User talk:Eric Corbett

Stop responding to provocations

Don't let JW play you, Eric. You know what he's up to — just back off and let other people take care of it. Don't be a moth to his open flame... Carrite (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Simpler: don't edit on Monday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, just because it's Monday doesn't make it open season on me. Eric Corbett 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I had successfully not looked at that page for weeks, but Floq's statement made me curious. Arb sorrows pending again, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't take much interest in what happens in arbitration cases, even in my own. Eric Corbett 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind for myself, thanks to your unforgotten encouragement and later talk about dignity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is no flame and I'm no moth, but he does have serious questions to answer nevertheless. Eric Corbett 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since Sebald's Austerlitz I have started thinking about moths quite differently. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment from Mr Wales ought not to be allowed to be buried

You expect me to talk?
No, Mr Wales, I expect you to die!

[1]

He knows very well the regard, or more accurately the lack of it, that I hold him in, but the difference between us that I don't keep trying to provoke him into some kind of sanctionable offence. What would be the point anyway, as he's unsanctionable? Eric Corbett 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Notice will be served. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Let it go, Eric. There is no good outcome for you, politically speaking, going toe to toe with The Co-Founder. He chips at you, he looks petty, you look like a good guy for staying away, and slowly the dynamic changes... Carrite (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no good outcome for him in going toe to toe with me, so why does he persist in doing it? Eric Corbett 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we've gone from a block of Jimbo being an embarrassing error by an admin ha ha (akin to deleting the main page), to something that is almost a matter of time. How the mighty are fallen, and by their own fingers, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Time will tell I suppose. Eric Corbett 02:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a pattern of closing down discussion on Mr Wales's talk page whenever an issue inconvenient to his disciples is raised. It's really difficult to see how that can be interpreted as being healthy. Eric Corbett 02:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is priceless, coming as it does from the crowned emperor of personal attacks.[2] Who true to form is now making himself scarce until the obnoxious comment on his talk page is archived and, he hopes, forgotten. Eric Corbett 12:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your encouragement and talk about dignity (a word that not everybody can use) is not forgotten, see just above, and I found it interesting to follow a link to 2013, - not much changed, but Ched is more active again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completely dialled out from Jimbo and what he says now. This is 2015 now, nothing good is going to come of it. Given that he knows that what he says about you is going to provoke a reaction I'd ignore him, but that's me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As they say, DFTT. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If I was going to FTT, I would slap {{uw-npa2}} on his talk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Like DO IT Ritchie333! Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo it seems will always hold a grudge. It's common on here though. Sandy Georgia for whatever reason has always been that way towards me, in fact I don't think I've ever encountered a single situation on here in 8 years with her which has been a positive one. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Eric and company, I could do with some help. I've been looking at Lips Are Movin and couldn't leave this GA alone. I have come to believe that this should not be a GA but I don't wish to go any further without some solid advice from some legitimate GA writers and reviewers. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That song is neither "bubblegum pop" nor "doo wop." It is saccharine-sweet hip hop. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop the genre warring! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Trainor stated that the clip did not only comprise of a story and theme " and "the lyrics tell off a cheating, lying, boyfriend" tell you all you need to know about whether or not this is a legitimate GA. Eric Corbett 10:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• That last one is mine: an obviously failed attempt to make something out of nothing. "Lyrically, the singer tells of a cheating, lying boyfriend while asserting Trainor's physical assets." That actually suggests the singer is singing about Meghan Trainor. BTW, the "physical assets", that's some cute phrase from I think a Billboard review (cited here in our voice)--the reviewer means "the singer says she has a great ass". Anyone remember the famous "I Like Big Butts" paraphrase wars? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  It was the "tell off" I was complaining about. Eric Corbett 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Haha, I didn't even notice that! Sorry. I made thirty copy edits to that article yesterday and only scratched the surface. In the meantime I wrote up Talk:Lips Are Movin/GA2, and found confirmation that the article lacked #4, neutrality, as well. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, both "tells of" and "tells off" are correct in context, although the latter is a bit informal. I would suggest going Joycean with "tell of(f)". MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• But "tells off" means to scold or reprimand, which I don't think is what was meant. Eric Corbett 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I guess I'll have to go listen to the song a few dozen more times to settle this... :P MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll try at some point, given my younger daughter is an avid top-40 music lover and commandeers the car radio regularly....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, I delisted it. Can you or any of your talk page stalkers see if I filed the paperwork (on the talk page) correctly? The GAR instructions told me to change an Article History template, but there was no such template, so I found a GA delisted template--but that AH template looks better to me. Anyway, thanks for y'all's help, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sha na na a GA?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hey, Eric. I'm recently looking at improving some of the Chinese Food articles that are relevant to my interests. I know that one of the B-class requirements is for an article to have "coverage"; this is easy for foods with extensive history, but relevant information can be harder to find for some traditional "folk" dishes that has nothing to note other than perhaps that millions of Chinese people ate them for some centuries.

