User talk:Eric Corbett

Freida Pinto

Hi Eric, hope you're doing good now. I've nominated the above article for FAC. It's been quite a while since I last wrote a BLP. I would be really grateful if you could give a full read and spot prose glitches which I might have missed. Thanks, —Vensatry _(ping) 11:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you'd missed out this one, can you please give a full read? —Vensatry _(ping) 09:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Your account is newer than most senior editors, but your talk page has more page watchers than Administrators? You must be doing a great job. --112.79.37.44 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange that, isn't it. ;-) Eric Corbett 18:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It proves something very important. DBaK (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cult of Eric has no boundaries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You WHAT???? ... sorry, sorry, misread it there for a moment. Phew. DBaK (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem on Montanabw's failed RfA

After dragging me into this discussion on his talk page for no obvious reason, Kudpung deleted this objection from me:

How did I get dragged into this? And what's this "anti-admin brigade"? In point of fact, no matter what Kudpung or the founder think, I believe that WP would be very fortunate indeed to have a few more editors more like me and less like them.

I think that's deeply dishonest of Kudpung, although not entirely unexpected. Eric Corbett 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

His whole "anti-admin brigade" thing needs to go. It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's a passive-aggressive form of personal attack. Intothatdarkness 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not been around much and, alas, wasn't aware of the RfA. If memory serves me right, I think there is a quite long history of disagreement between you and Kudpung, Eric. It probably isn't worth stirring it further, however irked you may be. This is not to say that you should not have posted what you did - I've not looked at it - but rather to say that it isn't worth your time pursuing the issue because of WP:TPG etc. This said by someone who has been through that mill, so there is an element of pot and kettle in what I say. Either I'm getting soft in my old age or the morphine is kicking in, and my money is on the latter. Might I suggest Walter Whitehead as a distraction? It is probably in need of some TLC of the type that only a few here can supply. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who was stirring anything. For reasons best known to himself Kudpung decided to drag me into a discussion of Montanabw's RfA, and then deleted my objection. It's no secret that I have no time for Kudpung and his namby-pamby attitude to RfA reform, but I'm not the one acting dishonestly and with malice. Eric Corbett 23:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If it helps, I was the one who pinged you after he posted links to your previous RfA attempts as some sort of example for me to consider. (not sure what was implied because when I took it one way, he explained that he didn't mean it that way, so... meh.) If you want to trout me, that would be OK; I'm trying to get some feedback from selected sources. My RfA was quite the drahmah, complete with off-wiki canvassing against my candidacy, and because I could not "canvass" to alert people I was running, and because it was stated - that I have a WP:OWN problem, a "battlefield mentality" and bite newbies, it failed at about 60%. I was very heartened to see that I acutually had more support !votes than 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year - it was the percentage of opposed that killed it. I'll acknowledge that in retrospect I do recognize that I sometimes charge into situations with guns blazing when I don't need to, and I intend to work on that; the rest needs some time for me to process to decide what needs to be taken to heart and what was simply misunderstood. I do plan to try again, probably next spring, giving it 6 months plus a touch extra to be sure that the annual March madness/silly season/cabin fever that seems to hit WP every spring has passed. Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung linked you to my RfAs, the most recent of which was more than eight years ago now, without explaining why. He has recently accused me of personal attacks and trolling because I posted the message I've quoted at the top of this section, objecting to his dragging me into your postmortem. I think that tells me everything I need to know about Kudpung. Just remember what they say about sleeping with dogs. Eric Corbett 13:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking selected "oppose" !voters for their views, at least the ones who didn't appear to have a pre-existing vendetta. I plan to try again and I think it's helpful to understand their views, regardless of whether I agree with their conclusion. I think it was Ben Franklin who said something like "love your enemies, they will tell you your faults." Not that I have any. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Grab your free t-shirt fellow disciples!

Page stalkers, you've all been selected for a free t-shirt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How much? I'll pay :-) Scr★pIron^IV 21:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The foundation are giving them out free of charge!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn...I wanted a coffee mug.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Should be doable... Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a template myself. Need inspiration (image, colours) for another one saying "This user has been called a monster." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No ideas yet? How about: "This user is trained in the art of infobox terrorism, allegedly."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Still no ideas? More imagery perhaps? "This user is a grease monkey oily character, allegedly." (Just to prove that it IS easy to be a bit nicer to each other.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Gee whiz, can ya tell me the way to Why-then-shower?"

I could do with some more T-shirts, most of mine have the battle scars of cats having impaled small holes in them (in an affectionate way), but I'm worried if I get one of these I'll get even more grief from the "saying 'fuck' is more important than writing articles" brigade. Still, I have started to tackle Leicester Square partly so it can eventually get to GA but partly because all the juicy gossip from the 18th and 19th centuries is missing. In the olden days, people used to gloat over severed heads of traitors at Temple Bar, now they just gloat over block logs. (And I wonder if I can find a source for that old joke about the American tourist saying "gee whiz, can ya tell me the way to Lie-chest-terr Square?") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We actually have a name for them here in the states. We call them Tourons.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the concept of your cats making good faith edits to your teeshirts.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon - we Yanks have greatly improved our British pronunciation. I myself mastered it during my year of exchange study at Loogabarooga. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Does [[1]] count as a reliable source? John O'London (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no. Eric Corbett 19:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a great source, nor is a Daily Mail piece, but the fact does crop up in at least one book on IPA and one on English as a second language on Google Books, so I don't think it's that extraordinary or trivial a claim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I know this will incur the wrath of the Original Research Fairy, but from experience the usual pronunciation from Americans is "Leester"—I suspect they know from Worcester sauce how to pronounce the "cester" suffix, but get thrown by the "Lei" (which is, admittedly, utterly counter-intuitive). Having heard a string of commentators a couple of days ago taking stabs at "Mönchengladbach", the Brits are in no position to feel superior. (You would think "learn how to say the name of the team" would be the first item on any commentator's to-do list, but apparently not.) ‑ iridescent 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "Lie-chest-er" is apocryphal and had gain traction purely for Brits to laugh at how "stupid" Americans are (though who here thought Kansas and Arkansas rhymed?) I think I've mentioned this before, but years ago I had to restrain myself from laughing when I heard a bunch of tourists talk about getting off the train at Chizz-wick, one person thinking Towcester was spelled like the thing that you put bread into at breakfast time, and another thinking Reading and reading were homonyms. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I get unduly annoyed at the fact that the woman who recorded the "this train is now approaching…" announcements for London Transport didn't know how to pronounce "Plaistow" or "Chesham", and even more annoyed at the fact that LT have never bothered to correct it. (Before you laugh too hard at the poor benighted yankees, see if you can get the pronunciation of "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" right first time.) ‑ iridescent 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the lady who provided the recordings for the buses, who can't pronounce 'Aldwych' or 'Aldgate', who annoys me. She also tends to overemphasise the wrong word in places like 'Moorgate Station' and 'Trinity Street'. The one I have trouble with is 'Walthamstow' - is it [t] or [th]? I think it may have changed since I was a kid. John O'London (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the same "battle scars" on many of my T-shirts Ritchie, some from the cats and some from the ferrets. Eric Corbett 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014

Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014

Can anyone spot the missing word? Expertise! Apparently the only problem is that we all have to be so much nicer to each other. Eric Corbett 20:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

... which would be rather easy! says the "monster" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no protection now from the blind tyranny of this type of love and kindness. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I liked what NE Ent (I think it was Ent) said recently, we don't have a civility policy, we have a civility meme. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It was: Wikipedia:Civility meme. NE Ent 11:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing I have never been able to understand about all this nauseating preaching of American love and civility, compared to us bitter, twisted and nasty Europeans is why they are always shooting each other. Every time one picks up a newspaper another Randy, Hank or Chuck has lost the plot and bagged a few of his compatriots, it seems to be an almost daily occurrence over there. Much better a be a bit grumpy and rub along together in uneasy, rude contentment. Giano (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. The refrain I hear out here sometimes is "an armed society is a polite society." My guess is that it comes from that - be nice, because you never know who has both a short fuse and a firearm. Except that, as you pointed out, it doesn't really work that way; the short-fused are still short-fused. But, at least even the Montana legislature did agree (barely) that it certainly wouldn't be a good idea to allow concealed carry into bars. (What could possibly go wrong?) Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Open carry into bars is, however, perfectly legal. And frankly I get tired of people trying hang the civility thing on Americans. Assholes are assholes, regardless of race, gender, or national origin. And quite a few of the civility pushers seem to be assholes. Once that's determined, where they're from or how they identify really doesn't matter. Intothatdarkness 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that assholes are assholes and assholery can occur without use of a single four-letter cuss word, too! But actually, no one can carry a firearm into a bar in Montana, period. We do have a little common sense left! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Goodness me: I had to google "Open carry into bars" to see what it meant. Why on earth would anyone want to take a gun with them when going out for a drink? I can't imagine anyone doing that here or even wanting to do such an odd thing - I suppose that is the difference - so there's arseholery somewhere. Can you imaging that here: "Just off down the pub for quick pint dear; can you pass my coat, 12 bore and a box of cartridges." Totally bonkers. Giano (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As a female, I can perfectly understand the desire to carry a gun with me into a bar. Of course, that's because a gun is a great equalizer - it enables a female who is small/weak to defend herself against attack. But shotguns aren't something I'd carry into a bar - that'd be the nice little 9mm pistol I have for concealed carry. (It's be the .45 Colt except that makes too big a bulge. The .45 is in the glove compartment when I travel in the country alone). Shotguns are good for home defense. I have a shotgun under the bed, for just that sort of problem out in the country. (Usual police/sheriff response time where I live is 15-20 minutes) When we get moved to the new place, there will be a shotgun in the stable office, for when myself and the other females are working at the stable late. As a female (and also as a non-elite person) I'm not sure why guns are so scary for folks... they are like super crossbows - when the women and non-elites could use them, power shifted. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I regularly go to the pub with a gun. Cassianto^Talk 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"when the women and non-elites could use them, power shifted". So power in the USA resides in the barrel of a gun? You must have a fuckload of psychotic arseholes roaming the country, to need to carry guns all the time. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, in the 1600s-1700s-1800s when guns (which are a lot easier and faster to learn to use became more and more common), the elites had to start paying more attention to the less powerful, because they needed them for armies as well as revolts becoming more likely to succeed. With smaller/lighter/etc guns in the 1900s, women no longer needed protectors because being able to defend yourself no longer depended on muscles alone. I can feel safe with a small pistol and some good classes in handling firearms as well as some practice. The same thing happened in the later middle ages with crossbows and archery (at least in England) (which explains my comment about crossbows), but guns were even more easier to use (at least by the 1700s) than crossbows. I'd also beg to differ about the UK and US being similar in culture. We're closer to the UK than a lot of cultures, but we're different. Americans (outside of the coasts) are much less willing to put up with restraints (by the government) on anything - whether it be speech, land use, property use, etc. We're losing some of that, but many Americans I know would not put up with some of the restrictions that UK folks regularly put up with (and I'm not just talking guns here). Trying to apply European solutions to American problems is just as wrong as trying to apply American solutions to European problems. If we're going to praise diversity, you need to accept that folks will do things you don't agree with/approve of, but that doesn't make it wrong. I like England, enjoy visiting Europe, but I'm an American and I do not see living outside my country for any length of time. I don't go to Europe and start telling Europeans how to solve their problems (and I get pissed at other Americans who do that)... so I don't see the point in Europeans doing the reverse. Embrace different cultures - don't expect everyone to be like yours. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bear spray is more effective than a gun at detering the extremely rare grizzly bear attack. I know of one guy that used a high caliber pistol round to try and fight off a brown bear in Alaska and the bullet ricocheted off the bear's forehead. Anything smaller than a .45 caliber is likely to just piss the bear off. I don't know if the U.S. is more or less homicidal than countries in Europe, but I don't think the statistics used to advocate for gun control are completely impartial. I do know as a former law enforcement officer I always hoped to not encounter a "bad guy" that was armed. The main issue of the bad guys though is they don't obey gun laws in some circumstances...such as the fact that the law says that a gun may only be used in self defense.--MONGO 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Americans (especially outside the coasts) have to put up with plenty of petty and not so petty restraints and restrictions that Europeans don't, though many are local/state laws, which are given much greater sway than elsewhere. For example, the "open carry" concept, affecting alcohol as well as guns, is a purely American one afaik. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth, you do realise that in every Western country except the US anyone—male or female—carrying a crossbow in public would likely be looking at some serious prison time, and every other country survives just fine? Before anyone corrects me, I know they're theoretically legal in the UK, but if you were actually out in public with one you'd be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace within seconds. I'm aware of the practical reasons for firearms in the US countryside (the largest predator in the UK is the badger; in the US grizzly bears still roam free), but there's a reason the UK had 653 murders last year and the US had 15,000 despite their cultures being almost identical other than the firearms thing. ‑ iridescent 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"despite their cultures being almost identical"? Nah, not at all. Just checked the city I live in- last February someone shot a car. And this is an ISIS recruiting ground… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here in the UK, we just give them a damm good thrashing. