User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 27 July 2014

"Lager, so much more than just a breakfast drink"
— Sign in the Pheasant Pluckers pub in Southport, England

Coal mining terminology

When we wrote Bradford Colliery, I think you suggested a glossary of coal mining terms would be useful, and since then I've been very gradually compiling one. I have looked at a few lists and just about every one is formatted differently and I have no idea what NOTOC means. Any guidance would be welcome but I did think of a title, Glossary of coal mining terminology. Is it possible to link every term or would I have to do it by alphabetical section? Sorry to be so dim but I've only been here for five years :( J3Mrs (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at how WikiProject Equine set up Glossary of equestrian terms. We're rather pleased with it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOC means no table of content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Glossary of equestrian terms that Montanabw mentioned looks like a good model to follow. Eric Corbett 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that one, thanks all. J3Mrs (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

horses, by definition, can't carry out "manual labour"

Good point (though to be fair they can't normally stretch their backs, glue little kids to themselves, transform into naked sexpots or talk either). Did you see my suggestion/question on the talk page? Belle (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and my first impression is that the engraving looks nothing like any description of kelpie that I've seen. Eric Corbett 11:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but it is a horse spirit/demon and commonly used (yes, yes, citation needed, let me get in there before anybody else). At the moment the article is quite clear that the kelpie is a horse spirit and if it does take human form it is almost invariably that of a man, but then has illustrations of women draped languidly over rocks. ("Kelpies traditionally look nothing like these images" might be a good caption). I do appreciate it is a bit of a rock and a hard place situation ("stuck between no illustrations or tangential illustrations" doesn't quite have the same ring to it) and I expect you've already looked for free pics of weed-draped horses with their hoofs on backwards. Shut up, Belle, you are just being annoying now. Belle (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental problem I have with this image it that it shows a creature that's half man half horse, whereas kelpies appear either in human form or equine form, not some mixture of the two. I expect that Sagaciousphil will have a view on this as well though, and she may well disagree with me. Eric Corbett 12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An orobas is not a kelpie - it is something entirely different and has no connection to it whatsoever. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, for something completely different, great work on Enid Blyton! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was hard work, but it goes to show that men like Dr. Blofeld and I are quite capable of writing decent articles about women, doesn't require a woman to do it. Eric Corbett 01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wouldn't have pulled that from it, but sure! Seriously, again, congrats to you and to Ernst too. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather fed up being regarded as of less value than a female editor simply because I'm male. And I've yet to see what subject areas would be enhanced by the attention of more female editors. I've worked with female editors on subjects ranging from mining and industrial archaeology to cannibalism, and they seem to think about stuff in just the same way that I do. I'm not saying that the demographics of WP editors doesn't need to be addressed, but I don't see gender as being the most important of the necessary corrections. Eric Corbett 02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nicely done, and do stop whining about the girl thing. ;-) You aren't part of the problem, with articles like Blyton, you are part of the solution. ;-) The systemic bias problem on wiki has nothing to do with content creators, and it has a lot to do with idiots who insist that we need articles about every guy who ever played cricket in Sri Lanka but question if an Olympic equestrian competitor is notable. Recentism is also a problem, just saved a 19th century steeplechase rider - and a guy, to boot - from an AfD brought by someone who felt the fellow was getting insufficient hits from Google... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton: precious again! Dr. Blofeld and you are quite capable of writing decent articles, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it on the main page, a pity there's not a free photograph of her or one of her more notable books though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

"... because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing ..."