I just want to know: in your experience, how much - and what kinds of - information would be required before a food article would pass B-class, GA, or FA status? Especially for folk food without lots of history or notability in western culture?

Thanks, and apologies for the trouble.

↢ RemorA ↣ 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you tried looking at other B rated food articles to compare with? That is usually pretty helpful. Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me, but given the way I've been treated here over the years, and am still being treated, I'm in no frame of mind to help anyone with anything. Perhaps Jimbo Wales might care to help? Eric Corbett 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I've tried, though the number of food GAs are pretty scarce and most often are people, types of ingredients, or general categories. I guess my difficulty is that content for specific dishes are relatively difficult to find (as opposed to general things like rice or maize).

@Eric: I definitely don't blame you after what had just happened. Though it is unfortunate, since even though I'm new and most of my edits are minor, you were one of the reasons I decided to signed up and try to contribute in the first place. Thanks regardless, and best of luck with everything. ↢ RemorA ↣ 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh profanity

I thought some of the people here might be interested in this one, should it be deleted? The AFD needs some wider input. I reckon it should be deleted asap, words like "амбас " might reduce the 13% female to just one. :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, Eric, at the risk of sounding like a grandfather, please don't comment in that WER thread anymore--the point was valid and has served its purpose, but someone is going to read it all wrong and throw you in front of the bus. And poking Jimbo is poking the bear; y'all should just stop poking each other altogether. He may be an oxen and you may be a gadfly, but if his big ole tail swats you we're all worse off. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  "Someone" may do as they please. Eric Corbett 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  I'm fundamentally opposed with every fibre of my being to these prohibitions on discussing certain issues that ArbCom has become all too ready to hand out for the sake of a quiet life. So "Someone" will just have to live with that. Eric Corbett 22:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention

I didn't see your name on the members list. Believe me when I say that one of the individuals who offers the most help for newer reviewers would be a very welcome addition. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much of a joiner John, and given recent events I'll not be doing very much more helping. Every day it's just more and and more provocative BS, even from our God king himself. Eric Corbett 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember you're talking to a guy who retired from the project a year ago here as a result of dealing with someone who even the arbs in the relevant case called a serious SPA issue (having edited a total of 3 closely related articles in 8 years) and indicated was a serious POV pusher, whom I have basically been stalked by since then. And I obviously agree that the comments made by others there were themselves more than a bit out of line - Buster seemed to say the same thing in his comments. But, as a former Biography project A-Class reviewer, I know that there ain't that many good reviewers, and good reviewers are one of the things which probably help keep editors who get their articles reviewed around. We could definitely use some knowledgeable input in that regard. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the lack of good reviewers at all levels is a significant factor in editor retention. We all know how it feels to work your butt off on an article, submit it at GA, and then see it ignored for months. Eric Corbett 23:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not usually a fan of cups and contests on here, but the GA Cup has been reasonably well behaved and helped reduce the backlog down a bit, so hopefully it's got better. The worst thing about working on an article then submitting it to GA is keeping it at GA level in the queue while a horde of rampaging IPs come along and try and bugger it up - for music articles this usually involves "in popular culture" or musical genre warring. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a widespread problem, not unique to music articles. Consider that flytrap Notable persons section in pretty much every township article for instance. Eric Corbett 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Stuff like this drives me up the wall, bad source, wrongly formatted, trivia, wild speculation, off topic, largely irrelevant ... but by the time I get to it other editors have "helpfully" done really important things like make sure a web link starts with http, repair disambiguation links, and other stuff that ignores totally whether the edit was useful or not, and making a straight "undo" impossible, requiring me to pick apart the original edit or resign myself to having a "GA" that doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. Sorry, I need a lie down now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement request notice

