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.

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)

Quick look

Hi Malleus. I've provided a bit of suggestions for the CVTC article. Would you mind checking out the lead and telling me just how much more work the context problems need, for the nominator's sake? ceranthor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick, five-minute glance would be appreciated. ceranthor 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this the Cliff article referred to above? Where are your comments? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Belay that, I've found them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a good start to address the points you raise, some of which I brought up in the FAC. There's basically too much of an assumption of background knowledge in the Plot section that most of us don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I assumed was the problem. I think the context has been improved quite a bit by the new addition to the lead, and that a lot of the problems now are just with fine-tuning the prose. Thanks. ceranthor 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal

Hi Malleus Fatuorum, I enjoyed reviewing that article, it was quick easy to do (I usually have two browser tabs open: one with the article on and one with the /GA1 page). Some DKYer had caused strong irritation at the time, so I had four browser tabs open, with venom on one (not your two by the way). Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking it on, it's not the most glamorous of subjects. I usually end up with three or four tabs open per review, the extra one or two being Google Books and/or an online source that's been cited. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. As I didn't write all of the article I've listed it for CorenBot to take a look at, something we should probably consider doing for all GANs. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing Nibiru collision at /GA3 so I've asked VM to suggest 10-minutes worth of Duplication detector checks just to see what can be done in that tiem frame. Yes, I see Manchester Ship Canal waiting to be done at Corenbot - I will look at that with interest (not that I expect to find intentional matches). I've done a fair number of geo/place articles, so I suspect that some of them might appear at User:Volunteer Marek/GA copyvio spot checking with copyvios. I do try and check verification but I'm not too good at finding my own errors (other peoples' are far easier to see): and at GAN backlog drives things tend to slip through. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We can each only do what we can Pyrotec. What I'm finding interesting is the emphasis on the reviewers who didn't spot these copyright violations, as opposed to the editors who introduced them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA question

I nominated Chester A. Arthur for GA and another user who had worked on it with me started the review. I told him that it was meant to be reviewed by someone who was uninvolved, so he blanked it, but the page still exists. Are there any admins associated with the GA project who could delete it for me? I thought at first that you were one, but your userpage disabused me of the notion. Thanks, --Coemgenus (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. ceranthor 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be the only person on Wikipedia who thinks I'm an administrator Coemgenus. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I was surprised just now to see that your new pages are not "autopatrolled". I'd be glad to change that. Shall I? LadyofShalott 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I refuse to have any right that can be taken away capriciously by any individual. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. If you ever change your mind, you can hit me up. LadyofShalott 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be changing my mind. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it. LadyofShalott 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruby2010

Hello there Malleus, I don't mean to be probing, but was this really necessary? I'm not going to throw a Wikipedia civility link at you because I know for a fact that you've read it and understand everything on it, but really that sort of thing is just uncalled for. We're working towards an encyclopedia together, let's not fight. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just who the Hell do you think you are to come whining to me about your sanctimonious civility claptrap? Was it necessary? Very few things are ever "necessary". Was it is helpful? Well, it was if the dickhead keeps out of my face in future. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)