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? The British offence of "carrying an offensive weapon" is notoriously selectively enforced, and I suspect that in the French, German or Italian countryside anyone looking local can walk around bristling with arms of any sort without any trouble, even in these times. The British legislation on weapons is actually very recent, but the difference is that Brits rarely owned or carried guns even when they could. Of course in Ealdgyth's favourite period everyone male routinely carried blade weapons. My favourite historical titbit, which I hope is true, is that it was very easy to get into the back of the room to watch Louis XIV eat dinner, but you (men) had to be carrying a sword - with shoe-buckles it was part of the required court dress. If you hadn't brought one, you could rent it at shops outside the Palace of Versailles. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"The incidence of duelling was so great among French journalists who had been challenged over something they had written that in the 19th century some newspapers had a fencing hall where reporters could practice their fencing skills ahead of being challenged." (Duncan Noble, Allez Messieurs, p.8, Classic Arms & Militaria XXII 4) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• It all seems very odd. I don't know any Americans who live in daily fear of being eaten by a grizzly bear and I really can't see (despite Ealdgyth's view) that carrying a weapon is particularly equalising or empowering, but I suppose it does explain why so many people here want to have admin tools and use them to take pops at lesser "equalised" editors. Americans and their philosophy remain a complete mystery to me. Incidentally, Johnbod is correct, a sword (often hired at the gates) was necessary court dress at 18th-century Versailles, but removing it from its scabbard was lèse-majesté which says quite a lot for European good manners - even then. Moving swiftly on two-hundred years, today, I suspect that for most men wanting to wander the streets and bars with a gun in their pocket is more to do with May West's greatest observation than protecting themselves, which is all rather sad for them. Giano (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I work with horses and am often at stables in the country by myself at night. Say I am at the office of a stable at night, and someone decides to take off with horses/saddles/etc (it's actually reasonably common occurance). Now, I, late middle aged woman barely 5'6" tall can either watch some guy or guys who outweigh me by half again as much make off with my stuff (and he may perhaps decide to beat me up/rape me in the process) or I can ... use a gun to equalize the situation. With a gun in my hand, I'm no longer person who is too small to defend myself, but I can hold my own in the situation. (This, is of course, after self-defense classes in when to use a gun and when not to, etc). Yes, a knife would also help in self-defense, but knife fights are much more dependant on muscle mass. Guns, do not require muscle mass, thus they equalize the situation. I suspect you have to have been a woman threatened by a male who outweighs you to understand why guns aren't always evil. I also plan to move further into the country where there are indeed nasty creatures (bears, cougars, snakes, etc) that might want to take a bite out of myself or my animals. I'm not sure you can explain it to an European - if you haven't lived in the non-coasts of American, just how ... lonely it can be as a female alone in the country at night. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the 2nd Amendment is widely understood to be a legacy of slavery; slave owners wanted the means to immediately mobilize the locals to put down slave rebellions. And pepper spray works on human predators too! We do keep canisters in our home just in case the occasional asshole should show up, except I just noticed that we need to replace all of them because the propellant is flat... oh well. As another female who lives in the country, and a fourth-generation resident of the real wild west, and the owner of four firearms (three of them work), all of which were given to me by my dad before he died, and all of which we keep locked up because children visit our house from time to time (where DID I put that key to the gun cabinet, anyway?) I have a very different attitude to Ealdgyth. I think Ealdgyth has to deal with the reality that she still lives within spitting distance of a major metro area (whereas I have to drive over 300 miles to get to a city of over 500,000 people). I lived for over 45 years with vision so bad I was legally blind without corrective lenses (and now they are implanted since my cataract surgery, which feels just... miraculous!) and knew damn well that if I did have a weapon, it would be dubious if I could shoot straight, and even then, any bad guy would be a) better-armed, b) a better shot, and c) a whole lot bigger than me. Weapons only equalize the situation when the other side doesn't have one. I'm a fan of 1) locks, 2) good neighbors, 3) pepper spray, 4) a moderate-sized dog that will be territorial and 5) good relations with the local cops - and 15-20 minutes ain't a bad response time! I also would hate to have to live anywhere close to a major metropolitan area. Montanabw^(talk) 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP says "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state." - which I think is about right. If the British went in for constitutions, and amendments to them, they would probably have passed something similar (since the poor couldn't afford guns early on). British government policy encouraged private ownership until after WWI, when too many servicemen came back with German revolvers. And that's with neither slaves nor bears. It was only after the Hungerford massacre, producing the The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and the Dunblane school massacre (1996, producing 2 new laws), that things really tightened up. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• And MONGO is right about the bears. Pepper spray is great stuff; guns aren't that great unless you have just. the. right. one - and a damn good aim! In a half-century of Montana living, I've seen enough black bears to know that most can just be spooked off as soon as you yell at them, I think I saw a Griz in Yellowstone National Park maybe once, at a distance, but I still won't store bacon in my tent (!) and though they did have to shoot a mountain lion that showed up in town napping on someone's porch, we haven't had a mountain fatality here in decades as far as I can recall - human or horse! Most people with predator problems are idiots, other than a very few ranchers who do try to raise livestock on the edge of wilderness areas, which does suck for them, I admit... Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried to stick up for the UK by setting Ealdgyth straight on a few obviously erroneous assumptions about our fair country in her comments above - in short, yes, we do have countryside, we do have women, we do let them work alone and at night, and we do have rapists and thieves, we do have slow police response times, and yet for extremely sound reasons, which have nothing to do with us being slaves to authoritarianism or otherwise generally clueless, we still resoundingly reject the privately held 9mm as the answer. There are no cultural reasons for the difference except the bizarre mistrust many Americans have of their government. As it turns out, there's apparently a whole bunch of other reasons for her carrying a gun that she didn't share here, and me not knowing them of course means that I'm not welcome to talk to her on the subject ever again [2]. All I can say is, what a surprise. The US position on guns is indefensible, which is why its adherents can barely construct a decent argument in its defence, despite always wanting to turn up at places like this to tell disbelieving people they're the mad ones. The sooner these people are disarmed, the safer the world will be for everyone. Especially innocent children, who of course can't make any kind of informed choice over whether or not they feel safer with guns in their lives (an 11 year old just shot dead an 8 year old over a dispute about a puppy!) Kristian Jenn (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, it's you Brits who gave us Yanks our congenital distrust of authority back in 1776, don't 'cha know... so it's really all your fault we're a buncha paranoid libertarian types! (grinning, ducking and running... ;-) ) (I am trying to be funny, in case anyone misunderstands...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In Our Time (short story collection)