I have made an enforcement request against you at AE - Eric Corbett. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise. Hopefully it will result in you being banned. Eric Corbett 00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not often get to demonstrate how much I am in your corner. I add my hope to your hope. I live for the day LB would fly away on her broom. (Have I said lately I am a female editor...?) All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The strange thing is that I've collaborated with loads of female editors on articles, probably more females than males, yet not a single one has ever complained about the the way I've treated them or interacted with them. The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across and I wouldn't know from Adam. Eric Corbett 18:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What you're going through at the moment, is something I've been through. Your best course of action, is to remain silent on the events. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I guessed that Fylbecatalous was a female editor who loves cats ... but there's another prominent editor I have worked with who could either be female or gay male, and whose topics of interest and style fits both profiles pretty equally. And frankly I don't care which as long as they can write articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Suede, 1994-2013. Ritchie333's favourite cat. Couldn't play Tarkus on the Hammond organ for toffee though.

I love cats myself, I have two of them, and I'd kick the shit out of anyone who tried to give them a hard time, male or female. Eric Corbett 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly a course of action, but is it the best? What happens if we're all silent? Silence is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Eric Corbett 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

When you're under an Arb restriction, you're generally viewed as guilty until proven innocent. Best to let others defend you at times like this. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're generally viewed as being guilty, full stop. Eric Corbett 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Retention discussion

		The Purple Star
		I am appalled at the recent developments since I logged off yesterday, and honestly think the profound overreactions of someone who, apparently, has a history of such overreactions have led to your deciding, not unreasonably, that that person seems to have come to the conclusion that they are able to request the equivalent of the death penalty for jaywalking. I can understand wanting to put as much space between yourself and such profoundly overemotional and self-righteous individuals, and, honestly, should have done the same thing myself a bit over a year ago, before the arbitration that led to my very temporary retirement. I hope that you don't let the idiots get you down too much as a result of these most recent developments. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. What's happened though is pretty much what I thought would happen with that "broadly construed" nonsense that ArbCom is so fond of, which is why I've been declining invitations to get involved with articles on female subjects. It's just manna from heaven for the Sandsteins of this project. Eric Corbett 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your GGTF topic ban, as discussed in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. 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.  Sandstein  18:19, 25 January 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."

I think you ought to extend your block to 72 hours, as I don't edit on Mondays. Eric Corbett 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a reason that would justify extending a block.  Sandstein  18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anything ever strike you? Eric Corbett 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would consider the block to be inappropriate, given that far more admins voiced dissent against the block than supported it. Obvious supervote is obvious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Sandstein has no "supervote", he just thinks that he does. His next step of course will be to restrict access to my talk page. That might be a mistake on his part though, because there's always the possibility that I might launch into a profane and vitriolic attack on him and anyone who believes that he is anything other than what I believe him to be. Eric Corbett 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears to me that there is an agenda at work here. Cassianto^Talk 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not permitted to say what I think about Sandstein, although he's permitted to propagate whatever lies about me that pop into his head. I think that tells us all we need to know about WP's chaotic model of governance. The reason that Jimmy Wales wants the WMF to ban me as soon as humanly possible is because he knows that I'm right, and he's afraid that too many others might realise that as well. Eric Corbett 19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I can see Sandstein's logic on this one, and had the comment clearly been meant in bad faith I might have supported a block, but this seems completely out of proportion to the alleged offence. That said, I think it's grossly unfair to accuse Sandstein of having an agenda. I have criticised Sandstein in the past for his overly literal interpretation of remedies and the lack of proportion in subsequent sanctions (as indeed have plenty of arbitrators over the years), but he takes this approach across the board. I've seen nothing at all that suggest he has an axe to grind—against any editor—and would appreciate it if people would refrain from making such suggestions unless they have evidence. It is important to remember that it is possible for somebody to take an action you disagree with in only the best of faith, and that it is possible to disagree with that action without suggesting that the person who made it had an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

