Archives

2007
April May June July August September October November December
2008
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2009
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2010
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2011
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2012
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2013
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2014
January February March April May June July August September October November December
2015
January February March
Molon labe!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have maintained from the get-go that Eric only afflicts the comfortable, I've yet to see him snark at newbies. Every now and then he can let the snark get out of hand and a bit of shrapnel hits a mostly-innocent bystander, but so can most of us. The real issue here is not the "feminists" generally (remember people, I identify as one myself) but rather a sub-group of people with issues, some of whom also claim to identify as feminist, though in my book all but one or two of the "Get Eric" crowd in question seem to use the label as a way to gain sympathy and not out of any actual interest in building content about women or in fighting the real fights that real women face in the real world. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are agenda-monkeys hiding behind a socially acceptable label so they can get some cover for their activities. To me the sad side of this whole affair is that they've by and large been able to get away with it. Remaining silent in the face of their "we are feminists" cries only gives them more legitimacy in the eyes of those who don't look deeper into the issues. Of course, that's just my view on it. But the ease which which they were (and in some cases still are) able to lurk behind that protective cloak does give me pause. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said it! And I was calling them on their crap from the get-go, to no avail. The problem is also that people like me are also hobbled by not being able to use that particular identification without it being linked to the lunatic fringe. It reminds me of my real life where I also frequently have to qualify some of my views with the caveat, "but I'm not one of the people on the lunatic fringe and don't dismiss me by stereotyping me there!" The labeling allows people to shut down all discussion and just fling mud. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women can be frustrating but try not to get so angry about it. You're missing out. Women haters, gamergaters, not sure why you exist. You're wasting your lives away in hate. Popish Plot (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't, no. a much more vicious character. Eric Corbett 14:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I've made some suggestions about how to improve the article on its talk page. Richerman (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted a red link in the Ritz for Peter Beatty, a horse trainer/breeder I believe who jumped out the 6th floor window of the Ritz in 1949. [1] I thought Montanabw, Sagacious or a few others might be interested in starting him, if you can find enough on him that is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say jumped, was he riding a horse at the time? Now that would make a good DYK :-) Richerman (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be quite something LOL! I'm not sure there is enough on him though, I think he was a horse trainer for Agar Khan but google books isn't picking up much, perhaps the newspapers have more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK with y'all if I post this at WikiProject Horse racing? If this is in the UK, most of the active members there are Brits and they may be able to find something. What article is this in? Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found him while expanding The Ritz, London, in the WWII section. Sagacious has made a great start on him! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll see if I need to do any equestrian wiki-gnoming there. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doorknob747 20:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