Hi Eric. Would appreciate if you could give a sconce over this; its at FAC, and as a lith article, needs to be just so. Myself and Vic have tried, god knows; heavy guns needed now. If you get a chance - great; if not that's ok too - I realise you get a lot of this. Hope all is tolerable. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A Grammar of the Dialect of the Bolton Area

This is close to home, no? Interesting notes in the article. BTW, the article needs some help from your friendly talk page stalkers (also known as the incivility cabal, of course); it has no secondary sourcing whatsoever, though I have no doubt that such sourcing can be found. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's cited quite frequently but what I found in Google Books doesn't easily translate into a reference for our article. I looked through JSTOR but could not find any reviews of the book. Anyone? Drmies (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Something here-> a sort of review. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• If I were in charge, I'd merge that into Lancashire dialect as a fairly blatant content fork—there are some academic books that are so notable that they warrant stand-alone articles independent of their subject, but this is patently not one of them. "The dialect of Bolton, and Greater Manchester in general, has been highly stigmatised" is also a rather questionable claim, since manc/lanc is probably the single most over-represented dialect in the British media and has been for decades. ‑ iridescent 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Five years ago, but what's changed?

[3]

Basically I'm an amoeba, a cockroach, shit under an admin's shoes. Has anything changed? Eric Corbett 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're the tops, IMHO. I'd rather blunt honesty from an editor, rather then I'm gonna report you, for hurting my feelings from an editor, anytime. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Five years ago, I wrote one cantata article per week, as Bach did, and didn't know that admins and noticeboards existed. I woke up - rather brutally - on Halloween that year when Rlevse left. - I go back to it, writing a cantata GA per week and ignoring the noticeboards. I changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric, I guess your power of lead-writing didn't change, could you apply it to Henning Mankell? Working on his Chronicler of the Winds, where all help is welcome,- not my typical topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Some other things have changed though Gerda; maybe one of the admins would be willing to help? I'm tired of having to live under the yoke of ArbCom's daft restrictions, which mean that I'm forbidden to say what I want to say. Eric Corbett 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is complete freedom of thought for content builders on Wikipedia. I'm sure most Wikipedia administrators and even Mr Wales himself would agree that content builders are free to run constructive commentaries on the system within the privacy of their own minds. It just that content builders are not entitled to publicly make constructive commentary on Wikipedia itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom restrictions for me as well: no infobox for an article I didn't create, "only" improve, even if I expanded a one-line stub to GA. By a strange logic, some writers of featured content think they can remove an infobox, as an improvement. I worked on Kafka where such absurdity is the norm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Impersonate

There seems to be some people around who wish to impersonate you. That made me laugh out loud, when I saw it first, and I did knew that Eric can't make such remarks. I was about to type a reply for the ip, when it was reverted. I can't imagine what made them do that, but I feel, they might wanted to start a battle. Jim Carter 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