My first instinct on reading the FA today was to change "alleged" to "allegedly". The latter would be more conventionally "grammatical," but the former somehow sounds better to part of me, so I didn't make the change. Your thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) I am not good in grammar, but my instinct tells me that the adverb "allegedly" would have to go with a verb, not "nature", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, an adverb is used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Here, "alleged[ly]" is modifying the adjective "unchallenging." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning, - I didn't know that adjective thing, interesting aspect. - Different topic: we are approaching the anniversary of me being welcomed to the club of infobox warriors (26 June), - the latest topic on my talk, quite enjoyable so far ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, both seem arguably "correct" to me. I do have a preference for alleged though, which in the sense it's used here I'd say is a past participle rather than an adjective or adverb, and therefore perfectly OK as it is. Eric Corbett 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning more grammar, I think it is not used as a past participle here ;) - I would probably try to escape by wording something completely different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to think of a example: "her alleged long history" might question that there was a history (never mind long or short), while "her allegedly long history" might question the length of a history not in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now should it be on the background of my alleged long history or allegedly long history as an infobox warrior? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "allegedly long", implying that it might actually have been short, or is it that your long history is alleged, and may even be non-existent? Eric Corbett 22:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that - in other words - what I tried to say above? (alleged relates to "history", allegedly to "long") And now to the question: is my history short or non-existent? I don't remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much exactly what you were trying to say above. What's being alleged? That you have a history or that it's a long history? Eric Corbett 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was admonished to better conduct myself and not use WP as a battleground, but they didn't tell me how. I know that I earned the title for Sparrow Mass. I said that I didn't think that I deserved it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it, who really cares about admonishments? Or even knows what they're supposed to be? You go around expending a lot of effort in trying to support other editors, but maybe you should spend a little bit more time on yourself as well. Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I don't care, I actually came to love a restriction to two comments, it should be handed out more generously. - I still wonder, however, how I got that label. - Be assured that I don't do a thing here that I don't do for myself and my dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's all good then. :-) These kind of restrictions don't always work in the way that they're intended to I don't think. I'm still restricted from taking part in any threaded discussion on any RfA or RfA-related page, which means that I can vote or say whatever I like but then don't have to respond to the screams of outrage if I should oppose a popular candidate. Not that I bother voting at the popularity contest known as RfA any longer, but you get the idea. Eric Corbett 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea ;) - I haven't formally thanked the arbs for their collective wisdom, next week, there's music in the air first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelpie: precious again, and two more in the pipeline! - recommended Sunday listening: Psalmen Davids, cleverly published (on the same page later today), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a refreshing change to have an article like Kelpie as TFA for once!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How refreshing to chat in a moss, compared to ACE ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Eric, if you have some time to spare would you be able to give Rape during the Rwandan Genocide a bit of a polish please? I was asking Drmies about the reviewer for GA vanishing and it was recommended I ask you to tidy it up, as I suck at grammar. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time. I'm going to have very little time for WP over the next week or so, and may not even have Internet access. Eric Corbett 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, whenever you have the time, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Eric's stalkers

Hey all you who follow Eric's talk page: I could use a new set of eyes to do a general copyedit at 'Chrome's article - or comment about their observatons at the talk page - before I take it to FAC. I had a good peer review, but only one person, and I feel like everyone else who has helped me watch this article (including me) is bleary-eyed. It came out of triple crown season with over 500,000 hits (whoa!) and as I was updating it almost daily, I think there is now stuff in there that isn't needed any more now that we know how the saga ended (this round, at least until August or September) but I honestly can't decide what. I'd normally request the Corbett review, but as he is clearly a busy fellow, I'm also good with any trusty, reliable sidekicks. Blofeld? You interested? Anyone else? Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent and impeccably sourced at first glance, but I'll give it a full read this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. It is excellent and impeccably sourced (grin), but a couple of copy editors have caught typos, and more to the point, I don't know if it is boring or redundant. Montanabw^(talk) 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to read it later! Too late though by the looks of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put it up for FAC yet, and informal PR can continue at article talk (and is). If you'd prefer to be an FAC reviewer, that would be OK too. Whatever works for you. Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A baby on your doorstep...

Mermaid biology is an interesting and seemingly sourced little tidbit, been marked for merge for some time and is orphaned. Some said to merge in 2007 (per archives) but that is too old to consider. The main article Mermaid is a GA (that GA looks weird, I only see one person at nom and reviewer both, but maybe I'm wrong). It is a fairly complete article as it is, so I don't want to go mucking about and diminishing the quality. A merge could be no more than cut and paste with proper attribution. Leave alone and remove merge tag? Boldly merge and redirect? Take it to the talk page and start one more discussion on the topic that others there seem to ignore? A great many editors whom I trust lurk about here, so I hope you don't mind me asking you and your posse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I am working the 1960s article, which is taking more time than I expected but I'm trying to keep everything bulletproof with sources. It was a very different decade, so the format isn't remotely similar to the 1950s article on manufacturing. I'm just adding semi-rough prose and cites for now, but there isn't enough there to start the clean up yet, but when you get back, I would appreciate if you could take a look at style and format to make sure I'm not getting off the path here. I really want it to be special. Hope you are finding some good use with the time off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising Dennis! Look forward to seeing the final result! One of major reasons why I'm attracted to 50s and 60s American cinema so much is the cars and look of the film!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I need to make time this week to work on it some more. To properly cite it to GA standards from the start takes some effort, although I'm not necessarily going for any pips. When I was in high school ("79-"83) many of those cars were considered cheap junkers, could be bought for £150-400 all day long, in more or less running condition. I never got to own a 1965 Chevrolet Impala 2 door, but always wanted one, an SS would have been nice but any would do. Owed a "68 ($400, clean with 307cid) and "69 ($275, clean with 327cid), both 4 doors. Any of the "65-"69 2 door models would be acceptable. Just saw a 65 SS in great shape for around $32,000. Ouch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, in 1977, my folks got me a 1965 4-door Impala with less than 100,000 miles on it as my first car. Literally had been owned by a little old lady. A little old lady who had been convinced by the salesman that she needed a "good big engine for the mountain passes" in Montana. Ah yes, it was, I think, a 325 or 327 (whatever the little number was there on the front panel, started with a 3... , all my friends who got old beater Impalas mostly had the ones labeled 283 or 2-something... Even though an automatic, I developed a sub-specialty of smoking out of stoplights against the fellows who thought they were hot stuff with their Cameros, Sunbirds and Firebirds... ah yes... the good old days. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge

I guess I took your recent comments on my talk page as a sort of challenge. Anyway, I've expanded Capesthorne Hall and wonder if it is worth submitting it for GAC. If so, would you be so kind as to offer comments, and maybe copyedit? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) Having had a quick look, I would try and see if you can get more of a variety of sources in the article. There's quite a bit of citation bundling in the middle and large portions of text are cited to the National Heritage List for England. I'd mix up your sources a bit as it helps cancel out an errors or POV that can creep into an individual one. The author of "Anon" for the "Guide to Capesthorne Hall" looks a bit strange - we'd probably want to know if that was a good independent source. A couple of the image captions are a bit short and vague, and for an article of 16K you probably want a lead of around two paragraphs, so you'll need to trim down what you've currently got. I think B class is a fair assessment of its current state. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the "Anon" author applies to what was the "official" guide for visitors to the house. Is that not a reliable source? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ritchie333 Many thanks for your comments. I really appreciate the time and trouble you have taken. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Eric Corbett See what I mean? Don't bother. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've not been around to help Peter. I'll have a look at Capesthorne Hall later. Eric Corbett 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's on a break at the mo. I'm sure he'll help people who genuinely want to improve articles, he always has done, but he can't improve every article everywhere. Chill. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Peter was getting at me, rather referring to a discussion we've had periodically about whether it's better to focus on a few GA/FAs or to improve a broader range of articles. Eric Corbett 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the DM sinks to new low depths with this. Clooney calls them "the worst kind of tabloid" and says "They cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting violence."! He might have a point you know.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you've seen the Daily Mail headline generator, Blofeld? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I like it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generalising....

I wouldn't assume there'd be a problem with Nuckelavee based on the other and similarity with topic matter. I've found it seems pretty ad hoc which articles one will strike trouble with. e.g. medical articles are a headache but astronomy ones I've found pretty smooth....however Alpha Centauri was one where I was reverted by someone who knows more than me about it but insisted on an odd layout...and will likely require considerable diplomacy in the future if I ever decide to attempt to improve it....aah well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there would be a problem with nuckelavee at FAC, it's a fine article well worth a bronze star. I just can't be doing with what happens after articles are promoted. Eric Corbett 15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True - the timing of that was a headache for sure. However, that can happen any time to any article. At least with any GA/FA point there is a "stable version" that can be referred back to, so in my line of thinking it drives me to "park" whatever I've spent significant time working on at an audited point somewhere so in the future I can quickly check where the article was when I'd finished with it by comparing that revision with the current and then going from there (though this is the point where the removal or addition of paragraph spacing really screws the ability to compare paras). But yeah I can see the frustration - I can't see it happeneing with Nuckelavee but I guess no-one thought it'd happen with the other. hmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, FAC is a significant effort sink, not always with a compensating payback. Sagaciousphil and I have set ourselves the ambitious target – perhaps overly ambitious target – of producing decent articles on all of Scotland's mythological creatures, and we need to concentrate on that rather on bronze stars and their fallout. Your comment about audit points is well made, and one I entirely agree with, which is why nuckelavee is now at GAN, as will the rest of our efforts be in due course. Perhaps in the fullness of time we'll move them on to FAC, but not for now, too distracting. Eric Corbett 21:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know all too well re effort and how things can spin out of control. Good thing about quiet articles is they tend not to erode anywhere near as quickly so one can come back after a time with fresh eyes and generally not have to do much cleaning up, if any. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Element FAC

Hi Eric. I addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fifth Element/archive1. Thanks for your comments. Don't feel obligated but I thought there would be no harm in asking if you could have a look at anything else that may need improving in order for you to support this nomination. I'm happy to exchange reviews quid pro quo; i'll review something of yours in exchange for you reviewing this nomination if you like, just let me know (i'm assuming that is allowed, this is my first FAC nomination so wasn't too sure what to expect). Anyway if you're not interested or too busy no worries, have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll be nominating anything else at FAC for a while, so don't worry about that. I'll have a read through your article later. Eric Corbett 11:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you