removable if you want. Doorknob747 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want to stay as far away as possible from the risibly named Arbitration Committee, which has never arbitrated on anything; its only purpose is to hand out punishments. It matters not a whit whether you're guilty of whatever it is you're accused of, the overriding concern is a quiet life. ArbCom was created by Jimbo in his own image, and showcases many of his own flaws, not the least of which is stupidity. Eric Corbett 05:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the female response (about Kafka as a realist, especially in The Trial) is on my talk, look also for the AE reminder there to stick to two comments in a given discussion, - wish that would be passed more freely. Imagine how much more content could be written if everybody would stick to two comments on talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the server space that could be saved if everybody would stick to two comments, we wouldn't need fundraising drives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that fundraisers are needed now is to pay the salaries of the incompetents at the WMF, nothing to do with server space. Eric Corbett 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there are a lot of people living very comfortably on the back of this volunteer-written, free encyclopaedia, while contributing virtually fuck all to its content. Keri (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Keri said! Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's main page FA is Exhumation of Richard III of England and over the last few days an admin with over 10 years experience has made some of the most inept edits I have ever seen in a featured article. I have asked him to stop, but once again he has been adding information with just a bare url as a reference - something I've asked him not to do already - see:Talk:Exhumation of Richard III of England#More bad edits. As I'm getting tired of cleaning up after him what's the best way to put a stop to this? Richerman (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're referring to Anthony Appleyard? Sadly I don't think there's anything you can do except to continue to clean up after him; he's an admin and he holds all the cards. If you complain you'll find your yourself branded as disruptive, and ultimately blocked to teach you to display the proper respect for your superiors. Eric Corbett 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Former arbitrator, checkuser and oversighter" trumps admin, if someone wants to play that "mine's bigger than yours" game. I've given a warning on the article talk page for the moment, as hopefully this is just a good-faith misunderstanding as to what's considered appropriate content on Wikipedia. (The standards of Wikipedia were far lower back when Anthony Appleyard passed RFA, and if he's been away for a while he may genuinely think he's being helpful.) If the issue carries on, let me know and if need be I'll dish out a formal {{uw-point}} warning. – iridescent 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for that. I tried giving him the benefit the doubt for a couple of days but eventually your patience runs out - especially when someone's buggering up the TFA. Richerman (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for telling me. I have been looking just now at Template:Cite web and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I will have to read them more. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you haven't already seen it, Anthony, there is a nice little cite tool in the editing toolbar. In my opinion, it is much more convenient than typing the code manually. --Biblioworm 23:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Richerman: The answer is always to find another admin who does know how to edit, (like iridescent *waves to iridescent*), and have them handle the situation. All admins aren't alike, just like all editors aren't alike. Even though Eric seems to still believe we're all power hungry mongrels :), I can assure you we aren't (well at least the majority IMHO). Hell, I've been rebuked by my fellow admins many a time for screwing something or other up. And, then I made sure to not make the same mistakes twice. - The only time it becomes an issue is if the admin refuses to change or comprehend their failures. Then we have a problem... but it looks like Anthony Appleyard is listening now, so our system of a distributed hierarchy seems to still be working. - By the way, feel free to let me know if anything like this happens in the future with someone else... I'll happily lend my assistance. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. Much of my time logged in to Wikipedia has been spent in obeying history-merge and page-move requests that need pages to be temporarily deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I asked the question on Eric's talk page because I knew if he didn't have the answer one of his page watchers would. Anyway, I've just been watching a recording of the interment which was very moving and I'm feeling quite mellow. No hard feelings Anthony. Richerman (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I poked my head over at Wikidata... and noticed some errors. So I fixed them. But ... it appears Wilfrid was a citizen of the United Kingdom, even though he died around 709, because most of my changes got reverted. For some reason, even thought the Wilfrid article on EN is well cited, they are only pulling references from the Italian and Russian language wikipedias. I'm so glad that they are working so hard to get infoboxes into everything so that wikidata can be accurate and stuff... so they can then turn around and push data from Wikidata onto EN. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be vapid, but it's relevant. About a minute in.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who won't actually watch it...there is a phrase that says Twat means something different in England..I seem to remember someone somewhere saying that or something similar...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've become rather tired of Americans trying to claim ownership of the meanings of various words, and censoring their use as a result. For instance, I've never seen an English person complain about the use of the word fanny, even though it means quite a different thing in England and America. And it's not just so-called vulgar terms at issue here, as Dr. Blofeld will know after being accused of racism when he used the word monkey. Eric Corbett 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, my own view is that if a word offends someone, try to avoid it. For example "fags" might be cigarettes in the UK, but it's a serious insult to gay men here. There are some things where the context matters - it would be unwise to say "Paddy Wagon" in an Irish pub, for example, or "he Welshed on the deal" - those are examples of things where Americans have a term with racist implications and no clue how offensive it actually is... Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's pure conjecture to assume that the word welsh (alternative spelling welch) has anything to do with Wales or its people. Too many people look for excuses to take offence. Eric Corbett 12:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd immediately assume "Welshed" was referring to Wales and its people. I'm sure most words could be considered offensive in various different places. A "monkey admin with a gun ready to shoot me down for the slightest thing" or something similar to that is very clearly referring to a trigger happy admin with lack of control. If anything though as Cassianto rightly said it's probably offensive to monkeys to compare that particular admin to one... Often we don't know if something is offensive to one person or not. I associate monkey with "mischievous", not an ethnic minority. It's more racist to me that somebody would even associate them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the word isn't Welshed, it's welshed. Eric Corbett 12:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this "red preview" for Melissa McCarthy's new movie the other night. I have a nagging suspicion they showed the best stuff in the trailer (as is the case in most crap movies), but that part did make me laugh, mostly because it reminded me of Eric. Some people get offended by certain words. Some people get annoyed with the thought police. Louis CK has a segment (easily found on youtube) about "faggot". If someone is offended over the use of the word in the non-homophobic way, their only legitimate complaint is crassness. But as we've seen all too often here some will seize any opportunity to take offense. That's 100% on them. Eric, it's not an "American" issue. You just dealt with a few nitwits who happen to be Americans. The ocean is not a barrier to crazy.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words only have the power you give them. you assign the shock value or the appreciation. It's all perception. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that; words have power. We can choose how we respond to them, but that doesn't negate their impact - if you actually called me a certain set of words to my face, I could pretend they had no impact, but they still would. I also find it interesting that a lot of people who dish it out and call other people oversensitive can't take it when they are called on their own stuff. I recently watched this and thought it quite interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oi mate, over at Wikipedia they have just compared you to an admin... Cassianto^Talk 09:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Minkey with ginger whiskers. Rings a bell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed the entry of that 1934 cartoon from list of adaptations of the Hansel and Gretel story. That cartoon is indeed based on the story. What's wrong with it? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask what's wrong with that whole section of the article. The basic point of an adaptation is that it retells the story in a different medium, rather than re-imagining it. Added to which that entire section is an ugly and uncited bulleted list. Eric Corbett 01:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon seems to retell the story. Therefore it does qualify as an adaptation. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what was said. The actual entry simply said that the cartoon was based on the Hansel and Gretel story: "The 1934 Oswald the Lucky Rabbit cartoon The Candy House is based on Hansel and Gretel. The character of Hansel is played by Oswald. Eric Corbett 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the word "based" implies a derivative story that simply uses some elements similar to another story? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that yes, as in this case. Eric Corbett 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user who made that entry probably had a poor choice words on how he added to the list. I mean when I read the article itself, what it's about does qualify as an adaptation. 172.56.17.221 (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point. Eric Corbett 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gerechtigkeitsspirale, do you, Eric, or the guests of this talk show have ideas regarding the translation, - both literal as poetic? What is falsehood? Is it what Falschheit means, saying something knowing it's wrong, like Betrug (fraud)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next word questioned was Gerechtigkeit, - I was sure it meant justice, but righteousness came up also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, your usually pretty vocal. What are your thoughts on the differences between men and women? I mean, men stand up and go to the toilet and women sit down. Is that why they generally live longer do you thinking? 164.39.151.107 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any scenario in which it would be prudent of me to share my thoughts on that subject with you. Eric Corbett 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wise man, this anon IP is clearly just a troll out looking for drama. (And I can say that). Probably a banned user who is jealous that you aren't! Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it shan't have been prudent for Eric to share his thoughts on this IP's question, perhaps we should at least call it out for its use of grammar. "do you thinking?" For shame, I've blocked the IP... but I should lengthen it for butchering the good queens English. — Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, what do men do standing up, women do sitting down and dogs do on three legs?
Shake hands

Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, dude! You almost gave me a heart attack with that signature! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ CoffeeWhy are you using Jimbo Wales's name in your signature? Where's your self respect? Is it really intended as an April Fools? I'd say you're more the April Fool for impersonating him :-)! 6:45 "I am active as an editor of wikipedia" ... Does everybody else here pronounce wikipedia as wikeepeedeea with heavy emphasis on the "ee" sound or is it just a Jimbo/American thing? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's had a stern heads up on WP:AN and his talk, all his edits have been "fixed" and I've told him that saying "oops, my bad" will go a long way. Still, I've been having too much of a giraffe today myself. In answer to your question, I generally pronounce it "dram - uh - board". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce that drummer bird --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: alternative WP:Great Dismal Swamp --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of those - WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES, WP:CESSPIT, WP:Dramaboard, WP:HAPPYPLACE, WP:POPCORN, WP:PITCHFORKS, WP:WARALERT, WP:Wikicourt, the list goes on.... though Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils is brilliant Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference: ours is pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. Blofeld: Perhaps I am. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be all sorts of useful tools before the WMF took over and set up its Tool Labs, which hardly ever seems to work. What do others use these days to check for dead external links for instance? Eric Corbett 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click on 'em :( - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've had to resort to doing. Hardly a step forwards and a bit of a time sink when you're trying to do a review. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the WMF's remit is to make life as difficult as possible for editors, or perhaps just for white male editors. Eric Corbett 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Dispenser/Checklinks (which is WP:CHECKLINKS). I don't know the details but there was a struggle concerning use of free/non-free software, or something epic. The result is that the tools still exist but they run on the author's website which means they are not subject to the WMF's rules, and users need to trust the author. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that 10 questions for Jimbo link I posted above Jimbo mentions what a brilliant developer Brandon is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jimbo qualified to judge? Eric Corbett 13:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to think Brandon is the best! Might explain a few things... The Jurassic web design...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely mystified to what on earth the technical issues were / are with Checklinks. The software has to retrieve a page, parse a template (which you could more or less do with a bunch of regular expressions, no parse tree required), open it up and report the HTTP status code. That does not sound like brain surgery? Or am I missing something terribly obvious? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the WMF that's missing something terribly important, chief of which is competence. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run Checklinks against Snake Pass, which appears to be OK. ;-) Eric Corbett 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks no longer appears to be available. Scrub that, I found it here. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time deciding which hook to propose for the DeYoung Red Diamond article. For being a rather short article, it has several interesting facts. Here are a few ideas:

