Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women with courage

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

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

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

Did you now ... that Belinda Nash researched the history of the Witch of Pungo for decades? - Teh witch from the town with a witches' tower as a landmark, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice little starter article Gerda, well done! It's interesting how one thing leads to another ... I'm sure there must be a lot more to be said about her as well.

At this interminable GGTF ArbCom case I've just been accused in the last few hours of being "contemptuous" towards women. Have you ever felt that I was contemptuous towards you? Or even contemptuous towards women in general? I've always prided myself on being what Dennis Brown described as an "equal opportunity offender", in that I don't give a rat's arse whether whoever I'm talking to is male or female. To my way of thinking, to do anything else would be both dishonest and offensive. Eric Corbett 20:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's that building over there?

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

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

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

Gotten actually dates back to the use of Middle English [1] and, although considered archaic in British English, seems to be creeping back in because of its use on American television shows. Richerman (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jimbo Wales' latest stupidity today actually made me laugh:

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

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

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

• No, you may have heard a scrambled version of the time he blocked me and I took him to RFAR over it. Long time ago (2009), but he was out of touch with community norms even then. He's worse now. BTW, he has been warned by John against "repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked". John described it as "definitely worthy of a block". [2] Bishonen | talk 19:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it's interesting how insults such as this one from an admin go unremarked.[3] Eric Corbett 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completly off topic, this is the funniest thing I've read this year[5]. Pinging our legal resident Newyorkbrad as I suspect he will enjoy it as well. Assuming he is a lawyer who likes a good lawyer joke and won't take this personally. I hate having to put caveats like this, but if you don't someone will take offense.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He never answers, just makes general promises that he hopes will be forgotten when he fails to deliver. Again. What "doubling down" has the WMF done on the perceived gender gap for instance? None? As I said on his talk page though, if he includes himself in one of the ten, then the idea might have legs. Eric Corbett 23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question may well be why the hell we of the alleged "Manchester Mafia", and those who do not have a problem with its alleged members and fellow-travellers worldwide, bother contributing? I mean, I know I plough on in pretty onerous circumstances (I've just dumped William Stone Building from an offline creation) but my desire to sing Kumbaya, spread the love and be a member of a cult is practically non-existent. Knowledge is what matters and was at the core of this thing but right now we who want to promote that are being sidetracked by a circus of people who, judging by their contribution histories, in many cases seem not to give a shit about it. Freeloaders, hangers-on, irrelevant agenda-pushers, Pooters and the like.

I really do not have an answer but some things are for sure: Jimbo needs to stop casting aspersions and making allusions, stop making unsupported statements and hoping others will do his dirty work, stop abusing his public persona for personal hippy-trip gain and learn that the thing that he will most likely be obituarised for (with others) happened many years ago and he has long since become a gaudy, noisy, embarrassing sideshow that is retained for reasons of historical communal attachment rather than utility. Some admins, ArbCom and perhaps even WMF are going to have to grow some balls if he continues in his current vein. I predict that someone will block him before much longer; of course, the block will not stick but the PR aspect of it might resonate, like a needle in a balloon. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo needs to go, and maybe concentrate on his mobile phone business. I'd be quite happy to leave if he also agreed to leave – I'd consider it a public service. Eric Corbett 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Apple could fire Steve Jobs until he grow up and stopped acting like (less of) a petulant brat, de-throning Jimbo should be a piece of cake. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the best way to not be called a cult is to not act like one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL!!! Now that's a brilliant play on words... :) --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boobrie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boobrie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Eric Corbett, on a most fascinating mythological creature. I think there's a bit of room for possible further expansion in the future, but a very nice WP:GA. Hope you and yours are doing well, — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking on the review Cirt. Eric Corbett 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Good luck finding the Boobrie, — Cirt (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another! well done! You are doing your reputation no good at all. :) J3Mrs (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know! The only thing I can think to do now to restore my credibility is to harass and roundly abuse both you and Sagaciousphil using the most vile and gender-specific language I can muster. ;-) Eric Corbett 14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well just don't call me "flower" or I shall run to mummy. J3Mrs (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, duck? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I know who says "Ey up mi duck" comes from Chesterfield, it's not you is it? J3Mrs (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecky thump! Not me, dearie ;) Now we're really confusing the non-Brits - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sithee here Sitush, tha's now on a Scarborough warning! J3Mrs (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in Louie Dingwall - she was the final member of Florence Nagle's gang - a well worthy of a page here. I've just started the page with a few holdng words (ignore the "in use" banner - that's to stop some twit deleting it), but I'm not going to be around much today, but she might be quite interesting to do. I'm posting this here because this is the page most of the content interested editors watch. Giano (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time take a look back through your own archives; I recently found a long, long ANI thread about me being blocked years ago (in a nustshell: IRC trooped out and voted for an unknown to be admin here; she then started editing and was a serial plagiarist and didn't know what she was doing wrong, and I was v cross) Looking at that thread today, cold and with wisdom and hindsight, what's most noticeable is that many of those commenting and wanting my block extended have either been banned or are now senior WMF employees. I just wondered if your records show similar things? Amusingly and nostalgically, do you remember User:TreasuryTag who you used to hate me so? Giano (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