To H-E-double toothpicks with all impersonators. That should teach 'em! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How strange! Eric Corbett 12:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess that IP must have been very disappointed when I wasn't blocked by some wandering admin gun slinger for saying something I never said. Eric Corbett 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Rather than going on about it on Montana's page who I was originally addressing, I figured I would come here as I am addressing you. I do know an admin isn't going to get along with everyone, so what would an admin do in that situation? If Montana were an admin right now, how would be the best way to defuse the problem? Letting it be in it's current state is one option but the results of that are 50/50, it will either get better or get worse. In problems it also takes two to tango or else the problem might have been solved by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to repeat tired old sayings to me. Abuse on WP is nothing to do with dancing, it just takes one obsessive lunatic. I'll leave it to you to judge who the lunatic is. Eric Corbett 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ched, is insinuating that another user is a lunatic as much of a personal attack as calling one a raging narcissist? RO^(talk) 19:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I think both sides know what they are doing, rather than acting out on impulse. I have seen Montana stay out of Rational's way as well as rational stay out of Montana's way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why the suggestion of an IBAN, which is always held as evidence against both parties? Eric Corbett 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You do have a point there in that it would effect both as evidence, but doing nothing and leaving things up to chance in my view is unpredictable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to go back to editing, I just wish there were a solution to keep Montana and Rational apart, I don't want Rational to leave as I feel that she contributes much to areas she is in the know of. It may sound crazy coming from me but I wouldn't want you to leave either for the same reasons, everyone has things that bother them though.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They are presumably both adults, so let them sort out their differences themselves. As for me, I won't be leaving Wikipedia since I saw how much Jimbo wants me to be banished. Had he not come out with that claptrap I would probably have been gone some time ago. Unintended consequences? Eric Corbett 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rationalobserver: I believe you were told not to post on Eric's talk page some time ago, so please do not continue to perpetuate the matter here. Knowledgekid87: I respectfully suggest you take SlimVirgin's advice on your talk page and disengage from these discussions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. RO: You could have got a block for that message, given your previous history with Eric, and the request he made that you stay away from his talk page. KK87: I see that immediately after your mentoring had finished, you began editing in areas that you had been strongly advised to stay away from. And it was commented on, to you, immediately and then later by another editor. Now, you are doing similar kinds of unhelpful and meddling editing that you were blocked for and gave an assurance (to me) that you would not repeat: a failure of your assurance to do so led to an unpleasant prospect of penalties that you avoided by means of the mentoring you agreed to. Your entire behaviour suggests you just don't get it, or you have some kind of compulsion to be like a moth to a flame. I strongly urge you to stop it, or you may find a less-forgiving repeat appearence on a board happens. Come on! I know you can do it if you take just a little bit of effort: just concentrate entirely on editing articles, which you said you would do a number of times before as a means of avoiding penalties in the past.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• • (Waving hello to everyone. Got some popcorn, watching this show.) Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just to note that I've seen the ping, and I've read this thread to this point. I'm having trouble parsing the statement, so the only response I'll make to it is that I have not "insinuated" that any wikipedian is a "lunatic"[4]. That is a very defamatory statement to make, and considered libel. I find it highly objectionable.

Eric, I am sorry that this is being brought to your doorstep. Beyond that I will simply say that I hope you're doing well. — Ched :  ?  01:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I dashed at full speed to this section with its enticing title, eager to check out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eric Corbett. How crestfallen I was. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You can take that page off your watchlist, it'll never turn blue. I offered twice to do the admin job, and I won't be offering again. Eric Corbett 18:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have taken about 50 articles to FA, while I have (so far) taken 0 (aside from minor fiddling around the edges on a few, which I don't count), so I wouldn't dwell on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's as least as important that I've done almost 600 GA reviews, and God knows how many FA reviews. But obviously WP could do without me, just as it could do without Jimbo. I see him as WP's equivalent of FIFA's Sepp Blatter. Eric Corbett 18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancient words

Where else other than on Wikipedia do you see ancient words such as demur and concur, instead of the more normal disagree and agree? Eric Corbett 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd ever see the word demur used. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On my vinyl copy of Selling England by the Pound, there is Harold Demure from Art Literature, who isn't quite sure about the Battle of Epping Forest. (On a side note, was this vandalism or just somebody thinking "oh, I'll make something up that's vaguely right, nobody will know"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hyphenations

You are bound to know the answer to this: Is it really correct to write "I am 40-years-old?" Obviously, in my case, it's not correct, as I'm years younger, but is the hyphenating correct? When I was taught English a while ago, we were taught "if in doubt leave the hyphen out." Which is correct in English - I'm not bothered about Americanisms. Please could you also explain where the punctuation goes with inverted commas - I was taught that it always goes inside the commas, but I seem to be the only person in the world who does that - why is everyone else wrong? Giano (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. It would only need hyphens if it was used as an adjective, such as in "40-year-old virgin" for instance. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by an inverted comma, quotation marks? Eric Corbett 16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I get that, so it's adjectives only. On the comma front: you worry me sometimes Eric, you make me think I have imagined things, but I haven't [5]. You must remember that we foreigners are always taught a generation behind nationals - I mean the little dangly things for quotes and for subtly inferring that people are telling porkies - not that there's ever a need for that on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, what I often call scare quotes. Some people take the view that the quotation should exactly replicate the ending punctuation of the piece being quoted, but that often doesn't work; it would force you to end your own sentence at the point the full stop appeared in the quotation for instance. So I almost invariably put the ending punctuation outside the quote marks. Eric Corbett 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in here, Eric, but as you are such a stickler for correct English usage, allow me to point out that Giano is quite right to use the term 'inverted commas' for what you call 'quotation marks' or 'quotes'. When I was at school (in England), we always called them 'inverted commas' as that is exactly what they are. See, for example, the explanations here. (Quotation marks in French, guillemets, are not inverted commas but « arrows ».) I have a feeling the increased use of 'quotes' in British English is the result of American influence, just as 'slash' seems to have replaced the traditional English 'oblique'.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Disgusting", thought Alice, "his hat violates MOS:SLASH."

By "oblique" I trust you meant "shilling mark" (which started off as a variant of the long s) (or "virgule" or "solidus")? The mark is a "quotation mark", and not properly "quotes." Collect (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Interesting observation, Collect. I always remember 10/⁶ on the Mad Hatter's hat. But there are several other uses as illustrated here. I first heard the term 'slash' in San Diego in the early 1970s in connection with IBM 360 programming. For me a slash is always a forward slash. I object to the BBC's constant use of 'forward slash' in web addresses, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All things considered, it is nice to come to this talk page and find a discussion about punctuation without having to hear "sir, sir, the MOS said so sir" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