His "approach" has been to punish one party whilst letting off the other. That, to me, points to an agenda. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a basis for sanctions against the other party, there isn't an applicable arbitration remedy. We can and often do scrutinise those who come to AE with unclean hands to request discretionary sanctions, but we don't have the same latitude with specific remedies like topic bans, and Sandstein has only evaluated things from the perspective of arbitration enforcement (which is also something for which he has a reputation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So what's going to be next Harry? Am I even allowed to mention the existence of the GGTF? This very much reminds of one of those five-steps-removed from shows. Can anyone point to any female editor that I've abused in the way that I'm being continually accused of? Eric Corbett 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Based on this block, I would say no, you won't be able to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  So basically I'm forbidden to edit any article to do with females? Why didn't ArbCom just say that? Eric Corbett 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• So Eric can't edit Ika Hügel-Marshall (well obviously right now he can't but you get my drift) to give it a good copyedit and beef up the sourcing so it can be a GA? Who else will do the work? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go that far. It just looks to me like ArbCom wants you, Eric, to simply avoid even seeing the acronym GGTF, let alone mentioning it or responding to someone else who has the audacity to bring it up in a discussion that hadn't involved them previously. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This block was against a clearly forming consensus and contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am far too involved to entertain any unblock request but as on outside observer I would probably grant it(oh, I just noticed it is a special kind of block where I could not anyways). Just because someone technically violated the rules does not mean the community cannot have a consensus to not act, there was such a consensus and it was ignored. Chillum 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never understood the "broadly construed" ArbCom mantra, but c'est la vie. It now seems to me to being stretched to the point of ridicule, but I doubt Sandstein will care about that, as it gives him the opportunity to wreak his vengeance. Eric Corbett 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just Sandstein doing what Sandstein does; probably nothing against you specifically. A while back someone wrote something like "if there was a group of people running from a burning building, Sandstein would be the policeman calmly standing at the curb writing them tickets for jaywalking." But I've never seen any evidence that he's partial in his actions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Sandstein is an equal opportunity abuser? Eric Corbett 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, yes, I'm afraid that's the case. It's not that you're blocked because you're Eric Corbett(TM), but because you broke The Rule #418 §13, fine print. No such user (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I broke no rules. Eric Corbett 23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have the time (a self-imposed 3 day holiday to honor a friend), I was strolling around one of the old pastures behind the GGTF Building and found this olde Cow Pie. Careful! It stinks! Buster Seven Talk 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just doin' my job, sir!

• Well, thanks a lot, Sandstein. Great job adminning; you've clearly allowed Lightbreather to breathe more freely and make even more quality contributions. Eric, I came by to ask you if you could have a look at Ploughing in the Nivernais for me, which I just wrote up, on request. Turns out it was quite a bit of fun, and I was reminded of why I joined Wikipedia in the first place: to learn stuff. Anyway, I got plenty of real-life work to do, so I think I'll join you. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Count me in. (Had one only, brief interaction w/ LB, in good-faith and also at WT:WER, ending in her artificially blaming me as "part of the reason" for her resignation from the Wikipedia. So zero faith she wouldn't & doesn't attempt to scapegoat others for whatever her hostile GGTF agenda is.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

wildflowers for your wife, Eric

• Me too. One exchange with LB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Kindness ..., not really an interaction. There seems to be some difficulty in grasping my idea that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities. - Watch AE for more entertainment, we have the approach that suggesting to generally replace a template by a better one leads to "removing and adding" an infobox and thus is a violation (which prohobits "removing" and "adding". I would not be surprised if it ended the same way. - Thank you, Chillum, for giving me the term "best interest of the encyclopedia", - the interests of arbitration enforcement may be different. - I was cited there because I restored an article after an edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

