{{trout}} [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
{{trout}} [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
*Interesting also to notice that after all the palaver about a women-only space there is virtually no activity at the [[User talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch|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 [[User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch/Pledge|its pledge]]. Most of us are too busy building the encyclopedia. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:11, 5 April 2015
The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.
A request that's totally not connected to females and their problems. Can you pop over to Kedleston Hall, and click on the thing that tells you how to pronounce it. I've always thought (and pronounced) it Kedleston to rhyme with kettle then 'stn' rather 'ston' with the emphasis on the 'e' as in kettle. However, that pronouncing thing makes a great deal of 'lest.' I suppose native speakers may know otherwise, and as you are from those wilds that are north of Watford, you may just happen to know. Giano(talk)17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's now sorted [1]. At least I know now that whatever my accent is, it's not Derbyshire. Talking of accents, I do have one (I'm told) although, I agree with you all, it's hard to believe - so it's good time to say this, English people have no idea how irritating it is to those of us phonetically challenged, when they keep saying "Sorry?" (and are clearly not) and looking at us as though we are half-wits. FFS say "what" or as my middle son's girlfriend says "Wassat" (hopefully, she won't last long) or "I have left my deaf-aid at home" or even: "speak properly or go back you foreign bastard." Whatever, just something I thought I'd mention at this opportune moment. Giano(talk)18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keddùlstun. But how useful are these pronunciations? Who says "Dudley" like a… like a… like someone who comes from Dudley? Last time I heard some of 'em talking, I thought they were Swedish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I object strongly to foreigners trying to tell me how to speak the Queen's English. If you went to Gloucester or a hundred other places and tried to tell them how to pronounce their place of abode you would soon get short shrift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.216.137 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock required now!
In view of the recent finding on ANI that Coffee's blocks are unsound, heavy handed and often unjust, the time has come to unblock Eric for the reasons posted here. Coffee publicly eating humble pie is not helping Eric. Giano(talk)20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any unblock would be irrelevant now. For all practical purposes Coffee's block is effectively expired, as I don't edit on Mondays anyway. But Coffee's naivety has made it very clear to me that Wikipedia and I are fundamentally incompatible. Obviously I think I'm right and equally obviously so do those such as Coffee and those who support his actions. I see no middle ground, it's a bit like the police trying to force an innocent man to plead guilty for a lesser sentence. What's equally obvious to me is that the increasingly elastic ArbCom sanctions against me are stretched beyond any reasonable breaking point by a group of editors that the administrators are, for whatever reason, reluctant to deal with. I suppose it's much easier just to chuck blocks at the likes of Giano and me rather than address the underlying issues. So, regardless of any further blocks, or extension of this current block for speaking my mind, I won't be back on Tuesday as per normal. In fact, I won't be back at all unless and until I see some resolve to address these problems by, for instance, blocking the right people for once. EricCorbett16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The suppression of free speech by these ArbCom sanctions is a complete anathema to me, as it ought to be to any right-thinking person. EricCorbett17:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well hang on: It seems Coffee has deleted his pages and gone, LB said farewell to ANI and RO about to be blocked. You's better edit tomorrow before everyone changes their minds. Giano(talk)17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was of a mind not to return today until a few editors had been properly dealt with – I don't think that Coffee running off is anything like good enough – until I saw this latest posting from Ironholds.[2] In a nutshell, anything that makes him unhappy makes me happy. EricCorbett12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, however inappropriate Coffee's blocks were, we wouldn't want him doing something to himself in RL if he's encountering issues as claimed in his edit page space.. I know I wouldn't want to be responsible for that sort of thing, and you never know with some people.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee makes his own decisions, I'm not responsible for anything he does. If he's unable to make rational decisions for whatever reason then he ought not to be an administrator. EricCorbett13:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12:59 am <Ironholds> if Eric and Giano didn't have gender discussions to compare to the Gestapo or offend or inflame, they'd find something else, because they are essentially self-centred trolls. 12:59 am <Ironholds> it's not about gender, to them. It's about why is nobody nice to them?