'Twas brillig. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ritchie333 is quite right; it's always nice to come to this page - an oasis of civilisation. My pet punctuation hate at the moment because I don't understand it, is all this current talk everywhere of hashtags - hashtag this and hashtag that. My children seem unable to write me a simple note explaining their whereabouts without resorting to # and @. When I phoned my electricity company yesterday, to complain about their exorbitant overcharging, I was told to press "hash", they then played me the Moonlight Sonata on an electronic keyboard for 15 minutes, which didn't sooth me in anyway. Exactly what was the original point of hashtags on keyboards? Giano (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Originally as a ligature of lb, used to represent weight ("5# of bananas"), but that usage gradually died out; later, as the North American (both US and Canadian) version of the Numero sign, and pronounced "number" when read aloud—#9 Dream is probably the best known example of this usage on the eastern side of the Atlantic. (The name "hash" is corrupted from "hatch", and just describes the cross-hatch pattern.) When Twitter needed a character which was present on every keyboard but unlikely to appear in everyday writing and thus trigger false positives, it was the obvious choice, much as the @ character was appropriated for email a couple of decades ago, or the standalone tilde (~) has been appropriated by wikitext. ‑ iridescent 09:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just the way things naturally evolve. C and its various offshoots (including C++, Objective-C and C++/CLI) seem to be paranoid about adding new keywords to the language and just reuse punctuation all over the place. You can probably guess why Lisp is nicknamed "lost in a sea of parentheses" (though it makes up for it in other ways [6]). A similar thing happens with language, if I said "what a stupid complaint, hope he gets a boomerang for it", you'd understand but the man in the street wouldn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of punctuation, is there any way that the headline Ronaldo surpasses Raúl's record, becomes Real Madrids' top scorer can be correct (note the position of the possessive apostrophe in Real Madrids [sic])? The Wikinews admin who is refusing to move the page to "Real Madrid's" has said: This isn't about the construction "Real Madrids", which strikes me as very colloquial (though one could imagine an informal spoken context where it would pass without notice). It's about morphologically how to form the possessive of a noun that doesn't end with s and can be treated as either singular or plural depending on conceptual intent. If the noun were always understood to be plural, one would use apostrophe-s. If the noun were always understood to be singular, one would use apostrophe-s. But if the noun can be either number, and given that apostrophe-s and s-apostrophe would produce the same pronunciation anyway, the choice between the two becomes a convenient way to mark conceptual number (here). Thoughts, apart from how awful Wikiolds is and how I really ought to stop wasting my time there, which I'll take as a given? Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Real Madrid's top scorer". In this context the team is singular even in forms like BrE where they're typically treated as plural, since you're talking about a single entity not a collection of individuals. ("Chelsea are the current league champions. Diego Costa was Chelsea's top scorer.") If you want an analogy where the difference may be clearer, in BrE New Order are a band, but Bernard Sumner is New Order's lead singer (note both the singular/plural and the position of the apostrophe). Not wishing to flog a thoroughly dead horse, but arguing about the formatting of Wikinews items is a singularly (see what I did there) pointless exercise, since the number of people who will ever see it is almost certainly not going to reach triple digits—even the craziest drinker of Jimbos's Kool-aid isn't going to go to Wikinews for sports coverage. ‑ iridescent 10:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree, but Wikinews is effectively a one-man band so if he insists that "Real Madrids'" is correct, there's nothing to be done. Most of my Wikinews edits are attempts to save Wikinews from itself: rewording main page headlines so that they don't say "yesterday" when they mean "some days ago", or (very frequently) removing days of the week from main page headlines to disguise the fact that the news is over a week old. Bencherlite^Talk 11:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Article in The Atlantic

As far as I can see, you are not an administrator, but are according to this article in The Atlantic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the subject of that article I'm unable to comment. Eric Corbett 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fiat 130 HP

Eric, we haven't really interfaced much but Cassianto said you would be a great resource for the aforementioned article. I picked it up as my first created article when I happened across a redlink. He helped me a lot with content and tone. I have decided I might like to try to bring it up to GA status, but I neither know the process nor do I have any more sources than I have presented in the article. I am definitely not a subject matter expert on the topic. Would you care to give a newer - and well-intentioned - editor a hand with it? Thanks in advance for your response, whichever way you choose. Scr★pIron^IV 20:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Eric Corbett 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Scr★pIron^IV 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're aiming for GA with this there's still quite a bit of work to do; I'll leave you some notes. Eric Corbett 20:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and look forward to working with you. Scr★pIron^IV 20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations admin !