• ...that the DeYoung Red Diamond is the third-largest red diamond?
• ...that Sydney DeYoung purchased the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, at a flea market?
• ...that the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, was mailed to the Smithsonian Institution uninsured in an ordinary box?

I know that several experienced content creators frequent this page, so I though this would be a good place to ask. Thanks in advance for everyone's input. --Biblioworm 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can supply them all in the template and have it discussed in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I've noticed that the selected hook defaults to the top one if there is no discussion on the nomination page, which isn't exactly what I want. --Biblioworm 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to sex those up a bit. What's the diamond worth/insured for? What did DeYoung pay for it? Eric Corbett 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any available information on that, but I could try to look for it. --Biblioworm 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should scrap the first option as not very interesting, but anyway, in all cases you need to specify that it's the third largest red diamond in the world or ever found. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "ever found" over "in the world", because "ever found" is more subjective and still leaves the possibility that there may be larger red diamonds that we don't know about. I agree that the first hook isn't very interesting, so I'll strike that. Here's another idea:

...that the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, was originally mistaken for a garnet?

--Biblioworm 15:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems rather certain that Eric will be blocked again (look two threads down), and seeing that the talk page may be protected, I'll just go ahead and nominate the second hook. --Biblioworm 02:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BUt it's not a female, not even a female horse. Long dead American, actually, but still a bad boy. If you and/or your talk page watchers could look over Monroe Edwards, he's going to head towards FAC soonish, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bump? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forbidden to comment on RfA or the GGTF, but nevertheless I want to sign off by commenting on both.

RfA is a vicious travesty that ought to have been stopped long ago.

The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.

Now block/ban me, and see if I care. Eric Corbett 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, since I'm here, I might as well make a point: if you observe recent (in)activity at WT:GGTF, you can conclude that it's being slowly abandoned because people just don't care about the sort of activism not justified by any demonstrable problem, so it will only die its natural death by abandonment. On the other hand, Eric, you fell victim of a quite similar fallacy of your own: you spotted a piece of unjustified activism and immediately took the bait of opposing it by all means available, which eventually attracted (already too high) attention of trolls, admins, Arbcom and His Majesty to your case.

Morale: Don't feed the trolls. While largely undervalued, silence and ignoring by the wise are quite powerful weapons against losers whose sole purpose on this planet is to be paid attention, the more of it the better. And you sinned by givin' it all too much to them.