now senior WMF employees says it all doesn't it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an e-mail address you can be reached by? --由雅なおは (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use "Email this user" in the sidebar to the left. Eric Corbett 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per Talk:Nipo T. Strongheart/GA1 you've been suggested as an editor both with copy edit skills and an interest in quirky articles. This article has a number of issues to balance in a number of ways - he was a man who stood between cultures, so sometimes outside and sometimes being something for one towards the other but also sometimes with a negative side affect. Yet he fairly convincingly rose above the challenge of dualities across several careers and opposition in various quarters from both sides yet still playing a role inside each situation. The complexities tend to make we want to write too complicatedly apparently. But I and others think it really can be shaped up into a "good article". I'd appreciate your help. --Smkolins (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that it could indeed be shaped into a good article, but I'm afraid I think that the work needed is too much to be done during the span of a GA review. Eric Corbett 00:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Humbling but thanks for your input. I csn see I tend to use subclauses and conditionals perhaps too much but didn't know my writing was so, er, not good. If you can think of another editor that might like the challenge I'd appreciate a referral. --Smkolins (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I doubt that the work can be done within the span of a GA hold period. I tell you what I'll do though, I'll go through one section and you can see the sort of work I think needs to be done, and we can take it from there. Eric Corbett 11:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't want to commit to working on the whole article to help get it up to GA standard, I was intending to do a bit of copy-editing work on the article (e.g. 'roll' -> 'role'). Do you know which section(s) you will be working on (so I know which section to avoid)? --Boson (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'll chip in then I will as well, and maybe we can do it. I'll pick one tomorrow, then you can pick another. How's that? Or you can pick one first, I'm easy. Eric Corbett 19:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a closer look at the section "Lyceum and Chautauqua", so I'll start working on that tonight, if that's OK. I think it needs to be condensed a bit (I don't think it really needs to list his complete itinerary) but perhaps some could be moved to footnotes. --Boson (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make it look like it's been written in English and I'll be right behind you. Eric Corbett

