each other quite a bit. Even my offline notes file is now an overgrown mess that I can't easily navigate. I'm wondering how often this situation comes up and how you all deal with it. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had plenty of similar experiences with my own "notes" files, so I sympathise! My only advice is to be systematic in how you record the information from the beginning of the process (in terms of the format, the kind of detail and structure, any tags you might use for themes or people etc.) so you can search it easily and not have to repeat research processes, and then have a clear system for flagging up inconsistencies/different accounts etc. But, as I say, you're definitely not alone: it is why writing substantial articles, whether on or off the wiki, is such a major task! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those suggestions give me some ideas that I might try. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made this edit to tighten some of the language of your user page. Since you're now using the Eric Corbett account, the old language read kind of strangely to me. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my change, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it's not your place to start altering another user's page. I'm sure Eric is capable enough of tidying his own prose. Cassianto^Talk 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cassianto. User pages are part of the wiki and they're intentionally openly editable. I think we can presume that Eric is capable of reverting on his own if he disagrees with the edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user can have what he or she likes on his or her user page. There is nothing offensive about it and I fail to see what it has to with you. You appear to be warring now. I suggest you leave it until Eric comes back tomorrow and you can ask him then. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cassianto. I broadly agree with you regarding user page content. I don't know what you mean by offensive or why you're mentioning it. Is there a specific problem with my edit? I made a helpful and constructive edit that you've now reverted several times without good reason. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edit is that it has bugger all to do with you. Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was a form of baiting. J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with you J3Mrs. Cassianto^Talk 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) J3Mrs: Baiting? By updating the text to reflect a username switch? What on earth are you talking about?

• Yes baiting, an action calculated to cause a reaction. You got what you wanted but not from who you expected. Now play the innocent, I think that's what you're supposed to do next. J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right... I improved some user page text and left a note explaining my edit. Guilty as charged! Just for the record, which part are you playing? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • MZMcBride, I agree that leaving a note was commendable, but I'm not sure your changes to Eric's page were in any way necessary. In general, we don't edit the user pages of others unless we're reverting vandalism or teasing someone we know very well — neither seems to be case here. I don't think you acted in bad faith, but neither do I think you should pursue this any further. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Sluzzelin. Thanks for the kind and thoughtful reply. We edit user pages for all kinds of reasons, in my experience. Typo fixing, links updating (category, disambiguation, file), gallery expansion, sometimes discussion, etc. In my opinion, one of Wikipedia's great strengths and beauties is open editing, including user pages, which is unlike Facebook or Google Plus or similar. I replied a bit more below. I agree that this situation is likely unfixable. I'm shaking my head at edits like this, though. Sheeeesh. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps Cassianto can explain how the page has "bugger all" to do with him or her. Has Cassianto been appointed Protector of User Pages? I'm baffled. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same for you and your apparent self-appointment of User Page Prose Patroller, but I won't. Cassianto^Talk 23:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who is right, both of you have been around long enough not to edit war over another user's user page no less. Please stop. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you don't fall off that fence. Cassianto^Talk 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcB's version of the wording comes over as much more aggressive than Eric's original, and it seems totally inappropriate to make a change like that to another user's page. If you think the wording needs a change, leave a note on the talk page to suggest that change. Don't mess with another user's user page unless it's clearly an attack page, copyvio, etc. PamD 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on a Monday?

MZMcBride, you may edit my userpage. But was it pure accident that you edited Eric's userpage on a Monday, the day he himself doesn't edit, per the top of this page? Bishonen | talk 22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Cool, thanks. I might take you up on that. It seems there's lots of editing to do, even outside the article namespace.

Honestly, I didn't realize Malleus had quit Mondays. I did notice the auto-generated user talk page notice about it. I'm still not sure I understand the underlying philosophy, but I have no issue with any user self-imposing blocks or bans, temporary or otherwise. It didn't factor into my day.