April Fools, I guess. — Cirt (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the point of Jimbo Wales. Is there a page on that? Eric Corbett 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh, WP:Founder is a redirect. Although I think several other wikis function on their own without a titular head role, and just straight up elect their ArbCom with elections without a king to then "appoint" them. I made a page on it at Meta a while ago = m:Arbitration Committee/Election processes. Which one of these is not like the other ... — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the page I was looking for is m:Founder. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and in response to your comments here and here, which are in violation of your topic ban from the gender gap topic (as amended), points (ii) ["the gender disparity among Wikipedians"] and (iii) ["any process or discussion relating to these topics, broadly construed"], you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You do make me laugh! Eric Corbett 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't want anyone to unblock me, and nor do I intend to return when this block expires. Eric Corbett 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not Eric's greatest fan, but I must say I think its a bit unfair for blocking Eric for commenting in a thread where he was one of the primary topics of discussion even though it was a violation of his ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Join me in lighting a candle for Eric. We will miss you. Another great editor gone forever.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  There is no justice here. Everyone should know that. Eric Corbett 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment here - but wouldn't it have been prudent and dare I say, tasteful, to warn Eric that he maybe in violation of his topic ban by commenting in a thread that references him in an accusatory manner? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh this is just ridiculous. Eric please don't pack it in. Head>desk. DBaK (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric, please do try and rise above this. I really do understand how frustrating these people can be - I have been there. I didn't realise that Kirill Lokshin was still here - has he been quiet of late or have I just not noticed him? Poor Kirill has always been what I think of as one of Wikipedia's tedious folk - that self-appointed, sanctimonious police force, always anxious to ensure their rather limited views are enforced on everyone they encounter - one is forced to wonder what happened in their childhoods to make them thus or perhaps it's how they get their Green Cards - now there's a theory. Chin up, rise above and carry on writing the project. Giano (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that an Admin who hasn't done any actual work on the 'pedia in YEARS is the one who pulled the trigger on this? This is one (of many) Admins who does not have an inkling what it's like to actually edit here in the modern Wikipedia. I wonder which of the Cabal pinged them? Scr★pIron^IV 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that cynical, but then I looked at the administrator's block log. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind - it's one of those "paid" admins, part of the Foundation and all. Bet they have been getting a fat and happy salary just sitting waiting for Eric to say "female" somewhere. Scr★pIron^IV 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Can we stop with the speculation as to motives and inaccurate allegations about people's backgrounds please? I've met both Kirill and Eric and I believe them both to be honest people trying to do what they think is the right thing. I wouldn't wish to stop anyone from expressing their opinion on the block itself (though my own is that it's clearly proper), but please let's not attack each other; it's not going to help anyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't believe Kirill is paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia, least of all by the WMF. He holds quite a few roles on volunteer committees, and I dare say that he has a better understanding of the so-called "modern encyclopedia" than many editors here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see this. Was this all a trap for Eric? Seems low. Iridescent, one of the things which really irritates me about wikipedia at the moment is this "women are being harassed" argument, it disgusts me so much that I can't help but comment on it. I don't know a single female editor who is constantly faced with a tirade of abuse because they're female and I'm surprised you actually seem to believe that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Iridescent? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he stuck his beak in on Jimbo's talk page, I don't know if he was trying to protect Eric and could see it was a trap or he genuinely means it. Either way I'd said what needed to be said and only saw his comment a few minutes ago. If this was all a setup to get Eric blocked for a month then I admit I fell for it. It's appalling isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This was a clear violation of the topic ban. If you don't think arbcom decisions should be enforced then you can complain to arbcom. It is not reasonable to fault an admin for enforcing a clear violation of an arbcom restriction. Enforcing arbcom's decisions is part of the job of being an administrator. HighInBC 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Only today did I remember Talk before you block, which mentions a checklist for going to "arbitration enforcement". My question for candidates for arbitration (if any show up) will be what ideas they have about overcoming "enforcement", - it's not how colleagues should treat each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Seems a bit quick on the trigger for what was clearly not a disruptive comment. A warning would have sufficed, particularly since Eric was drawn into the discussion, he didn't start or disrupt it. Otherwise, we can dispense with admin discretion altogether and just use bots. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  I must be punished. Eric Corbett 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe for a while, like a few days, not for a full month. Particularly when he himself is one of the subjects of clearly negative discussion. It is, after all, human to attempt to defend oneself. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  I think it has to be for a full month. otherwise I won't have learned my lesson. Which is that I'm just a piece of easily disposable shit, unlike the almighty admins. Eric Corbett 23:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis, the amended scope says: "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary." So Kirill could have removed Eric's comments instead of blocking (correct?). Or done nothing (correct?). Since Kirill chose to block, shouldn't he explain why blocking was "necessary"? (I.e. to stop what? As you mentioned EC's comments weren't disruptive. Kirill merely diff'd two supposed violations w/o any explanation why blocking was "necessary".) IHTS (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So one editor falsely accuses Eric of calling a woman a cunt; another repeats the false accusation; the first then accuses Eric of being an “example of the misogynist scourge on Wikipedia”, and then this lying scumbag doubles down, saying Eric calls people cunts “all the time”—and it's Eric who gets blocked, for setting the record straight and stating his views? Amazing. Well no, not really. Not when there’s a smug enforcer lurking around, waiting for any excuse, however flimsy, to take his scalp. Writegeist (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