I've had a first go at one section and am now taking a break till tomorrow. Let me know if I need to fix anything I've messed up. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - k - I see a synergy developing. I've done a few minor changes but see much more in the offing. I'll try to be of assistance perhaps most by standing aside…. But maybe I can help here and there.--Smkolins (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eric, I was wondering if you wanted to make an article with me?Amanda Smalls 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me, for either of us. You're a new editor and I'm fairly demanding, so as soon as I upset you by saying something you consider to be unnecessarily harsh that will be used by those claiming that I scare off new editors. So sorry, I can't help. Eric Corbett 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about the information given on Amanda's userpage. She appears to be using her real name and gives her DOB which shows she is 14 years old. Could a passing admin give her some advice about this? Richerman (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people think I'm 14? I'm 15 years old.Amanda Smalls 20:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, poor maths :) However, it's never a good idea to give your date of birth on the internet and, at your age, not a good idea to say which state you live in or give other personal information. Richerman (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about removing the information and revdeleting the history. Haven't yet reached a conclusion, since (according to what is written on the userpage) she's older than 13. → Call me Hahc21 20:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least she could use some advice about protecting yourself on the internet. Richerman (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very uncomfortable about Amanda Smalls. I don't believe that she's who she claims to be and I suspect that she's part of some kind of sting operation. Eric Corbett 22:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe she is who she claims she is and that it is no big deal. Eric if you are worried of her I would contact the WMF, I agree with you here that her posting too much personal information could make her a target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say clearly enough that I do not believe there is any such person as Amanda Smalls, and that this whole thing is a sting? Eric Corbett 22:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a big conclusion to make though that if true would need to be addressed in the right place with evidence. If you wish to steer clear though then that would be wise as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big conclusion to make at all, unless you're a fool. Eric Corbett 22:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly? I thought this very same thing. I taught for over 10 years, and the tone taken here is almost too on-the-nose. I'd say run-don't-walk the other way. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some digging I found out that Amanda had the old username User:MirrorFreak which seems to support the theory that she chose to use her real name one day, it could have been inspired on how you were going on saying that you use your real name because you have nothing to hide, idk for sure though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking clearly isn't one of your core skills Knowledgekid87. Eric Corbett 22:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Younger teens and kids are naïve, I put forward a theory here is all. You could be right though too which if is the case then it would need to be addressed don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that a great many admin watch this page and if they feel like something needs action, they will take it. Sometimes "quietly observe" is the best action. Dennis - 2¢ 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Amanda Smalls, the vocabulary and syntax don't gell with a 15 year old. Neither does not knowing what the word "cunt" is. At all. I must say I agree with Eric here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didnt want to say a word, but I thought exactly the same thing as Eric: I don't believe that she's who she claims to be. My gut tells me that something is not right. → Call me Hahc21 23:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this is also of concern. Lately we have had a number of individuals with similar issues all over various wikiprojects and drama boards. Unfortunately most of the online information about sexual reassignment comes from the surgery industry, so there is not much information available about individuals like Nathan Verhelst / Nancy Verhelst or Walt Heyer. There is an article about Dr. Paul McHugh, but oddly enough for a medical professional who has been so high profile in this topic, and apparently so influential in changing public policy on the issue, the article only has one brief link about his work in this area. You would think the information here [6][7][8] would be of interest to anyone working in transgender topics, but there doesn't even seem to be a Wikiproject that deals with the subject. —Neotarf (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - something is all wrong here. wikipedia is not the place for a 15 year old to be deliberating about it in public...or portions are untrue and we are being played. either way is bad. I have opened a discussion at AN/I. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're mistaking, wikipedia is just the right place for users like Amanda, and of course this fact makes Wikipedia a wrong place for many others. 207.91.10.234 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:NOTTHERAPY, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and all that, but these situations are getting out of control, they seem to be getting more and more frequent, and these people are either pretending to wander around Wikipedia looking for answers, or are actually wandering around Wikipedia looking for answers. They must think this is the place to find the "sum total of human knowledge". Surely there must be some way to make a blanket response. —Neotarf (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is, but it's not here. Not unless you want to have the benefit of my views on modern psychiatric practice that is. A disclaimer is probably in order here though, I was brought up as a psychologist. Eric Corbett 01:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology--"the study of the obvious by the incompetent"? —Neotarf (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the study of the healthy mind rather than the unhealthy mind. Psychiatrists are obviously needed to deal with nutcases, but before you can understand the malfunctioning of the unhealthy mind you have to understand the functioning of the healthy mind so to speak. Eric Corbett 04:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatrists (and clinical psychologists) don't have to understand anything, all that's needed is their signature to unlock the narcotics cabinet. The useful advances in *understanding* have bubbled up from communities that are struggling with a common problem. For instance, look at AA and all the 12-step program derivatives. AA still has the highest success rate with alcoholism, maybe as high as 30%, so people just copied it without knowing why it worked, incorporated it into hospital treatment settings, law enforcement. Then with the Adult Children of Alcoholics movement (and what a pitiful article that is), more understanding happened. Various academics like Jael Greenleaf, Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse, Janet G. Woititz, and others started talking about roles that can be taken on as a response to living in an alcoholic household, for example "rescuer" or "scapegoat", that may prove to be dysfunctional outside that household. By the 90's, this pamphlet was being passed out free as part of the ACOA program, and concepts like "codependent", "enabling", "dysfunctional", and "self-esteem" had become part of the vernacular, as well as a subject for serious research. The chemical unbalances of the "unhealthy mind" still have to be treated, by tweaking dopamine and serotonin levels, and there is still much that is not understood, for example the role of hereditary in alcoholism, which has been noted in studies