	The Secret Award
	Eric is the secret fairy of Wikipedia (well guarded secret) . Maybe you can find him among these. Unless he doesn't have a Blue cape. Hafspajen (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, but you're more likely to find me in this image. I'm the one in the red cape at the top of the picture. Eric Corbett 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus? Nice to meet you. Hafspajen (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is just another mythological creature as far as I'm concerned. Fervent Christians or Muslims might want to unwatch this page, as I have no time for either. Or even for religion. Eric Corbett 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider him mythological but then again just another of the tens of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans back in those days, many with the name of Yehoshua. I've heard that roads were lined with such corpses when times were tough. But I can't figure out how anyone has any idea whatsover what this guy looked like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pick your choice -> File:CompositeJesus.JPG. Hafspajen (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

…one painted by Henry Ossawa Tanner- never heard of him til just now. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is bad presentation of a good painter, Xanthomelanoussprog, he is much better than the paintings shown there. I had a certain feeling I should be doing something for him - for quite a while now. Hafspajen (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Eric! Hope all's well. Not sure how busy you are nowadays, but if you can find the time, would you mind leaving me some comments for Harry Glicken? It's been a long-term project and I'd like to take it to FAC soon-ish, but I need a little more feedback. If you're too busy, of course I don't mind. Thanks. ceranthor 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and listed it at FAC. Would appreciate any feedback. ceranthor 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

Regarding this edit, in U.S. usage the apostrophe needs to be there because "being" is a gerund—if a pronoun were substituted, it would be their being found, not them being found. Does current British usage differ in this respect? If so, I'll make a note of it; I write perhaps half my articles in British English. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with gerunds or differences between American and British grammar, of which there are rather few despite the impression one gets from that being so frequently used as an excuse here on WP. Would you, for instance write "the children being found" or the "children's being found"? I would also point out that in the context of the relevant sentence – "Fokke Sierksma commented in 1960 that the evidence of fires, plus pottery fragments and the figures being found together" – it would make no sense at all to substitute "their being found " for "the figures being found". Eric Corbett 17:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If it were a gerund: "The children's being found outdoors, alone, at that time of night was concerning", US grammar would require the possessive. If it were a present participle: "All the bodies have now been accounted for and labeled in place, the two children being found together in their bedroom and of the three adults, one in the hallway and two in the den", the apostrophe would be incorrect. The possessive with gerund is required by correct grammar but widely disregarded in common usage, which is why I ask: some such things have actually been abolished, or were never enshrined as rules, in British English.

I'll have to check the source, because if what was meant was "that they were found with pottery fragments", that's what the sentence should say. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like the standard of teaching in American schools is lamentable. And the fact that you're uncertain now what the sentence actually means is rather telling. I bet you were even taught that it's "i before e, except after c". weird, just weird. Eric Corbett 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am unable to see the source. Presumably Bloodofox could. The version after his last substantive edit was this; with the next or the next-but-one edit, I tweaked the sentence to supply a plural subject for "make" in the quote. So I've now fixed that problem a little less elegantly and put back his wording. Pity - I suspect "found together" and "male and female" are the same point and if so, would have liked to simplify that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction of usage - sorry if my examples are less than clear, but your response tends to confirm that it's not a distinction made in British usage, which was my question :-) (The spelling rule of thumb is a useful one but have no fear, I was also taught to watch out for the words for which it is invalid.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it would be be quite common to see a phrase such as "the children's swimming". The difference here is quite simply that the figures (or whatever is actually being referred to in that sentence) in no sense own "being". But this is just pissing in the wind compared to all the other problems with that article. For instance, what's the evidence that the timber from which the figures were carved was chosen "carefully", as opposed to just chosen? And how could the figures result in any theories? Eric Corbett 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its having been carefully chosen was taken from the cited source; don't blame me for what academics write '-) ... I presume the fact we have the figures has given rise to theories; there you may well wish to rephrase. Hope that change I made helps. Unfortunately I didn't originally write that sentence and Google won't show me the cited passage. Them's the breaks. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has tenure at some kind of academic institution doesn't guarantee that they're playing with a full set of marbles. Eric Corbett 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) children's swimming seems quite unusual to me as it requires swimming to be a noun-verb, but I suppose nounification makes sense in a "habitiual action" sense ("the children's swimming was always boisterous"). My reading of the original edit is certainly that the fire, pottery, and the figures were all together, not that the two figures were together unrelated to the fragments or fire, but without the original source who knows which is correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a "noun-verb" is exactly what a gerund is. Eric Corbett 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is a discussion at ANI involving recent edits by you.[1] Lightbreather (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to be more about you and your prissy militant feminist friends. Eric Corbett 13:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN?

Eric, following my recent "success", I thought I would have another go. What do you think of this? Is it worth a go at GAN? If so would you be willing to apply your usual skills at ce, etc. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 [[File:Floral arrangement of petunias in Columbus, Ohio.JPG|thumb|Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it saw the ANI thread about Eric was "''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|Oh no, not again.]]''"]]
 There is a discussion at ANI involving recent edits by you.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack] [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
+:The discussion seems to be more about you and your prissy militant feminist friends. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 13:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 == GAN? ==