some flowers also for Cassianto --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• + 1. Just because an Arbcom gag order can be enforced on an utterly trivial and extremely tenuous technicality it doesn't mean it has to be, and any admin who gets their jollies by enforcing it that way is clearly an abusive one whose action deserves nothing but the contempt of "teh communiteh." And in this instance the contemptible action was performed at whose bidding? Lightbreather's, for fuck's sake. An insult so pointed that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate and malign. Writegeist (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully. Eric Corbett 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to but in here in the middle of this, but whatever conflicts that occurred it isn't fair that Cassianto should leave and should be chased of. I know how that feels, I was there myself a couple of times myself. It is not exactly editor retention... if now we are discussing that one so much. Now if any of you (Ä, except Eric of course ) would go over and revert him, that would be nice. I bet he doesn't have a Phil who could do this for her/him. Or I will do that. Hafspajen (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Never mind, I did it myself. Kinda ironic that all this went out of a discussion about wikiproject editor retention... Hafspajen (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein? Eric Corbett 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this latest block was meant to achieve, but "Ours not to reason why" I guess. Eric Corbett 18:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Think of the sheer joy felt by those who dislike you. The block may have been pointless, but at least something good came from it. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's rather a revealing report, but why are you telling me? I can't take part in it even if I wanted to. Which I don't. Eric Corbett 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, I understand you are upset but rather than just moving on the comments here continued to stack up. I agree you are improving but the comments here aren't helping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your watching this talk page and then reporting transgressions you perceive as such isn't really helping either. I was about to give you the same advice NE Ent posted here. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting your recent violation of ArbCom sanctions

Please consider this a formal notice that I have reported your recent violation of your ArbCom sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that, I suggest that you canvass Sandstein ... Oh I see you've already done that. Eric Corbett 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just when you hope this place can't get any more ridiculous...it does. Intothatdarkness 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not terribly recent. Only after not gaining any sort of consensus at User_talk:Cassianto for their POV. NE Ent 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In what world is a few hours ago "not recent"? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This one, in which Rationalobserver made numerous edits before filing the AE request -- as has been noted by the responding admin at AE. NE Ent 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I first brought this to Sandstein's page, and I brought it to AE only after he advised me to. You are helping them turn this on me, which is why this place is so dysfunctional. If calling an editor "filth" isn't an insult, then I don't know what is. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rationalobserver, since you clearly despise Eric so much that you will run to dramaboards at the drop of a hat with evidence that is at best flawed, why are you still keeping this page on your watchlist? Oh, yeah; so you can bait him into being blocked. That doesn't help you, Eric, or anyone else. How, exactly, is Eric supposed to improve with people like you biting at his ankles every step of the way? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I shouldn't have underestimated the amount of support that EC has for his style. I'll take your advice and unwatch this page, and hopefully I won't have to interact with him again any time soon. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Owing to their filthy analogy towards me, they have been described as the noun alternative. It's not difficult to understand, but then perhaps for you, it is. Cassianto^Talk 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what your talking about, but you win. I'll try to avoid to guys from now on. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  I don't want to see you here ever again Rationalobserver. Is that clear enough? Eric Corbett 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And if RO continues this vendetta, I'll be asking for sanctions against him her at ANI. I really don't care if they don't actually pass now, but at some point the number of incidents will be too much for anyone to ignore. The moral of the story for the RO,KK,LB of the world; The fact is a lot of us like him writing stuff and he can't do that blocked. And he is less likely to be blocked if you stop counting the ways to be offended and/or poking at him. Just ignore him.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassing me is allowed, I'm surprised you haven't noticed. What's not allowed is for me to object to that harassment. Eric Corbett 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed. Let other's object on your behalf, though you could do everyone a favor and try not to take their bait.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ping me any time, I'm just looking for excuses to avoid my dramas and take on someone else's. I'm also more than willing to tell trolls they are trolls and to suggest that particularly annoying people go commit the infamous anatomically impossible act. (I also am always on the lookout for colorful euphemisms that provoke a SCOMN response from the reader!) Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ya did the right thing in keeping away from that second AE report. In the past, on 2 (or was it 3) occasions, I had an involved editor (the same editor each time, I believe) drag me off to AE, for the weakest reasons. Ain't nothing more frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Mailing lists and conspiracies