I ended up here, for what it's worth, from some ancient Raleigh meetup page, which led me to Coffee's user and user talk pages. I then read up on Coffee and I admonished him a bit. Then I headed over here and re-skimmed Malleus' user page, noticing it read as though he was still editing as Malleus. I did a bit of research and then made what I still think was a pretty good edit. I shouldn't have reverted, but the experience felt pretty off-putting and felt kind of patronizing. Leaving a talk page note about user page edits is something I learned to do as sometimes people miss the edits, largely due to the way MediaWiki notifies the user (talk page edits --> orange notification; user page edits --> maybe a watchlist notification).

This place still feels a bit caustic. I'm left wondering about what Lara wrote here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to leave the person a talk message suggesting they update the user page at their convenience, instead of making the edit yourself unless it's for some reason urgent. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God it's Tuesday and the "argue over Eric's page on Eric's page" nonsense can stop. NE Ent 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never an argument NE Ent, just a warring editor who thought it was ok to go round and adjust the tone of another users page in order to bait. I would have thought that my reverts would have been justified. Happy Tuesday!Cassianto^Talk 06:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't check in on wiki much, but whenever I do (it seems to have become only a handful of times per year), I always check to see if MF is still around. You, Mr. MF now EC have outlasted many a horrible, tool-happy power-hungry admin headcase, and I always smile when I see you still plugging along, editing things that you like, helping editors make things better in your own way, with your own style, take it or leave it. You're still one of my favorites, I'm glad you're still here (and I'm glad to see you age like a good porter) and I would still without question hand over my admin tools to you if I could (and only if you'd find them useful). It's shocking that I still have them; almost as shocking as having ever received them in the first place. Ah well. Enough from me - back into the woods I go. Be well good editor. Keeper | 76 02:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy fascists makes me grin.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Keeper76-- what a delight to "see" you again !!! (Yesterday's "events" on Mally's talk page were among the oddest I've ever seen here ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you again Keeper. Eric Corbett 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should I push to FA status next?

• William de Chesney Anglo-Norman nobleman
• Reginald de Warenne Anglo-Norman nobleman
• Robert of Ghent Lord Chancellor and ecclesiastic
• Walter de Beauchamp (nobleman) Another Anglo-Norman nobleman
• Josce de Dinan Breton nobleman in England
• Hugh Bardulf Anglo-Norman administrator

Suggestions welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly, but on balance I'd probably pick Josce de Dinan. Eric Corbett 13:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one, but I perhaps would have gone for Robert of Ghent. Cassianto^Talk 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if I go with Josce I'd have to add an infobox just to keep the fights from erupting...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fights just seem to follow infoboxes around, whether you have one or not. Eric Corbett 14:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I add infoboxes to hundreds of articles without even a question. How many "fights" did you notice in 2015? I saw none. Arguments on six, including a very strange "closing", on Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bardulf would be the one I'd go for first I think, a stronger lede and overall balance in the main body than some of the others, although Josce de Dinan probably looks the most like a featured article without reading them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eric: I'm a novice Wiki writer, and recently visited the Walter Scott page, where I found some of your work. So I'm writing you about a reaction I had. There is a nasty hit piece about Scott in an area there called something like "Influence on education in the US." It is quoted from a 1990s book called "Unrepentant Leftist" and is very critical of Scott. It amazed me how this otherwise excellent article about a literary giant was suddenly thrust into the nastiness of our current political polarization. I don't think the entire US education system and the widely-admired work of an author from the early 1800s should be indicted due to one man's experience...especially since the important sounding "Influence on eduction in the US" surely deserves more research that this! Can you do something about this..I'm not a huge Scott fan or anything like that, but it occurred to me that whoever put that there is simply pushing his or her political position against a major literary figure...and doing it without any additional evidence. Thanks for listening, and thanks for all your good work. Blueridge12 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall doing any work on Scott, but I'll certainly take a look later. Eric Corbett 15:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Well, Scott had more influence on US education (and politics) than many other writers; he's the only one I can think of right now who even comes close to Shakespeare and Dickens. Also, to say that this passage is "critical of Scott" is pushing the point--it is critical of the ideology expressed in one of his poems, and with some validity, to put it mildly. I don't see how this has anything to do with "our current political polarization", whichever polarization that may be. Blueridge12, it cannot be that all praise is objective and all criticism partisan politics.

