User talk:Eric Blatant

Over 3,000 edits; impressive!

Good morning, Eric. May I start by thanking you for your more than 3,000 edits since Dec. 2008 - most creditable.

Also, I note your very good use of English prose.

If you'd care to discuss any aspect of editing, here, I'd be delighted.

Btw, may I draw your attention to usage of nowiki.

Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Eric Blatant. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eric Blatant. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cardiff City

Hi, the current season is still ongoing. See all the already promoted sides from the Championship, League One etc, I can't speak for Fulham as I don't have that article on my watch list. Also, the lead of an article is a brief introduction, so an extensive sentence describing their position isn't really ideal and is somewhat out of sync. The relegation is already mentioned in the main body and the rest of the article (infobox, lead etc) will be adjusted in line with the completion of the current season. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:English football updater which is along the same lines. Kosack (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The lack of citation wasn't really an issue, the lead summarises the article and as I said the relegation is already mentioned in the main body. It's more that it over complicates the lead and is jumping the gun on the new season when the consensus at WP:Football is that we should avoid just that. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The section I meant to link to was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Template:English football updater which was unfortunately archived after I linked resulting in it moving from the talk page. The quote you provided has no real relevance as I wasn't denying the fact the team have been relegated simply that it cluttered the opening and wasn't actually relevant given that they were currently playing in the Premier League. We are not a news source, so headline news isn't important and the lead is an overview of the article, not the current situation. Also, I'm not sure how adding the information to the chronological history of the page is burying it? Cheers. Kosack (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

An edit summary is limited by the amount of characters, the wait for the season to end reason was the most prevalent as that is standard practice on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean there weren't other reasons. The fact is reported in the main body as I have said consistently. I'm not sure how that "explains things" other than that I have taken this article through the lengthy FA process recently and would wish to maintain the quality of the article. See recent admin reverts on another FA Luton Town F.C. if you still think differently. Kosack (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't

do this again please - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Do

- if you feel like it and have time - copy-edit "my" articles (recents on my user page), beginning perhaps with Franz Kafka, which is still linked from the Main page, after his birthday 3 days ago. I just received good advice here. I played only a minor role in the creation of Kafka, performed by many editors, - I was useful because I am German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I shall read the article with interest, not necessarily because it needs editing but because I should learn more about Kafka. All I really know is the concept of a Kafkaesque situation, which the UK is currently living through with the nightmare of Brexit! Eric Blatant (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Shergar & SchroCat

Hi, with regard to this and this edit - it's extremely poor form to reintroduce an edit on somebody's talk page that they've removed themselves. If you really wish to continue the discussion far better to ping them via your own talk page, and let them decide whether they wish to engage. Attempting to force a conversation on another users talk page when they clearly don't wish to carry on themselves is just not cricket.

Any inference that you shouldn't edit the entire page is only in your mind, SchroCat was clearly referring to that edit. Anyway, by BRD you shouldn't attempt to reinsert either in whole or part - certainly not without discussion on the article talk page, anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Chaheel, I'm not sure who you are or what your interest is, but if we're going to discuss "extremely poor form" then I think reverting a good-faith edit and just saying "Don't do this again please" without any further explanation comes pretty close. Do you think that's acceptable and normal on Wikipedia? I tried to discuss it with SchroCat (again in good faith), detailing the minor changes I'd made and why I'd made them. He/she seemed to say I was wrong, but rather than bothering to explain why, just deleted our whole discussion. I'm genuinely interested how you know "SchoCat was clearly referring to that edit" rather than the whole page when warning me off, as SchroCat had plenty of opportunity to clarify that point him/herself, but chose not to. It's unacceptable either way. This whole thing has gone completely silly. Eric Blatant (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat was clearly referring to that edit, because in their discussion they clearly referred to that edit. As I said, anything else is just in your own mind. If you want to discuss changes to an article, then you should do so on the article talk page where other editors may contribute as well, rather than an editors talk page - especially when they have shown unwillingness to discuss.

As to who I am, and my interest - I'm simply an editor who due to previous interaction has SchroCat's talk page watchlisted. While brusque, there's nothing wrong with his behaviour - unlike reinstating deleted talk page material, which is most definitely not acceptable - and doing it again when you've been warned advised that it's unacceptable could be construed as disruptive, even if unintentional. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. You seem to know SchroCat's thoughts and motives better than SchroCat himself, and you have the same certainty about what is "clearly" the case rather than subjective. You and SchroCat are as one in believing that "there's nothing wrong" with reverting a good-faith edit whilst issuing a warning to stay away rather than any sort of explanation, and then deleting the resultant conversation thread to avoid a grown-up and respectful discussion. SchroCat's other interactions suggest that he's quite capable of defending himself. Eric Blatant (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

PS It's a bit much to tell me I should have discussed it with SchroCat on the article talk page when it was SchroCat who issued his "brusque" warning here rather than there. And "unwillingness to discuss" is not a good thing. Eric Blatant (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)