of twins separated at birth, but the current emphasis is on developing productive responses, which, unfortunately for the psych business, can be done by amateurs in groups without anyone collecting a fee. —Neotarf (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something of interest: File:MirrorFreak Dudes Lodge.JPG (User:Amanda Smalls/Gallery). INeverCry 03:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a picture of a 15-year-old girl? Eric Corbett 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so! → Call me Hahc21 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf this sort of trolling is old news - see [9] for starters (sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MirrorFreak Dudes Lodge.JPG was uploaded to Commons only a week after I deleted an image of this same person uploaded by MirrorFreak/Amanda, who speedy tagged it with the rationale "I don't really feel comfortable with having a picture of me on Commons (or anywhere else)". INeverCry 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Amanda Smalls account is now blocked. Eric mentions it may have been prep for a sting. I was unsure until a couple days ago whether this was "harmless" or something sinister. I switched to sinister when I saw one of their first article edits was to a Bollywood movie. This may be the latest tack of a group causing significant RL disruption on some Indic articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From his dealings with this editor above, Eric clearly knows this, but as a piece of advice to other men of a certain age (grumpy or not), if 15-year-old girls with with saccharin pink signatures start to seek your wisdom and heap you with praise be on your guard. Surprising as this may be to some, young girls do not find older men interesting. They generally prefer spotty youths with odd haircuts and extremely limited, monosyllabic conversation. Therefore, engaging with such girls as buck this trend can be a little naive. Giano (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the motivation for this sort of thing? I've noticed that some of them seem to be associated with porn, particularly paraphilias. —Neotarf (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf - if you see an account that is purportedly authored by a girl/young woman with an interest in porn and/or over-the-top sexual suggestiveness, you could assume with a fair degree of certainty that it is an adult male making socks. If you see any others, it is worth checking early history. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought for a while she was just somebody looking for some attention and guidance. I'm pretty sure @Anna Frodesiak: thought the same, she seemed to be producing some decent content. I wasn't suspicious actually until she said "Pretty, Pretty please with a cherry on top?" thing yesterday. Amanda is supposed to be 15 not 4. No 15 year old girl I ever knew would even dream of saying that. And then I saw a comment by her on Jimbo's talk page in which she used wikipedia admin jargon which seemed to indicate somebody much older than her years. You can't pretend to be a child one minute and then use that "grown up" language. Now I think about it she played pretty dumb over the Jimbo convention thing too when some of her vocabulary on Jimbo's page in looking back suggests quite the opposite. Also it seemed suspicious that she knew who that (pretty obscure for Americans) German singer was. A shame I think as she didn't seem one of the more obvious ones initially, unlike Patrol forty... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is actually an Amanda Johnson from Valrico, Florida, [10] but she was a local basketball star and likely now early 20s. She signed as an ip on my talk page the other day and she was at least telling the truth when she said she was from Valrico, correct me if I'm mistaken Risker but her ip is registered there I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just woke up (feeling lazy today) and saw that "A man, duh" has been blocked, with thanks to Risker for taking the baton for the final mile. It looks like several of us have been watching Amanduh for a week, as something just wasn't right, knowing some kind of fraud has been going on. The real pisser is that I hate to see someone use gender or sexual identification as a means to troll. It is insensitive and cruel. As for Patrol forty....that is another problem. Dennis - 2¢ 13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Patrol forty is, in my opinion, just as obvious of a bird that quacks as Amanda Smalls was. But since he's agreeing with Jimbo's bullshit, no one will checkuser him to figure out who he might actually be. Instead they're linking to that "3 steps" crap that is used to explain away "noobies" who "find" the dramah boardz very quickly. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect he will become a WMF employee soon. Giano (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took me 30 edits to find my first Arbcom case. The only one who complained was someone who didn't agree with me. —Neotarf (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took me 1500+ edits and 8 months with the first account I used. It is very unusual for "new" editors to find the drama boards (particularly Jimbo's page, which is where Patrol forty is frequenting) quickly in their WP "career." LHM^{ask me a question} 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw the account creation, but it reminded me of Heather from M People instead of Derek Smalls. Pete in Unowhere aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There's nothing to fear at Jimbo's page from this sockpuppet troll. Though Jimbo played the game with "A man duh", good ol' Knowledgekid87 was there to protect him from gentle mockery. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt his CV is on its way to the WMF as we speak! Giano (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure protecting Jimbo from any criticism is part of all such job descriptions. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look! If someone tried to "protect" me in such a fashion, under a header of a length I forgive only Floquenbeam, asking questions - not without threatening a bit - he could have answered himself, but not listening to my and your answers, - how could I escape protection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, you may be interested in this. Richerman (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies (known as biscuits in the UK) are small baked treats that come in a wide array of flavors, shapes, and sizes. No idea why I should give you those, just because. Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed nice. Just a pity that I don't feel either calm or meditative. "Beseiged" might better describe my current state of mind. Eric Corbett 19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We try an other one .. just look at them and say - after 33 or 333 years all this will be of no importance - say that like 33 times ... promise? Hafspajen (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll very likely be dead in 33 years time, so what anyone might think then is of little consequence to me. But I thank you for the thought nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one feeling besieged, Eric, although I think you're being attacked the most. You handled P40 and Amanda S well, so if I were you I'd carry on in the same vein. Nil carborundum etc, and perhaps an early pre-Christmas pint with me in town sometime - it must be two years or more since we last met up. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be getting on for two years, February last year was it? Perhaps Richerman might be up for an early Christmas pint as well? Eric Corbett 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Richerman: - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? - now I'm an OAP and semi-retired I have a bit more time. I've been worried about Sitush and wondering if I should ask if he'd like to meet up for a chat sometime. Maybe J3Mrs could be persuaded to come along and make sure we don't get into trouble :-) Richerman (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more time to find your chair? I think it was the double-chocolate stout that did for me and Boing! last time. I was reminded of it a couple of days ago when I sampled some Treason stout from Bootleg Brewery in Chorlton.

