User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Talk:Feologild/GA1

Am I wrong in thinking this is something I need to take to GAR? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The only justification for a quick-fail could be that the reviewer believes that some major aspects of the subject haven't been covered. But given that your article is about five times the length of the ODNB entry, and that nothing very much seems to be known about Feologild I don't buy that. So yes, I'd take this to GAR if I were you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try the diplomatic approach on the reviewer's talk page first, see if that resolves the issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done whacking commas on the witch-bishop, so I can duck in and do my adjustments. I'm in hiding from the heat - the heat index is 40C right now and heading towards 46.1C or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I should be done later this evening. It's about 15°C here now, feels slightly chilly but not unpleasant. 46°C is unreal. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well. Apparantly I'm awful at research because there are apparantly "He is known in historic sources under many other names which are not mentioned here. Searching for documentation under these names provides additional detail that can be incorporated into this article." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, extraordinary really. Wikipedia is a strange and discouraging place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty much done worrying about it. The only reason I'm nominating these more obscure archbishops at GA is to eventually go for a Good Topic with some of the chronological sections of the ABCs. I've replied again, and we'll leave it at that. Maybe eventually I'll renom him. (I do have to contrast that review with Talk:Bregowine/GA1, where we're not working with much more information but I have an experienced reviewer who has a grasp on what "broad coverage" really means.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly GAN's finest hour. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Theobald of Bec a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

I'll do what I can to review a few more FACs and GANs Quadell. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Colonists" stepping up

Not to nag, but there are certainly items related to British history in the US National Archives, especially related to conflicts and treaties. Give it a go. :-) In fact, the National Archives' Rubenstein Magna Carta is one of the most famous exemplifications (and now I am somewhat surprised that there are no individual articles on any of the exemplifications, considering how noteworthy several are in their own right...). Dominic·t 03:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Our colonial history is certainly an important topic, and it certainly deserves better coverage, but I'm sure there are others more qualified to undertake the big tasks than me. I prefer to build from the bottom, rather than optimistically trying to pile bricks on top of clouds. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

I know you are not always in the mood to review, but I am trying to get as broad a range of opinions on Richard Nixon, presently at PR here before FAC for obvious reasons. I'll take whatever you are able to give.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty substantial piece of work, I hope someone will do something similar for Maggie one day. I've got a few other things yet to do today, but I'll try and look in later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been in the work for a while, often delayed, finally got off the ground a couple of months ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

heart and mind

• In my heart, I am exactly as you are: I want to tell various eejits to go stuff themselves (I am NOT thinking of anyone in particular here!!! I am NOT referring to recent threads!!). in fact, I often do just that, alas... In my mind, I concede defeat: we must find a way to harness the enthusiasm of the Cookie Crew, and at worst, we must find a way to redirect that energy into productive channels rather than PITA ones. My heart and mind are conflicted, but I think my mind is winning...  – Ling.Nut 03:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we're both losing, the grey goo is everywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FAR citation styles

Hi

I think I might be misinterpreting criterion 2c from the FAC.

I took it to mean that either footnotes or Harvard should be used in an article, not both. The problem is how I see the usage. The article I am having difficulty with uses <ref> for all its cites, but has cites such as <ref>Sammon, p. 211</ref>

I thought that these were incorrect, as they had commas and were a Harvard style ref, but it seems I may be mistaken. Any chance you can clarify with links to other discussions or your own experience? (I have already been pointed to Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Clarification on 2c)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly OK, a lot of editors don't like the citation templates and prefer to format manually. Ealdgyth does it somewhat like that, see Gerard (archbishop of York) for instance. I'd prefer to see either the year or the title included in the citation, as in "Owen 1983, p. 3", or as Ealdgyth does it, but so long as the style is consistent and there's no ambiguity as to what "Sammon, p. 211" is referring to there's no problem. The important point is that the citations all have a logical and consistent style, however that's achieved. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I also had to query my use of a couple of templates, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Citations, as I was uncertain as to how best to link the pages to the ref. - something I am still unsure of. It seems silly to have 30 refs to the same book listed separately under "References" when it is just the page numbers that are different. I started using the {{rp template but have run into a couple of instances where editors feel they are no good, or even detrimental. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the shortened refs format .. see WP:CITESHORT. That way you only repeat the huge bibliographical stuff in one spot at the bottom, but are able to specify exact page numbers. You can either do <ref>Author ''Short Title'' p. X</ref> or <ref>Author, p. X</ref> or <ref>Author (year), p. X</ref> Besides the examples above that Malleus mentioned, you can also see Maximian or Richard Hawes. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that fond myself of the {{rp}} style of citations, but I can understand that some prefer it, and I've got no problem with that. One thing you have to learn Chaosdruid is that whatever you do here there will be someone jumping up and down shouting that you've done it wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

AKAIK there are 6 ways to give page numbers for books or long journal articles:

• <ref>Author, p. X</ref> etc. forces readers to search manually for the work. IMO that's horrible.
• <ref name=X></ref>{{rp|n}} has the risk that the ref name and the page number(s) are split by a careless editor.
• Using different refs for different parts of the same work. Becomes unusable for both editors and readers if there many parts of the same work.
• Wikipedia:Cite#List-defined_references with {{r}}, where each use of {{r}} links to a citation and also shows a page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: shows page number (range) in the main text. Advantage: gets the reader to the work in 1 click rather than 2.
• {{Harv}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; (I think) equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.
• {{sfn}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text; sorts page numbers in the same work so that each group of refs to the name page(s) appear as ^abcdef..., as in the output of <ref name=...> - while AFAIK {{Harv}} does not sort and group page numbers, and you get a longer list of "refs". Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.