One isn't allowed to defend oneself here, it's generally called "badgering". Eric Corbett 23:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• They're are so many things I'm not allowed to comment on, and I'm sick to death with it all. These pages will be archived in due course I suppose, but I won't be taking any further part here. Eric Corbett 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't retire, EC. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was clearly cruel and petty block. Still gotta get your rocks off some way se? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If the cause of the block is the comments that Eric made on Jimbo's talk page, I can't see what the fuss is about. Although I'm not Eric's greatest fan due to his rudeness, this block is unnecessary and should be lifted or reduced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This block reminds me of a player of Just a Minute pressing the buzzer when someone says "The problem with Wikipedia is the way ...": a technical violation of "no hesitation, deviation or repetition", but one which should be let pass without intervention in the interest of the game/encyclopedia. Please come back after this absurd block expires. PamD 07:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Its all happened before! Pendle witches as edited 17:19, 13 May 2015? --- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric, I am happy to finish off your GA review of Calshot Castle in your absence if that's okay? And can we please stop blocking people mid review, it's not helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is hosted in the US, it's about time someone challenged these ridiculous topic bans "broadly construed" under the First amendment. To ban someone from particular pages to stop disruption is one thing, but to say you can't discuss this subject anywhere on Wikipedia, even to defend yourself, is a blatant attack on free speech. And when at least one of the people who was a party to the ban proudly displays a userbox that says "This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship", quite frankly the whole business stinks of hypocrisy. Welcome to the police state. Richerman (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's extraordinary that Wikipedia's best copy editor (arguably) is not allowed to defend himself from public attacks and misrepresentation on Jimbo's talk page. But then, in my experience, no free speech is allowed at all on Jimbo's talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just when you thought this place couldn't get any more fucking ridiculous lo & behold someone proves you wrong!, I honestly won't be surprised if some tool will get Eric blocked just for breathing...., Anyway don't retire Eric - We all appreciate what you do here!. –Davey2010^Talk 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This site literally makes me feel sick at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• To get reviewed, I think Eric has to start the discussion at WP:AN, per the latest Arb ruling, which is ironic since he can't by virtue of being blocked. No more amicus appeals, although I think a proxy appeal is fine, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Or Eric can find a better use of his time and just leave Wikipedia. Over the last few years, I've just seen too many bad blocks (a few deserved ones as well, if I'm honest) but the fact is, you are the bogeyman around here and you always will be. If you leave, someone else will assume that role, blamed for all of Wikipedia's ills, and they get picked subconsciously by the masses. That is sociology for you: put a bunch of people on an island and at least one will become the hated bastard withing a week or two. We need our whipping boys it would seem, and you suit that role splendidly because you won't cry out in agony. I wish I could just sit here and say "please don't leave!" but I can't, Eric. You and I have had some fun working on some interesting articles over the last few years, and I don't feel that I would be much of a friend if I recommended you stay. Wikipedia will be poorer without you, but I'm not so sure you would be worse off. You would be better off volunteering at the local library, helping young minds learn about research and how to write properly. At least there, your skills would be appreciated. Or tutoring. Anything else. You and Wikipedia are like a really bad relationship where the sex is great, but you constantly fight about everything else, throwing lamps and books at each other, saying hateful things: it is a dysfunctional marriage, and the pain is rapidly outpacing the pleasure, as the once blushing bride has slowly become a bitch goddess. Eventually you realize that they don't deserve you, and you find something more stable, more sane, more appreciative and less painful. If I'm a true friend, I have no choice but to say this. Life is simply too short to spend it with hateful people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Be very careful saying things like "bitch goddess" on here, you'll be desysopped, be the subject of endless threads and have an article written about you in the NY Times before you know it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• The real casualty in this war so far is Kirill Lokshin's credibility as an admin. He has taken a bad situation and made it worse with a poor decision. The piece in The Atlantic is sloppily researched and Eric Corbett has a legitimate right of reply. If he is rude while doing this, I would be the first to criticise him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • With that logic, what's the point of a topic ban? If I say something about Eric's attitude toward the gender gap, does he get a right of reply there as well? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @The ed17, if you said something that was demonstrably untrue about him and blocked-and-reverted him when he tried to correct it, then yes, you'd clearly be in the wrong. As I've said elsewhere somewhere in this mess, I don't have an issue with the principle of the block—Eric knows the rules—but a month-long block—and even more so, reverting his comments—are a perverse outcome. I can't speak for the arbs of the time, but I'd be very surprised if, when they passed that motion, they intended that it restrict Eric from commenting in a discussion about himself. ‑ iridescent 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree wholeheartedly. The length of the block is unfortunately excessive to my eyes as well. And that would apply even more strongly in instances where there might be evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation in an externally published piece, such as happened when the Atlantic article said he was an administrator at the time he made the comment, and the out-of-context nature of the material they quoted. On that basis, I think it would be quite reasonable to allow for some editors to either be allowed to respond in the case of misrepresentation of themselves, even if doing so could be seen as a violation of sanctions, or, alternately, to perhaps make it possible for any misrepresentative comments directed at or related to the sanctioned editor might be made themselves subject to sanctions and/or revdeletion or whatever. Libel or slander is still libel or slande, even if the person being slandered is under sanctions. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Iridescent: Point there re demonstrably untrue, but I'd argue that a month is appropriate given his history on this topic, no? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• If The Atlantic had written "Eric Corbett is a rude sod who frequently upsets other people on Wikipedia" I would have considered it to be within the range of fair comment. However, as I said on Jimbo's talk page, this whole sorry saga has echos of Lawrence Summers and Tim Hunt. In all of these cases, a dubious allegation of sexism was made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• The whole matter has been fuelled and stoked our resident group of mad, sad and bad women and their misfit helpers (they know who they are). Fortunately, they are a minority group here because the vast majority of female editors are too busy writing pages. This article [7] and its spurious claims has their finger prints, breathy condensation and DNA all over it - one only has to look at their caterwailing [8] to see that. It's pity that Eric walked so innocently into such a trap; but a greater pity is that Jimbo and the Foundation (who monitor his page) knowingly allowed such bollox to be posted on this very high-profile and much watched page - They knows the truth, so why allow a sperious and defamatory article to be promoted on such a page? Now, we can't make legal threats on Wikipedia, but when editors chose to repeat and encourage false claims off Wikipedia, and then use Wikipedia to promote those claims we enter a whole new field and the silken gloves of "no legal threats" can now legitimately be taken off. Now should Eric feel so inclined, I know a very god barrister specialising in this area who's be more than happy to advise for free! So put that in your pipes and smoke them 'ladies' and think hard before fostering such personal attacks again because it may cost you dear - the UK and Britain does have an extradition treaty, which the current US Government is desperate to prove is not a one-way journey. As for you, Kirill Lokshin, you should reconsider you ridiculous and abusive actions. Giano (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible amicus appeals

I thought this comment might be of interest. It indicates that anyone could file an appeal of the block, provided the blocked party indicates he wants to appeal it and indicates where he wants the appeal to be made. Under the circumstances, I think it might be possible that a thread could be opened, maybe at ANI, requesting the block be lifted, or, if that proves unsuccessful or doesn't appeal to you, requesting some sort of discretionary sanctions on individuals who might seek to prejudicially malign others. Under the circumstances, I think that there might be a reasonable chance of the block being lifted based on the prejudicial misrepresentation to which you were responding. Alternately, I think that there might be a very sound basis for requesting that backhanded libellous misrepresentation in the matter of the "c"-word might be made subject to discretionary sanctions on its own.

The question of whether you want to appeal is obviously your choice. But, whether you choose to or not, I would be interested in knowing what you might think of maybe requesting discretionary sanctions regarding further misrepresentation.

And, for what little it might be worth, if nothing else, I hope you can take advantage of the admittedly unrequested break you are having to maybe enjoy being away from the dramah here for awhile. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never appealed against a block, no matter how petty and stupid it might have been, and I've got no intention of starting now. My view on your more general point about discretionary sanctions is that ArbCom can't be trusted. Eric Corbett 15:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't the only one who can put DS in place. They can be imposed at ANI, although, admittedly, ArbCom DS tend to be less subject to having sanctions reverted, as I think you probably know. Unfortunately. Considering that the misrepresenation/misuse of the "c"-word in this context is itself a violation of some sort, maybe of WP:LIBEL (?), I think that there might be a reasonable chance something could be enacted there, although, admittedly, coming up with the optimal phrasing of the potential sanction might be at best difficult. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Later Eric. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)