I'll email you tomorrow. For obvious reasons, I don't want to announce on-wiki where I might be at a particular time on a particular day. I'll have a word with J3Mrs also if Eric is ok with that. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that. It would be interesting to meet my alleged wife at last. :-) Eric Corbett 22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks possible that this thread might end up as evidence in the current ArbCom proceedings. Expect to be added as a party, Richerman ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Abbot Ale at 5% abv wot done for me - I'll look out for something not quite so strong this time! Richerman (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea at all what that ArbCom case is supposed to be about Sitush? I certainly don't. Eric Corbett 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really but, contradictorily, I'm pretty sure that its purpose has been usurped. I can't take today off because there is a lot of flak flying around relating to the India matter and I've got to get my ducks in a row before something happens tomorrow or thereabouts. The stress of all this recent crap, much of which is taking place off-wiki, is doing me no good at all; the ArbCom case is an unnecessary addition to it.

Abbot Ale, eh, Richerman? Very nice stuff in moderation. You should try that brewery's St Edmund's Ale, if they still make it. I don't think they ever did it on draught but the bottles used to be widely available even at the Other Place. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I've been working on the Ellen Wilkinson biography – not your cup of tea I imagine, but she was born, brought up, educated and based in Manchester for more than half her life. I've been bawled out on other articles by editors with local knowledge for getting image details wrong, so if you have time, could you check out the two Manchester images in the article, and let me know if you think they are accurate – or, at least, not obviously wrong? I'd be much obliged. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting woman. The images look fine to me Brian. Eric Corbett 10:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...but actually, on reflection, the university's main building with the quadrangle is on Oxford Road, not College Street, so far as I'm aware. Eric Corbett 10:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I'd agree entirely: that's the former Owens building on Oxford Road. I don't think College Street is a real thing, unless it is some later confection of pedestrianization and campus - er - ification. A Uni internal map might show it but to be honest it's hardly worth the candle when 99% of dogs would just say "Oxford Road" and have done with it. And now I will shut up. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. John Owens Building is a redlink, too! pablo 11:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Eric and others. I will make the necessary amendments. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps confirm that this building is in Oxford Road. There appears to be no "College Street" in Manchester; there is a College Road, but in a totally different area of the city. I have corrected the caption. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Owens building is behind the photographer. It isn't a big deal as it's not mentioned in the caption but the building shown is the Whitworth building. Richerman (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes, sorry, thanks for the correction. DBaK (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you've said pretty much the same thing but this newspaper report from 2006, by Seth Finkelstein (now seemingly inactive), struck me today:

Although he preaches that Wikipedia is built on trust and love, he can be notably unloving to those untrusting of his pronouncements ... It's not that Wikipedia participants are expected to transcend humanity. Rather, it's that looking beyond the rosy marketing picture reveals little but bureaucracy implemented poorly - including fiefdoms, cliques and sycophancy to the charismatic leader.

For all Jimmy Wales's self-promotion regarding his supposed ability to build good communities, it's apparent his skill is instead in knowing how to sell a dysfunctional community effectively. One subtext of the Wikipedia hype is that businesses can harvest an eager pool of free labour, disposable volunteers who will donate effort for the sheer joy of it. The fantasy is somewhat akin to Santa's workshop, where little elves work happily away for wages of a glass of milk and a cookie. Whereas the reality is closer to an exploitative cult running on sweatshop labour.