I wonder if that's the same IRC where a few years ago I was assured I was never mentioned? probably not. Apparently admins only use it for emergencies and matters of vital importance. Is that this User:Ironholds or is there another? I'd rather be criticised for what I say openly here than moaning and winging off-site behind people's backs on IRC and Wikipediocracy. Giano(talk)18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well not being as handsome as me, you've never had the cache and in that I've enjoyed, so you wouldn't know. However, thinking about it; have you ever compared gender gap to the Gestapo? I don't think I have. I have privately thought that, in some people's odd minds, denying or doubting Gender Gap seemed akin to denying some realty horrible other things; but I'm always very conscious of Godwin's law, or at least some people's love of applying it, so I tend to avoid Nazi analogies. Giano(talk)19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, someone will doubtless provide the diffs if one of us is "guilty" of such a crime. Perhaps it was me, without realising; I do have a tendency to break into other languages without being aware it. That can be misconstrued. Were you here when a poor old friend of mine was banned as a vivacious, dangerous sock because some half-witted Jimbo-sanctioned-mailing-list decided anyone who spoke German was a danger to the project (I exaggerate not)? He was actually one of greatest DYKers and politest Englishmen I have ever virtually met, and was personally devastated - he never returned. Giano(talk)20:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't no, but I have seen the ability to speak a foreign language used as behavioural evidence in sockpuppet investigations. EricCorbett20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Ive just had ten minutes wallowing in nostalgia for the dear old Wiki days, and came across this edit. It's obvious why an "approved" mailing list labeled him so vicious and dangerous. Dear old !! furiously stomped off years ago, with just indignation, but has anything changed since he made that edit? Giano(talk)20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He came back less than 24 hours later, or has he been "away" again? - I don't really follow him. At the time, I shut up because I was advised that he was troubled - perhaps he is - who knows? One thing I do know, is that if there was anyone at the top of the Wikipedia tree with a gram of social responsibility, when an editor announces those sort of problems, he should be receiving some help and advice especially regarding his admin responsibilities from the Arbcom/Foundation/whoever claims to be in charge. Such incidents can be neither good for him or the project. Anyway, I don't want his problems on my conscience, so I shall say no more. To answer your final question: With vast experience of these matters, I doubt an arbitration case would be beneficial to anyone. Giano(talk)18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made this edit to tighten some of the language of your user page. Since you're now using the Eric Corbett account, the old language read kind of strangely to me. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my change, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it's not your place to start altering another user's page. I'm sure Eric is capable enough of tidying his own prose. CassiantoTalk20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cassianto. User pages are part of the wiki and they're intentionally openly editable. I think we can presume that Eric is capable of reverting on his own if he disagrees with the edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A user can have what he or she likes on his or her user page. There is nothing offensive about it and I fail to see what it has to with you. You appear to be warring now. I suggest you leave it until Eric comes back tomorrow and you can ask him then. CassiantoTalk20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cassianto. I broadly agree with you regarding user page content. I don't know what you mean by offensive or why you're mentioning it. Is there a specific problem with my edit? I made a helpful and constructive edit that you've now reverted several times without good reason. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(un-indent) J3Mrs: Baiting? By updating the text to reflect a username switch? What on earth are you talking about?
Yes baiting, an action calculated to cause a reaction. You got what you wanted but not from who you expected. Now play the innocent, I think that's what you're supposed to do next. J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I improved some user page text and left a note explaining my edit. Guilty as charged! Just for the record, which part are you playing? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride, I agree that leaving a note was commendable, but I'm not sure your changes to Eric's page were in any way necessary. In general, we don't edit the user pages of others unless we're reverting vandalism or teasing someone we know very well — neither seems to be case here. I don't think you acted in bad faith, but neither do I think you should pursue this any further. ---Sluzzelintalk21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sluzzelin. Thanks for the kind and thoughtful reply. We edit user pages for all kinds of reasons, in my experience. Typo fixing, links updating (category, disambiguation, file), gallery expansion, sometimes discussion, etc. In my opinion, one of Wikipedia's great strengths and beauties is open editing, including user pages, which is unlike Facebook or Google Plus or similar. I replied a bit more below. I agree that this situation is likely unfixable. I'm shaking my head at edits like this, though. Sheeeesh. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who is right, both of you have been around long enough not to edit war over another user's user page no less. Please stop. Thanks. GoPhightins!21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcB's version of the wording comes over as much more aggressive than Eric's original, and it seems totally inappropriate to make a change like that to another user's page. If you think the wording needs a change, leave a note on the talk page to suggest that change. Don't mess with another user's user page unless it's clearly an attack page, copyvio, etc. PamD22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why on a Monday?