Go, and sin no more, my son. Let your sins be forgiven in the spirit of the Easter. No such user (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting also to notice that after all the palaver about a women-only space there is virtually no activity at the Kaffeeklatsch, as far as I can see (just one topic which wasn't about the Klatsch itself), and in 2 1/2 months just six editors have signed its pledge. Most of us are too busy building the encyclopedia. PamD 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But No, Eric, please don't reply to this post! PamD 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time wounds all heels.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	We've come full circle today with one of your first major contributions, Sale, Greater Manchester being today's featured article. I don't care what anyone else says, your article work should always be appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support that, but appreciate also encouraging work ("chin up"), firm stance ("oppose") and language clarification (for example my "alleged long history" vs. "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that your love of infoboxes is about as certain as it is Eric being a great content contributor. Nothing "alleged" about either of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To tell me that I love infoboxes feels more offensive than four-letter words, and more offensive than calling my user page a place of hostility. The question is "warrior" or not, not emotional attachement or not. Proof of an edit war has not been provided, and will not be provided, because it's a myth. The closest was Sparrow Mass, in case you want to search. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're really showing your true colours now! If anybody here can keep a straight face and say "Gerda doesn't like infoboxes" I'll be most impressed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be my lack of language. "Love" is something I reserve for people, trees, flowers, music - living things that is, not boxes = reasonable tools for some people that don't hurt others, - call that "like" if you have to, but not "love". Don't box me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to create drama, I'll just point out that the presence or absence of an infobox was not a topic of conversation on Snake Pass' recent GA, and the removal of an infobox on Piccadilly has not been a showstopper either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ... that the contralto Maria Radner, who died in the Germanwings plane crash, performed Wagner's Wesendonck Lieder at his villa, Wahnfried?

You probably know that Wahnfried translates roughly to peace in madness. Meeting the article when routinely looking at new articles for project Germany made me sick. See what grew in collaboration, - I did little, but nominated and asked questions. I am passionate about people, and I love collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie. It's like a blast from the past, and a reminder of why my RfA failed back in 2007. Eric Corbett 11:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding a word to your comment. Please feel free to change it, and accept my apologies, if this was not the right thing to do. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of gunning for FA for this, that would be quite some achievement to see her featured. What do you think folks? Open a peer review? It's definitely comprehensive anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Florence would make a plausible FAC, so I'd say go for it! Eric Corbett 14:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly been very well researched. Amazing really what all of us found and discovered on her together. I feel quite confident that it's a worthy candidate. I've just nommed Castell Coch though, perhaps we could wait a few weeks? We could open a peer review on the weekend and keep it open a few weeks and then nom?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a peer review would add much of value at this stage. I'd suggest that Sagaciousphil make the nomination, as in my mind it's largely down to her that it's in the state that it is today. Eric Corbett 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sagacious should be the one to nom it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just rescued this most unsavourable chap from speedy deletion, hanged for bludgeoning a cinema owner to death with an axe and being seemingly notorious enough for his own file in the National Archives. He's been dead for 80 years so I think we can put WP:BLPCRIME to one side, but it still needs sourcing. Who fancies helping? Hopefully the BNA will have something, and National Archives files tend to be quite full of salacious gossip if you look at the right ones. I realise Eric won't want anything to do with this as he's such a calm, peaceful chap, but maybe one of you stalkers might? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic that ought to be renamed to something like The Bow cinema murder, as it's not really about Stockwell at all. Eric Corbett 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just needed to confirm a title in sources, but The Observer called it the Bow cinema murder in 1934, so we'll go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't know how much you've used the BNA archives, but some of its search criteria seems to be a bit hit and miss. I've found two major contemporary news pieces on the murder, but one has the title "The Bow Kin Em A Murder" while the other has "The Bow Kinema Murder". No wonder I can't find anything. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting distracted when I use the BNA archives, there's so much there. BTW,the story as currently being related isn't consistent. We're initially told that Hoard was hit with the axe after he opened the door to the cinema, but later it appears that he was hit only after he tried to stop Stockwell leaving with a suitcase. Eric Corbett 17:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the content appears to have been added by an IP here without adding any extra sources, which means either they have access to the book and TNA file that I don't, or they just knew about the incident (a quick search suggests it was part of a crime documentary on TV about 10 years ago) and wrote about it off the top of their head. The claim of Hoard being attacked immediately from opening the door came from the Simon & Schuster source this evening, and says, verbatim "On opening the door, he [Hoard] was attacked by an assailant armed with an axe". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen this, great job on salvaging it and interesting case. Yet another unwarranted speedy, when are people going to wake up eh Aymatth2? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well look on the bright side eh Blofeld, at least the article has ended up in a better shape than its subject material! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has definite promise, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to defer to your judgement, but I'm not so keen on starting sentences with "But" (with the exception of "But for"). Is that something which is OK? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a myth propagated by primary/elementary school teachers that starting sentences with conjunctions ist verboten. Eric Corbett 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'll leave it for now, but it may end up getting reworked come FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Eric Corbett 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]