I'm too tall to be one of Santa's little helpers ... - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not! Richerman (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo uses words like "loving", "kindness" and "thoughtful" in a way I simply don't understand. Eric Corbett 19:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be because you have both trouser legs where they most usually are. Perhaps if one were rolled up and you tickled your oppo's palm with the middle finger when shaking hands, you'd understand. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever come across a situation where an article has been promoted to GA but it is immediately obvious that it should not have been? Is there a quick process for speedy delisting? I'm thinking of Sri Aurobindo here, which is one that I had done a lot of work on but would never have dreamt of GAN'ing because the sections that I'd not worked on were full of problems, including copyvio, lack of sourcing etc. I've made a load of corrections and taggings in the last few hours but, really, it should never have passed and I doubt it passes even after what I've done. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Given that in this case though a proper GA review was done I don't think there's any speedy delisting option available, so the best alternative is to nominate the article for reassessment at WP:GAR. Eric Corbett 16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to deal with it on the talk page at the moment but even now the reviewer has erred, adding a citation for an entire paragraph when the source seems only to support the last sentence. Being a glutton for punishment on- and off-wiki at the moment, I've also just sent William Beach Thomas to FAC - I've been sitting on that for too long. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that earlier. If I were you though I'd spice up the nomination statement a bit, to draw in reviewers. As for the GAR, if you need any help with that just give me a shout. Eric Corbett 20:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did what the FAC template said. I can't remember what I did when I put James Tod up there. I'm not good at promotion but will have a think. I might well have to go find some inspiration down the Eagle. That's my excuse for tonight, anyway ;) I'll take a look at the GAR process tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just sex it up a bit is all I'm saying. Reviewers are getting short on the ground. Eric Corbett 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe I should email an old mucker. (The bolded letter is negotiable.) - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... is just trying to wind you up, as seems to be their common style (photos that Drmies took down, for example). You know what to do. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, thanks for the reminder. Eric Corbett 22:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More excitement, Sitush? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on-wiki, as far as I am aware; it was just the usual needling from someone who seems to do little else. Off-wiki, the project-related aggravation continues but my mood is primarily despondency courtesy of Manchester City 1 - 0 Manchester United. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smalling ought to be bloody ashamed of himself! Eric Corbett 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football? There is no football this weekend--Alabama had a bye week. I hope y'all are ready for LSU next week: it's going to be hugely EPIC. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peculiar US usage of "football" has been raised at the FAC for William Beach Thomas today ;) As for LSU, as usual I lack clue: the nearest sporting acronym I know of is LSH, which is Liverpool St Helens F.C.. I've had a few decent games there, and one trip to hospital. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this Thomas person don't know the Tigers, screw him. Are you telling me you were deprived of the drama of the 2011 season, when LSU beat us and we got a rematch in the championship game and we whooped 'em bad? And DYK that some LSU players are still in New Orleans, cause someone painted a fifty-yard line across I-10? Hahahahaha! (Best football joke ever.) No one likes playing LSU--they're badasses. They barely speak English. Death Valley has to be one of the worst places to play. Plus, our coach used to be their coach, so there's plenty of hate to go around! Drmies (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FMUTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I was going to say something about LSU but as a Virginia Tech fan who just got beat by Boston College I think I'll refrain.--Church ^Talk 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight.if you will excuse a possible pun. Are y'all talking here about the sport where men wear shoulder pads and extremely tight leggings? Not to mention colourful hats and eye-shadow? - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out why you were talking about soccer. No one watches that. Dennis - 2¢ 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what the global TV audience is for the football World Cup vs Superbowl? ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the US, around 200 million vs 1,200, and those 1,200 are people stuck in the airport. And let me be honest, I love antagonizing people by playing dumb American. ;)Dennis - 2¢ 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're only playing at being dumb American? ;) That really is a joke, DB: no offence intended. The TV audience for the last SuperBowl was apparently 111.5 million, although I've just raised a query about that on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this with a Belgian friend that has moved here. He has an RV and drives all over the US as part of his new job. He said he now understands why Americans tend to be US-centric. The country IS as large as a continent, and each state really is as different as being in a different country: we just all speak English. Knowing a fair amount about the US and only the US is still a lot of information. That doesn't excuse wilful ignorance, but most people don't realize how large and populous the US is until they come here. Seeing it as numbers on a piece of paper just doesn't do it justice. Dennis - 2¢ 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Dennis (respectfully of course): I don't think these states are different at all. I mean, the landscapes are, but the food and the people and the politics and all that--not so much. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, a young whippersnapper like you just hasn't been around enough ;) I've lived in North Dakota, Arizona, Texas and other places, and have done extensive travelling. The differences aren't as big as going from France to Germany, but they are more than subtle. Even my Belgian friend remarked about this. You can't get Brains and Eggs for breakfast at a restaurant in Arizona or North Dakota, but I bet you can in your city just north of me in Virginia. NC is 35% African American, Arizona is 3%. Texas is 35% hispanic, everyone in Montana is pretty pasty looking. You can buy a joint legally in Denver, it gets you a ticket in NC, and you go to jail in Dallas. Taxes are completely different in each state, for income, gas, tobacco, alcohol, etc. California has its own auto emissions laws. I can hear the difference in a Texas and Louisiana accent, or a Virginia and Kentucky accent. You don't see Confederate flags flying in Pennsylvania, nor the "10 commandments" on many public buildings in New Jersey. Again, not as drastic as European countries, but not trivial either. Dennis - 2¢ 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if they are from Belgium. We have counties in Montana bigger than Belgium! Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but he is well travelled, all over Europe, married a Filipino woman, has been all over the world via plane. I've been to Belgium, nice place, wonderful food, and yes, but yes, the size of a good cattle ranch ;) Dennis - 2¢ 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I've never seen someone use the phrase "India-centric" in the sense that they use "US-centric", and India is a far bigger area, far bigger population and has many official languages. I think there is more to it than just size. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the "from sea to shining sea" thing, and especially out west, it is a drive of two very long days or three more-normal days to get anywhere that English is not the first language (other than a few isolated spots with either an Indian Reservation or a concentrated Hispanic community). But Sitush probably has an inkling there was that superpower thing and the Cold War. When I was a kid, we actually got taught in school that the USA was the "only free country in the world." We freely admit that we have a pretty good case of exceptionalism here. we don't admit that we also are the only nation in the world that actually did nuke another country - it was WWII and no one knew what the result would be, but still, probably is a factor! Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I'm not saying that is all there is to it. I meet people who have never wandered outside their own county (30km x 30km typical), and will jump up and down about how "them mexicans is taking our jobs!". They don't represent all of us. And I've met people like myself who are well travelled within the US and have bothered to learn a great deal about the US, but have little experience outside the US. I mean, if I drive 3500k west, I'm still in the US, that was the point. I imagine India has the same. And to clear the record, India is much smaller than the US, 1/3rd the size in fact. [11]. Like I said, most people don't realize how large it is. Dennis - 2¢ 19:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's my students you're talking about. Imagine what an eye opener it is for many of them if I take them on the annual Sigma Tau Delta trip--the kids that got lucky enough to come to Portland (OR), for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, but Americans are bigger and better than everybody at everything right? :-)? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. And we're more humble. Ironically, my introduction to Stephen Fry was due to watching Stephen Fry in America. Excellent documentary, and I love that London taxi he drove all over. I've found myself seeking out documentaries by him to watch. WilliamH used to point me to all kinds of interesting British documentaries, before he became fed up and retired. Dennis - 2¢ 20:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, Dennis: that's what happens when I descend into hyperbole :( I do, though, sometimes think that the US tradition of isolationism is a current that still runs deep in its society, despite numerous interventionist government forays abroad since WW2. Anyway, the standard comparative round these parts is Wales (the country, not the god-king): the population of X is five times that of Wales, the area of Y is 12 times that of Wales; the amount of rain this year in Z is one-millionth of that in Wales, etc. I suppose some might use Belgium rather than Wales - in the spirit of Montanabw's comment above - but square kilometres/miles and so on? Pah! (I'm off to look at that list now and work out how many Wales = one US.) - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nubar Gulbenkian, the oil magnate, used to be chauffeured round London in his own black cab. He appreciated the versatility of the thing, rather as Fry does. He was once asked why he preferred his cab to a Rolls-Royce and said, "They tell me it can turn on a sixpence, whatever a sixpence may be." Ah, the lives of the rich! - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the long and the short of all of this is, yeah, Sitush will be streaming the showdown between LSU and Alabama next weekend. Someone has to: I'll be at a conference--&$%$%^*^&*)*(&$%^&*. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is more likely I'll be feasting on a dodo ;) Can't you stream at a conference? - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a really small conference, Sitush, and I'm reading a paper. (Plus, they're all medievalists so they come from fancy Yankee schools...) It would be incredibly rude, though I suppose as a Dutchman I can claim cultural difference. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drimes, sorry to butt in with something as boring as content creation, but do you think anyone at said conference could get a hold of a few images of the Draco Normannicus? I am currently working on creating an article on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm an admin--that's below me. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nubar Gulbenkian and Stephen Fry may appreciate them, but anyone who remembers the experience of sitting behind a FX4 belching stinking fumes and screeching like a wounded animal will likely be less inclined to consider them a "design classic". There's a reason London got rid of the things. (I do not share the universal love Wikipedia seems to feel for Stephen Fry and suspect Eric doesn't either, given his propensity for plagiarising from us. On one episode of QI he even lifted the exact awkward wording from Tarrare, which ironically I'd used in the first place to avoid the appearance of close-paraphrasing.) And Dennis/Drmies, I take it you do understand just how peculiar the phrase "televised college football" sounds to anyone outside the US? (As, indeed, does the concept of a footballer at college in the first place…) – iridescent 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, great observation, although footballers are paid far more than university scholars and educated folk!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! leave our Stephen alone - don't you know he's a National Treasure? (and before you say it - no! that doesn't mean he should be stuffed and mounted). QI is one of the best programmes on TV. I mean, where else would you be shown on TV how to make a dildo? Every time I watch QI I find that loads of things I thought I knew are wrong. Then I can watch the repeats some time later and get the answers wrong all over again. Anyway, don't you know that that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? :-) And as for the college football - I should think that televising the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race must seem as odd to the rest of the world. Richerman (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People with mobility problems I presume (they got rid of them here for that reason). High-roofed Fiat Doblo seems to be the choice for many taxi drivers now. Not cool enough for celebrities- looks like a Popemobile. I got one. It fluffs up bigger than an urban Landrover at the traffic light derby. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to confirm my agreement with Sitush initial position, Neotarf brings so much more problems to the tables then the one (or none) that is there but if completely ignored it mitigates it a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, Could I ask why you think File:Little Moreton Hall garden - geograph.org.uk - 433632.jpg is better than File:Little Moreton Hall Knot Garden.jpg at illustrating the Knot Garden at Little Moreton Hall? --Baresi F (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a more close-up image that better shows the knot garden. Eric Corbett 03:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a couple of obvious points that hardly need proving, there's nothing in the text that didn't come from one of the references already mentioned. As for the essay issue, I presume that's for the use of 'common sense', which I don't think it would be too hard to prove is the expert view of a phrase like 'stand well back' and the others. In fact, one of the BIS sources actually says it's all common sense, but it's necessary because that's exactly how people get injured on Guy Fawkes Night etc, by lacking basic common sense. But by all means, if you think the article is improved by removing that, go ahead. As such, if there's nothing I've missed (and apologies, it's pretty hard to tell even from those specifically worded tags what you're actually complaining about), then I'm minded to remove them. Firework bob (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your sourcing consists of a PDF of a "media toolkit" and a flyer with one single page of bullet points. The only secondary sourcing is a newspaper article from 1971 without page numbers. Besides, I'm not sure what "safety message" really means here, though I'm sure that Eric, who's been known to light it up here and there, knows that better than me. If it just means "little piece of paper with voluntary guidelines so you don't blow your hand off", then notability comes into question. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you remove them I'll simply put them back, and if you don't address the issue than I'll nominate this article for deletion. Eric Corbett 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see I'm late to the party. The article has already been deleted and Firework bob blocked. Eric Corbett 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't take credit for chasing this one off, Mr. Corbett: it was a regular old CU block. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to give off a look of utter shock, but I can't muster it. Dennis - 2¢ 13:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think it might be possible to write a decent article on the Firework Code, but that wasn't it. Eric Corbett 14:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I got some fireworks on my talk page, apparently: look at the history. Some proxy-using idiot at work. Sitush, thanks for helping with cleanup. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask who Firework Bob was a sockpuppet for? Parrot of Doom 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Courcelles knows, he did the CUblock, in a way that seems to be intentionally denying recognition. Having conversed with the sock at RFPP, it was easy to see this wasn't his 2nd or 3rd sock, and there was an arrogance about him that only comes with experience. Dennis - 2¢ 15:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wondered about creating a "Firework Code" article, but the main point would have to be that there is no such one thing, in contrast to Highway Code or Countryside code: umpteen different organisations (ROSPA, fire brigades, councils etc), each list something they call "The Firework Code", but they're all different. (OK, undoubtedly a lot match, but I didn't spot any on a quick Google: number of bullet points seems to be about 9-14). Still could be an interesting little article: when was the term first sighted? Is the concept unique to UK (minus NI) because we have the tradition of back garden fireworks and also Health&Safety? etc. No time for it right now. Busy week with fireworks (a) at my late Mother's care-home where I'm on the "Friends" (preceded by hotpot supper and sticky toffee pudding), (b) in back lane of our terrace of houses (annual social event of the year for the occupants of the 9 houses), and (c) at the pub, on 3 different nights. And right now a Christmas cake to take out of oven. PamD 17:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Another important aspect to cover would the background of the need for a code, number of firework-related accidents before and since its introduction for instance. For myself, although I've bought quite a few boxes of fireworks I've never bothered to read the code; I just read the instructions on the firework. Sometimes. Eric Corbett 18:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is a non-UK centric article, here is a worthwhile source that has some info about this side of the pond.[12] Codes vary by state/county/city here, and often will depend on whether there is a drought in an area. If at all possible, work in the Bart Simpson phrase "Tijuana toilet cracker", which is most like referring to an M80, which is (supposedly) large enough to blow a toilet off its foundation when lit and flushed. They are illegal in the US but is potentially available across the border in Mexico. Probably no encyclopedic value, but I just love the name. Dennis - 2¢ 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  One of my pet hates is those generic articles constructed as lists: Firework code in the US; Firework code in the UK ... Eric Corbett 18:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The code was brought in around 1970, I would have a look on Hansard to see if it was debated around that time. For instance. Parrot of Doom 18:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also look for a Firework Safety Code, as debated here Parrot of Doom 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Satan is getting rebuffed again: "If then His providence / Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, / Our labour must be to pervert that end, / And out of good still to find means of evil." Drmies (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today being election day, I could make a joke out of that quote pretty quickly. I did my part, voted and now going to get drunk due to depression over my choices. I live in the district with Thom Tillis running against Kay Hagan. We haven't seen a soap or car commercial in 6 months, just commercials of these two calling each other asshats, over and over and over..... The most expensive Senate race in history, over $100 million [13], which explains the non-stop commercials. I have never seen a political race this vicious in my life. Dennis - 2¢ 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not even RfA? Eric Corbett 21:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Being a Brit, I can forgive you for not being familiar with our politics, but RFA wouldn't have been on this things radar. You Brits know nasty politics as well as us yanks (and watching the House of Commons go at it on the floor is comedy gold sometimes), but this wasn't great, nor grand, it was Epic. With a capital E, plus mushroom clouds, hammer of Thor, cinematic music and everything. They truly went nuclear. In the US, if you are running for office, pretty much no libel/slander law can touch you. You can pretty much get away with calling your opponent a pedophile if you are both running for office, all under the 1st Amendment. You never, ever see lawsuits won, or even filed over false claims, the courts will kick them out. Dennis - 2¢ 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Dennis--for something to be "epic" there has to be something at stake, something important and honorable. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • When did "money and power" cease to be enough? Dennis - 2¢ 16:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put another way: Imagine you ran for RFA and they suspended all civility and NPA rules for a week. You still aren't in the same neighborhood. THAT is how nasty this thing got. Dennis - 2¢ 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        I have run for RfA, and all civility and NPA rules were suspended for a week. You can have no idea how irritating it is to be repeatedly called "immature" by a bunch of spotty kids who're yet to leave home and find a job. Eric Corbett 22:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Observer points out that it will be the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta next year (15 June 2015) and suggests there will be various TV and radio programmes (and books etc) to coincide with the significant date. I note this article regularly gets 150,000+ page views per month and this is likely to increase. It was listed as a Good Article back in the early days but was delisted in 2006 and has gone downhill since then. It is also listed on the Vital Articles for Society and Social Sciences. Would you (or any of your talk page stalkers) be interested in helping to get it to at least GA or even FA standard before the anniversary?