Are there other choices? --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

PS If you want realistic examples, I used Wikipedia:Cite#List-defined_references with {{r}} at e.g. Phaeacius and {{sfn}} at Robert Rossen. --Philcha (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

PPS I current use Wikipedia:Cite#List-defined_references with {{r}}, as IMO the page numbers in the main text are not obstructive and this method uses fewer clicks; YYMV. This method also plays nicely with the basic <ref name=...>, which is most editors learn first, and avoids a mixing of citation methods, which Wikipedia:Cite does not like. --Philcha (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hey. I have been watching the edits to Mavis. You really are improving it and I need to learn from someone. I have always stuggled to make prose concise. I have a request, which is, can we forget our previous conflict of interest. I actually want to work with you and come away from this review, having learnt how to better my writing. If you have any advice or tips, I'd be happy to hear them. I think a select people on here do not like to ask for the help and just see criticism as an attack. So I'd like to turn into something constructive, because you are older and wiser, I need to learn more.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, water under the bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Salvě! Malleus Fatuorum. Do you wish to do some last minute tweaks to Manchester Ship Canal before I start? Pyrotec (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to go to the library to pick up a book that'll allow me to add a sentence or two to the history section about Manchester Corporation giving up its controlling seats on the board of the ship canal company in the mid-1980s, but that's it, so please feel free to start whenever you're ready. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I made on Mavis Wilton's GA review, it wasnt anyhting mean, so you dont need to stab me in the back ;( MayhemMario 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stabbed you anywhere. You asked a question and I answered it. That you may not like the answer is no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you havent stabbed me anywhere (duhhh.....) . Look I just thouyght the answer was a bit harsh and mean, so personally I did not like it. Would you? MayhemMario 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'd stuck my nose in with the kind of unhelpful comment you made then I'd just have to take it, as you do. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here. I've spent a lot of time copyediting Mavis when I could simply have failed it. I've asked for second opinions when I could simply have failed it. What have you done exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, soaps-related articles can be a nightmare, as I found at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. Your patience is extraordinary. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mario no need to try and "stick up for me" - He's been great with the copy edit. When I do my next big contrib, all the edits I'm observing atm will be in my mind. Like with the Steph one, Frickative really helped me improve things, where writing is concerned. Malleus - would you coaching me sometime, I need concise writing skills.RaintheOne ^BAM 12:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lever Brothers is a particular example that's in need of improvement. William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme is slightly better, though far from perfect. He looks a bit crazed in the picture. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

	Thanks
	Thank you for your help with the review of the Kennet and Avon Canal at FAC, which has just been promoted. — Rod talk 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just in time for your holiday, that's a stroke of luck! :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger

As one of the opposers of the first nomination, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is ready to be re-nominated for feature article on July 30? --Boycool (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger/archive2 for a list of some of the improvements on the article. --Boycool (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't rush back to FAC with this if I were you, I still don't think it's quite ready. One of the big problems was the Plot section, which although it's now been improved, is still barely comprehensible to someone who's never seen the series. There seem to be some errors of fact as well, for instance; "based on the misconception that the CIA forced her father (Timothy Dalton), an MI6 scientist, to upload a government computer called the Intersect to his brain". You can't upload a computer anywhere, it's programs that are uploaded. Take some time to look through the whole thing again before re-nominating,, else I fear it'll just be failed again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell some parts of the plot you found particularly confusing? --Boycool (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find it confusing, I found it incomprehensible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Huff... What parts of the plot did you find difficult to comprehend? --Boycool (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For starters, how do you upload a computer into someone's brain? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The Intersect was, at one point in the series, a computer, but it was the program within "uploaded" to the character's brain. What else?

Look, this is your article, not mine. You asked me if you should nominate it again tomorrow and I've offered you my opinion. I have neither the time nor the inclination to help with copyediting, which would be a substantial task IMO. There are other things I want to spend time on. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should give straight answers, instead of ambiguous hints. If you wanted me to leave, all you had to do was say so. --Boycool (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should work on the articles that interest you, and allow me to work on the articles that interest me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When you continue to act like such a dick about this, it makes one wonder why you reviewed the nomination in the first place. --Boycool (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think gives you the right to come to my talk page and abuse me? I don't get paid for this, and I am most definitely not your fucking slave. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)