  On the other hand, the section is woefully underdeveloped, and any discussion of Scott in the US ought to begin with his readership in the 19th, not the 20th century, and particularly that in the "genteel" South. What it needs is more, not less, and that will help alleviate the undue weight that the passage now has (it needs to be trimmed anyway). It is a fascinating topic, worthy of a doctoral dissertation or a monograph--if that hasn't been written already. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• JSTOR 25121661 is interesting, and seems like it develops in a regular Yankee partisan way, until we get to the part where the author says "Negro slavery, like most other institutions, had its vices and its virtues." Drmies (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any chance you could give this a copyedit and check for MoS issues? I gave it a considerable edit yesterday but really needs an expert copyeditor to give a thorough edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be more work than I'm looking for in the current "let's see how we can twist anything Eric says so as to justify another AE report and maybe get him blocked for a month next time" environment. Eric Corbett 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following what you've been up to of late. Why would a month make any difference? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't. But I'm still not looking for major work, even though I suspect that this nomination may well fail without my help. What's in it for me? Eric Corbett 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will say one thing though. If I can't help enough during the current FAC, I'll certainly help before the article is nominated again. Can't say fairer than that. Eric Corbett 04:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair, I've advised Sven to withdraw, largely because I don't think it'll pass this time. It needs a clean shot at it, and once it has been fully copyedited and outstanding concerns have all been addressed. I've seen the film, it's actually quite enjoyable, bizarre, mixing typical Bollywood-style dance with sci-fi, but entertaining nonetheless. Certainly more watchable than some of the generic superhero ones churned out by Hollywood at the moment.. Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) could also use some decent editors checking the prose quality before it heads off to FAC. I've put a fair bit of work into that myself trimming it and making more comprehensive. It gets over a million hits a year I think see [8]. I think it's in generally good shape, but the minor MoS glitches I always have a job spotting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the female ferret??? Drmies (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, didn't realize it was Monday. Happy non-editing! Drmies (talk)
  • this explains it a bit better - it may cause bone marrow suppression and can lead to anaemia which may be fatal. However, the citation given in that article is about ferrets, not Star Trek, so it's synthesis anyway. Richerman (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And it's not even true that female ferrets must be mated during the breeding season or else they die, no matter what the British Ferret Club may say. Just like many other animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits etc. they are susceptible to a uterine infection known as pyometrea when they are in heat, and if that's left untreated it can be fatal. Eric Corbett 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it sounded somewhat ridiculous, but the budget vets page I linked to (which is fronted by a vet) seemed to confirm that it can happen - which is a long way from saying it always will happen. Presumably there's some truth in what they're saying is there? Richerman (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen, just as it can happen to a dog or a cat. But it's by no mean inevitable. And if a female ferret should happen to die without having been bred from during her season it's not for the lack of a Vulcan-like empathetic partner, it's because she's contracted a uterine infection. Eric Corbett 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds logical Mr Corbett - live long and prosper. Richerman (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sensitive subject for me. Too many ferret owners aren't prepared to spend the money on keeping their animals healthy – ferrets are cheap and easily replaced without the trouble and expense of a vet visit – so they will argue as I've just done that female ferrets can survive not being mated during their season just to save money on neutering or jill jabbing. Just as some do for arguing that it's a waste of money to have them vaccinated against canine distemper, a disease that's almost always fatal to ferrets, as the vaccines don't work, they claim. I'm not at all in that camp; all of our ferrets are vaccinated and they're all chemically castrated, which isn't cheap. A single implant costs £90, and we've got eight of the little buggers. Eric Corbett 15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is compounded by the fact that you can't trust the vets not to rip you off. For instance, they insist you should have your dog vaccinated once a year, and if you don't they tell you that you must start the course again and have a primary and booster vaccination. However, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association's guidelines say you should not give the core vaccines more than once every three years and then, only if a blood test shows that the antibody titre has fallen below a certain level. Richerman (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've threatened to take the British Small Animal Veterinary Association to court over the advice they've been handing out over the use of fipronil in animals' ears, but what you find is that the vets close ranks. Much like admins on here actually. I'm not saying that vets aren't honest, but too few of them are prepared to be honest. Eric Corbett 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's one for tomorrow: I'm writing up Alexander Stopford Catcott (don't ask me why) and I can't figure out what this means (he's not listed on Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood). Your help, and that of your talk page visitors, is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose it's being selected by vote of those present at the Election dinner. Elections to Winchester College. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my thought as well. Eric Corbett 11:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC is now withdrawn. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many other male editors feel as as I do, increasingly under pressure from a feminist agenda misguidedly supported by the WMF? Who are going to lose tens of thousands of donor's money in a face-saving attempt to redress the thing I'm not allowed even to mention. Eric Corbett 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would not dare to correct a typo on any article in a controversial topic. As a new editor, I feel that I am not free to edit in any area at all. There is such an aggressive stance taken against editors - particularly those who are not in keeping with the doublethink of the day. I see good editors who do great work who are hounded for their lack of belief, and others whose horrendous behavior is tolerated - even if they aren't particularly good editors - simply because they agree with the current trend. They say Wikipedia is not social media - and I will disagree. The behaviors on the drama boards are as bad or worse than any facebook conflict I have seen. Yes, there is an agenda. Yes, there is tremendous pressure. I will probably stay in the background most of the time, with little gnomish edits here and there, because this project scares the hell out of me. I have already been accused of sockpuppetry by an admin once, and had it hinted at another time - because I had given a well-reasoned argument; too well-reasoned for a new editor. As for what I have seen happen to you, all I can say is that I hope you keep writing good stuff like you do, and don't let the bastards get you down. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but without boldness there can only be stagnation. So be bold. Eric Corbett 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the interests of full honestly and disclosure, I just wrote the following to a friend on Facebook : "There is a guy on Wikipedia called Eric Corbett who lives just down the road from you. Good writer, nice as pie if you want to write stuff. Approach him as an admin with a God complex and you'll get it with both barrels." (note : "just down the road" in this instance means Bolton - Manchester) As for myself, there is a lot I would say about Wikipedia that is not at all positive, but if I shot my mouth off and said what was on my mind I'd just get blocked. And that would be annoying. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not an admin Ritchie 333, nor ever likely to be one. My only purpose in being here is to write about the things that interest me, and to help others to write about what interests them. I recognised long ago that there's a moral vacuum at the heart of Wikipedia which I can do nothing about. Eric Corbett 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood - I mean if an admin came on to your talk and started belittling you, you'd give them what for, and I don't think you need any examples of that. As for the moral vacuum, I hear that loud and clear off-wiki on a regular basis. As I mentioned elsewhere recently, the real problem is there are some people who are on Wikipedia too much and would benefit the project from being on less (not you!) but they are not self-reflective enough to understand this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler Calculators of Manchester. Designed and manufactured a series of circular slide rules from 1898 to 1988. Considering the membership of the Oughtred Society an international organization with members in 22 countries. It is noted for its highly acclaimed Journal consists for the most part of "professional" white males it's surprising that there's no article on that or them (sarcasm). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Oughtred Society - redirect to newly-added William Oughtred#Legacy section, as I wasn't sure whether it merited its own WP article. I'm white, female, British and a Maths graduate. Not that it matters - I'd never heard of the society until reading the above. (I'm also a retired librarian, so there are also redirects from The Oughtred Society, Journal of the Oughtred Society and The Journal of the Oughtred Society!) PamD 14:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WMFs attitude is best summed up as "We should do something. This is something. Therefore we should do this." pablo 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not banned from Wikipediocracy, I chose to resign. Zoloft knows why, because I told him. Eric Corbett 15:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Eric is free to return to Wikipediocracy any time he wishes. His account is disabled at his own request.→StaniStani 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that my resignation last year had nothing at all to do with any of these suggestions:

1. Apathy to Wiki politics.
2. Visceral dislike of WPO's perceived mission, which they see as the destruction of WP.
3. Fear of being outed or harassed by scary, scary WPO people / fear of their IP address being connected to their account name and misused.
4. Personal antipathy to taking criticism of WP off-wiki, believing that discussion should happen internally.
5. Fear of running aground of Wikipedia rules about canvassing, personal attacks, outing, etc. if they participate.
6. Lack of free time, being busy doing other things.

It had to do with one particular individual I felt I could no longer tolerate. Eric Corbett 18:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing I want to say immediately Stanistani, but there might be in the future, so will you please un-resign me? Eric Corbett 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your access has been restored. Check your email for details.→StaniStani 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to see you there, with maybe one caveat about whether the individual you could no longer tolerate might remain an ongoing problem for you there should you return. I very sincerely hope it won't be a problem, but, well, not all the people who edit there, including me, are necessarily the easiest people to get along with. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm perfectly capable of ignoring those who need to be ignored. Eric Corbett 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies if you took that as an insult, because it wasn't intended to be. Unfortunately, I guess I might be able to say that even with the best of intentions and motivations, it is possible for people to wear you down. I have certain restrictions as per an Arb case here, and I think it might be possible that someone might object were I to say more about how I would not consider it necessarily belittling to say that it can become difficult to consistently ignore conduct one is consistently given the opportunity and some might say obligation to ignore. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow John Carter- that last sentence is exhausting. pablo 10:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I write like that sometimes. ;( I guess the easiest way to say it is that I personally know from personal experience how hard it can be sometimes to ignore conduct when people might seem to in the eyes of some anyway to go out of their way to provoke you. And, although I could go into a bit more detail about at least one such instance in my own history, I am under an interaction ban here regarding one editor. So, if I were to mention that individual specifically, I might be subject to sanctions. And if I didn't specify the comment as relating to someone else, which might be seen as an attack on that "someone else," it might be construed as relating to the i-ban subject, even if it isn't. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • To simplify, are you saying "don't get involved, or you'll end up like me"? Cassianto^Talk 17:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Or more like, "ignoring those who deserve to be ignored can be difficult when they maybe seem to do little if anything but willfully get in your face," although, of course, that does not necessarily refer to any single individual or individuals. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Eric Barbour was it? I don't think I've ever encountered anybody as nasty as him on the web to date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might you be so kind as to look at MIT Science Fiction Society? I had found it a miniature-stub of sorts and reared it up to this state (note image placement etc.) at which point I asked for an independent review which left it the current "improved" state.

Unfortunately, I had thought the issue was content and not appearance - and I do not really think the improvements, are. Nor am I as absolutely certain that all articles need infoboxes as the comments on the talk page indicate - all I want is that it be a nice, reasonably comprehensive and useful article - and to that end I solicit your assistance.

I found the suggestions made to me to be ones I would cheerfully (?) give a newby editor, but I am unsure that at 40K edits, editors with 11K edits necessarily notice that I am not precisely a newby. I believe you might recall me as the idiot who actually improved Joseph Widney to GA status by cutting it down (I wot not of any other articles which reached GA status in such a manner <g>). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer the alternating images - it looks better on my screen (which is large, I will admit). You might ask @Mike Christie: as he's been working on the old sci-fi mags ... and is also someone who has worked with classes in the past (i.e. he's a heck of a lot more patient than I am... sorry!). It's probably not quite GA status yet, but in my mind it's not the pics/infobox which has any bearing on that... but the sourcing. You're going to need sources for pretty much everything in the article. Personally, I'd start the article body with the history section, but I'm a historian by training so... take that with a grain of salt. I did a couple of quick edits but Mike's got access to a lot more sources than I do (I have a lot of sci fi books, but not really anything ON sci fi. My library runs to horses and history...) It's looking good, you just need some more sourcing (and then a prose polish, but Eric can provide that...) Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I admit to pride in image placement <g> due to part of my background (way too many relatives were in journalism). I know I am missing quite a few notable members for sure - Russell Seitz, Dave vanderWerf, and a host of others - including a bunch of TMRC members (I think including Pete Samson, and a bunch of others, although they rarely attended the MITSFS meetings, they definitely borrowed books IIRC). Eric will tell you that I like brevity, however. And thanks in advance to Mike Christie if he drops in! Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted a red link in the Ritz for Peter Beatty, a horse trainer/breeder I believe who jumped out the 6th floor window of the Ritz in 1949. [9] I thought Montanabw, Sagacious or a few others might be interested in starting him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]