I'll have to wait until I see what ArbCom comes up with in the GGTF circus. Eric Corbett 22:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Runnymede article is in a pretty poor state too. Although it only gets less than 6,000 hits a month it is important as the place where the Magna Carta was sealed and it may be of more interest to our American friends with the JFK memorial on ground given as a gift to the United States and the Urban H. Broughton memorial. Richerman (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to antagonize you or push your button. I mean this seriously and in friendship. Please take it that way.

There are lots of debates about your civility. Some (I think including you) say your behavior is not uncivil. Others say it is uncivil, but your contributions outweigh any problems (and in any case, other's issues/drama are more important). Some say you are uncivil and not worth it.

Heres the question : Regardless of your own position on that question, you agree those are the opinions out there right? Do you know the stuff that you do that some identify as a problem? Is that stuff so integral to your Eric-ness that you could not exist/participate with out it? (Or worded another way, could you realistically choose to not do those things?)

Again, regardless of your own opinion, or who is "right" about what is wrong with wikipedia - if the alternative is getting indeffed (which as an outsider seems like a strong possibility), why not do a mea culpa and toe the line so your good contributions can continue? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you mind your own business, and I'll worry about mine? Eric Corbett 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sigh. Because the line is wrong? Why should some people have to bow to the shout-y rabble who contribute little here? And that includes Jimbo. Honestly, Gaijin, as much as you might mean well your very first paragraph indicates that you realise this is likely to backfire on you. Why poke, however well-intentioned? - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, Nurse Ratched? Parrot of Doom 15:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The line may be wrong. I specifically mentioned the others issues/drama position as one of the possibilities (where I was implying Jimbo and some of the others involved). My point was is taking a stand over where the line is worth getting banned? Because that seems to be the result, regardless of if its right or wrong. It certainly could be that Eric does feel it is worth it. If so more power/props to him for standing by his convictions. In any case, I'll bow out now. My intent honestly wasn't to poke here, and I'm sorry it backfired. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is very touching, but I'm not going to discuss this with you or with anyone else. Eric Corbett 15:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't your efforts be better used elsewhere Gaijin42? You know, on that little known thing called an encyclopaedia? I appreciate that this comes secondary to incivility hunters like yourself. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, play nice please. Gaijin is one of the good ones. Their efforts here may be misguided, but Cassianto, they're not an "incivility hunter". Gaijin, you'll have to understand that your message, while well-intended, can be perceived as a bit patronizing. Thanks, and enjoy the (properly coded) GFN fireworks, Drmies (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies. Eric and I have made up offline, but I do certainly see how my attempt above could be mistaken for baiting and being patronizing. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, you are one of the good ones. Oh! Eric! This reminds me--I showed the girls the Dead Parrot sketch the other day. They thought it was funny, so there's still hope for mankind. I don't think they really got the Ipswich/Boulton bit, but hey. It's deep. Actually, I have a student from Boulton in my class this semester: he can't seem to pronounce the letter "t". I mentioned to him I know lots of smart people in Manchester but he didn't believe me. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Bolton. At least on WP, many from there seem not to like people from Manchester. Actually, a lot of people on WP who are not from Bolton have the same apparent problem. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The T seems to be disappearing from British English amongst the younger generation - I think it's called the glottal stop? So a lot of kids say they have a "compu'er" they got from a "ca'ologue". My kids tried talking like that when they were at secondary school but they didn't get away with it at home - the only problem was the other kids at school thought they were a bit posh. Personally, I find it difficult to pronounce words without the T sound. Some years ago I met some cockney football fans in Manchester who asked me how to get to Bowen (with the O pronounced as in wow) - it took me a bit to work out they were looking for Bolton. Richerman (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like in here. Yes, Richerman, you are correct: what you signal is called Glottalization and if that was a gut feeling of yours, about the younger speakers, your gut is in fine shape: "In urban dialects in Britain glottalization has spread and is common in the speech of young adults." Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During my lifetime it seems always to have been common to people from the rougher parts of Salford (which traditionally was most of it, outside Worsley and bits of Brough'on etc). That set me in good stead for the expansion you refer to: lipreading people who use the glo'al stop can be a nigh'mare but I was exposed to it from a young age. Thinking about it, does the same apply to dropping the "g"? - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why they do it, though. Here in the US, there's a sports talk radio personality that calls Peyton Manning "Pey-on Manning" and it just drives me crazy. How is it hard to say "Peyton"? Tex (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with kids I think its a deliberate attempt to speak like their friends to fit in and sound cool and with some people, as they get older they never learn to speak properly. Funny thing is I hear my daughter now correcting her children when they speak like that. I always used to wonder why kids always seemed to gravitate towards the the lowest common denominator in the way they speak, rather than the scallies learning to speak better. Then I heard a rather brilliant Jewish aphorism in a radio play: "If you drag your sleeve in the dirt, the dirt never gets sleevy". :-) Richerman (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now discussed this posting with Gaijin here's a brief summary. Gaijin was concerned that I was about to be banned as a result of the GGTF ArbCom case, which isn't beyond the bounds of possibility, and that prostrating myself before the great god Jimbo might in some way reduce my punishment for whatever crime I didn't commit. And to be fair he has a point, as ArbCom has a history of diverting cases to suit their agenda. Eric Corbett 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric is still here Gaijin so obviously he can't be that much of a problem, otherwise Jimbo would have used his "power" to have pushed a ban by now and would have concentrated on that, rather than mingling in with the London highflyers. Reality is that he needs Eric as a scapegoat for his campaign, he's a public speaker, not an encyclopedist at the end of the day..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there are still "100 accounts from British Newspaper Archive and hundreds for Highbeam, Questia, and JSTOR" on offer tells us all we need to know about the general lack of interest among too many so-called editors about creating content. Perhaps there's more of a quick adrenaline rush in civility policing? Eric Corbett 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic but my biggest issue for the longest time was finding articles to write about and improve, and then basically learning how to edit and improve content. So I stuck to Vandalism fighting, NPP, and things like that. I guess I have you to thank for several years ago helping me through my first DYK and reviewing an article I had up for GA. In short you gave me the kick in the right direction and I thank you for that, Eric. --Church ^Talk 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! Jimbo Wales has a completely different view of me and my relationship with inexperienced editors. But then he does need a cause for his disciples to gather around, and I suppose I'm as good as any.

I'm pleased to see you taking an interest in the Doctor, but sadly the main author was banned a few years ago. Maybe together we can address your issues? Eric Corbett 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an interest in American Football (Which I believe you've said in the past you don't) feel free to take a look at Aaron Rodgers, I'm in the process of sourcing the Achievements and Awards section. Slowly but surely mind you, but I'm getting there. --Church ^Talk 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a quick look, there's way too much detail in there, more like a biography than an encyclopedia article. It's hard to trim your own stuff, I know, but it badly needs trimming. Eric Corbett 21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write half of it, so to me it's harder to go about trimming it but I'll definitely give it a look. Thanks!--Church ^Talk 21:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR has been a godsend to me, my only misfortune is to have had an extremely busy year with work. I just haven't had time to do much here of late. There are so many topics to write about too, like the Cadaver Synod for instance. Parrot of Doom 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "extremely busy" = "loadsa money"? Doesn't sound like a misfortune to me. Eric Corbett 21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love that picture in the lead of the Cadaver Synod BTW. Only the Catholic Church could come up with a hoot like that. Eric Corbett 22:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well put it this way: I haven't had to worry about paying bills this year. In fact I'm very content with life right now. I'm only concerned that I'll forget everything I've read about that baby farming business and that that lapse in memory will make finishing the article difficult. I agree about the Synod image, but there are all kinds of Catholic relics knocking about that are just like that - skulls, bits of skin, etc. Just look at Oliver Plunkett's head. Nutters, all of them. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair these are new accounts they're offering - all the ones they had before were taken up in a couple of days. I've had my name down for over three months for a BNA account and I'm still waiting. I've just put my name down for a JSTOR account now some more are available. Richerman (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]