MZMcBride, you may edit my userpage. But was it pure accident that you edited Eric's userpage on a Monday, the day he himself doesn't edit, per the top of this page? Bishonen | talk22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Cool, thanks. I might take you up on that. It seems there's lots of editing to do, even outside the article namespace.
Honestly, I didn't realize Malleus had quit Mondays. I did notice the auto-generated user talk page notice about it. I'm still not sure I understand the underlying philosophy, but I have no issue with any user self-imposing blocks or bans, temporary or otherwise. It didn't factor into my day.
I ended up here, for what it's worth, from some ancient Raleigh meetup page, which led me to Coffee's user and user talk pages. I then read up on Coffee and I admonished him a bit. Then I headed over here and re-skimmed Malleus' user page, noticing it read as though he was still editing as Malleus. I did a bit of research and then made what I still think was a pretty good edit. I shouldn't have reverted, but the experience felt pretty off-putting and felt kind of patronizing. Leaving a talk page note about user page edits is something I learned to do as sometimes people miss the edits, largely due to the way MediaWiki notifies the user (talk page edits --> orange notification; user page edits --> maybe a watchlist notification).
I think it's best to leave the person a talk message suggesting they update the user page at their convenience, instead of making the edit yourself unless it's for some reason urgent. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was never an argument NE Ent, just a warring editor who thought it was ok to go round and adjust the tone of another users page in order to bait. I would have thought that my reverts would have been justified. Happy Tuesday!CassiantoTalk06:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impressed
I don't check in on wiki much, but whenever I do (it seems to have become only a handful of times per year), I always check to see if MF is still around. You, Mr. MF now EC have outlasted many a horrible, tool-happy power-hungry admin headcase, and I always smile when I see you still plugging along, editing things that you like, helping editors make things better in your own way, with your own style, take it or leave it. You're still one of my favorites, I'm glad you're still here (and I'm glad to see you age like a good porter) and I would still without question hand over my admin tools to you if I could (and only if you'd find them useful). It's shocking that I still have them; almost as shocking as having ever received them in the first place. Ah well. Enough from me - back into the woods I go. Be well good editor. Keeper | 7602:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. I add infoboxes to hundreds of articles without even a question. How many "fights" did you notice in 2015? I saw none. Arguments on six, including a very strange "closing", on Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Bardulf would be the one I'd go for first I think, a stronger lede and overall balance in the main body than some of the others, although Josce de Dinan probably looks the most like a featured article without reading them!♦ Dr. Blofeld14:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "novice" writes
Dear Eric: I'm a novice Wiki writer, and recently visited the Walter Scott page, where I found some of your work. So I'm writing you about a reaction I had. There is a nasty hit piece about Scott in an area there called something like "Influence on education in the US." It is quoted from a 1990s book called "Unrepentant Leftist" and is very critical of Scott. It amazed me how this otherwise excellent article about a literary giant was suddenly thrust into the nastiness of our current political polarization. I don't think the entire US education system and the widely-admired work of an author from the early 1800s should be indicted due to one man's experience...especially since the important sounding "Influence on eduction in the US" surely deserves more research that this! Can you do something about this..I'm not a huge Scott fan or anything like that, but it occurred to me that whoever put that there is simply pushing his or her political position against a major literary figure...and doing it without any additional evidence. Thanks for listening, and thanks for all your good work. Blueridge12 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, Scott had more influence on US education (and politics) than many other writers; he's the only one I can think of right now who even comes close to Shakespeare and Dickens. Also, to say that this passage is "critical of Scott" is pushing the point--it is critical of the ideology expressed in one of his poems, and with some validity, to put it mildly. I don't see how this has anything to do with "our current political polarization", whichever polarization that may be. Blueridge12, it cannot be that all praise is objective and all criticism partisan politics.
On the other hand, the section is woefully underdeveloped, and any discussion of Scott in the US ought to begin with his readership in the 19th, not the 20th century, and particularly that in the "genteel" South. What it needs is more, not less, and that will help alleviate the undue weight that the passage now has (it needs to be trimmed anyway). It is a fascinating topic, worthy of a doctoral dissertation or a monograph--if that hasn't been written already. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR25121661 is interesting, and seems like it develops in a regular Yankee partisan way, until we get to the part where the author says "Negro slavery, like most other institutions, had its vices and its virtues." Drmies (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Enthiran
Hi, any chance you could give this a copyedit and check for MoS issues? I gave it a considerable edit yesterday but really needs an expert copyeditor to give a thorough edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be more work than I'm looking for in the current "let's see how we can twist anything Eric says so as to justify another AE report and maybe get him blocked for a month next time" environment. EricCorbett19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't. But I'm still not looking for major work, even though I suspect that this nomination may well fail without my help. What's in it for me? EricCorbett23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will say one thing though. If I can't help enough during the current FAC, I'll certainly help before the article is nominated again. Can't say fairer than that. EricCorbett04:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fair, I've advised Sven to withdraw, largely because I don't think it'll pass this time. It needs a clean shot at it, and once it has been fully copyedited and outstanding concerns have all been addressed. I've seen the film, it's actually quite enjoyable, bizarre, mixing typical Bollywood-style dance with sci-fi, but entertaining nonetheless. Certainly more watchable than some of the generic superhero ones churned out by Hollywood at the moment.. Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) could also use some decent editors checking the prose quality before it heads off to FAC. I've put a fair bit of work into that myself trimming it and making more comprehensive. It gets over a million hits a year I think see [4]. I think it's in generally good shape, but the minor MoS glitches I always have a job spotting.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:44, 15 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. EricCorbett10:47, 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. EricCorbett14:44, 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. EricCorbett15:15, 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. EricCorbett16:02, 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. EricCorbett15:38, 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]
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. EricCorbett22:40, 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]
I think the WMFs attitude is best summed up as "We should do something. This is something. Therefore we should do this." pablo10:10, 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. Intothatdarkness13:41, 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]
That is correct. Eric is free to return to Wikipediocracy any time he wishes. His account is disabled at his own request.→StaniStani17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that my resignation last year had nothing at all to do with any of these suggestions:
Apathy to Wiki politics.
Visceral dislike of WPO's perceived mission, which they see as the destruction of WP.
Fear of being outed or harassed by scary, scary WPO people / fear of their IP address being connected to their account name and misused.
Personal antipathy to taking criticism of WP off-wiki, believing that discussion should happen internally.
Fear of running aground of Wikipedia rules about canvassing, personal attacks, outing, etc. if they participate.
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]
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 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]
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]
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 - Talk11:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I admit to pride in image placement <g> due to part of my background (way too many relatives were in journalism). I know I am missing quite a few notable members for sure - Russell Seitz, Dave vanderWerf, and a host of others - including a bunch of TMRC members (I think including Pete Samson, and a bunch of others, although they rarely attended the MITSFS meetings, they definitely borrowed books IIRC). Eric will tell you that I like brevity, however. And thanks in advance to Mike Christie if he drops in! Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted a red link in the Ritz for Peter Beatty, a horse trainer/breeder I believe who jumped out the 6th floor window of the Ritz in 1949. [5] I thought Montanabw, Sagacious or a few others might be interested in starting him, if you can find enough on him that is.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:19, 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. Blofeld20:39, 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]
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. EricCorbett05:37, 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]
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. EricCorbett13:40, 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]
How do I deal with an admin who doesn't know how to edit?
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. EricCorbett16:04, 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. – iridescent17:11, 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]
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. --Biblioworm23:49, 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]
Invitation
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, Eric Corbett,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
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 - Talk23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:
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!)
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. EricCorbett00:25, 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. EricCorbett12:05, 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. Blofeld12:44, 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 porkMakin'Bacon04:26, 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]
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. EricCorbett01:05, 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.EricCorbett12:13, 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]
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]
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]
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?
@ 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. Blofeld12:59, 1 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? EricCorbett19:55, 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. EricCorbett20:00, 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]
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'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:
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. --Biblioworm21:15, 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. --Biblioworm21:52, 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?
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 - Talk00:50, 4 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.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 seconds for mentioning GGTF when you weren't supposed to mention GGTF. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Wait, I'm not an admin... Too bad. And it's almost Monday. 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.
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. PamD23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]