You may possibly not have noticed, but there's been a lot of talk of mailing lists, and secret plots to drive you off lately. I have a problem believing in the conspiracy theories because conspiracies require clever Machiavellian people, and I have seen precious few of those sallying against you, and while Sandstein has his faults (as we've seen over the last few days, he's not Machiavellian and I think he's basically honest, if easily led, frequently obsessive and mistaken. However, there is no doubt that some mailing lists have been rallying against you, and as they are offshoots of Wikipedia, we all have a right to know, which are these lists and which users subscribe to them - so lets have some names for these lists, details of what exactly are they saying and their membership. For the benefit of the shy, my user-email is working and discretion is assured. So let's get this cloak, dagger and stiletto stuff out in the open before the next poor wretch is set upon. Giano (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only relevant WMF mailing list I'm aware of is this one. Eric Corbett 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm subscribed to that one but don't participate. The periodic squirts of venom and eruptions of bile seem to be useful indicators of the intentions behind some of the shenanigans here. The list provides valuable context. I recommend joining it. Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  I certainly won't be joining it, not even if I was paid. I think it's a shame that so many female editors have recently decided to tarnish the reputations of all female editors, but that's obviously not a battle I can fight. Eric Corbett 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  (inserting) In England I sometimes used to read the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Torygraph. (Reading the posts on the list serves the same purpose for me.) Eventually I could no longer stomach their poisonous political claptrap and I stopped. The same may happen with the list, although my interest might survive longer as the contributions can be unwittingly very funny. I totally understand your position. Writegeist (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you rephrase that as "a very small cabal of editors who claim to be female ..." then I'll give it the nod. The problem is that I think some of these "women" actually aren't. (and not just the one whose name begins with T and who was outed on Wikipediocracy as a guy.) Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right, Montanabw. They certainly seem have some among their number who are remarkably adept at shooting the entirety in the foot, which would fit this sort of pattern. To AGF or not to AGF, that is the question. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're quite right Montanabw, I didn't mean to tar all female editors with the same brush. The irony is that I've loved working with female editors, and none of them seemed to have a problem with me: you, Sagaciousphil, Karanacs, Sandygeorgia, J3Mrs, Ealdgyth ... and so many others. Eric Corbett 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for you, Eric that all these people are trying to game the system and get them banned. Although tiring by now, I hope that you take their attempts and dismiss them--They want you to leave, so leaving the encylopedia will get cries of joy from them. Tutelary (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just shrugging my shoulders and ignoring it. ArbCom invited this kind of nonsense by accepting the GGTF case, but of course they won't accept responsibility. Eric Corbett 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(after ec with EC] I admit I'm baked, and not in a good way, but it's time to point out that, while he is not Wikipedia's champion of mincing words, I have never seen Eric try to drive anyone away from this project, certainly not another editor whose primary concern lies in mainspace. On the contrary, he's most receptive toward those who seek his assistance in improving articles, including people he might have initially tangled with (or they might have tangled with him). It's depressing enough to see some people watching Eric-in-a-fishbowl's every edit and waiting to pounce (same goes for edits by other prolific editors who improve the encyclopedia while perhaps not meeting some people's expectations toward Wikipedia as a social medium), to additionally have to read how these others obsess over Eric off-Wiki is too much to ask of anyone. Eric-detractors, please find something else to do. This is an encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP is a venomous environment led by a toxic personality. Is there anything more that needs to be said? Eric Corbett 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sitush is in hospital? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"I'm fed up of the bullshit."

I am out now, thanks, and looking forward to the next instalment of my surgical saga. As with a few others who have emailed me, I just cannot be arsed doing much here while this POV-pushing, pseudo-do-gooding political farrago continues. Let the DYK die a death, and let's hope that the community comes to its senses and begins to react to the real troublemakers who seem so keen to claim a faction exists but not to acknowledge that they are certainly part of one. I have read with interest the various user talk page responses to an invitation to this effort, of which the one here seems to be fairly typical. I am a Wikipedian first and, in a very distant second, a man. But I am fed up of the bullshit. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch anything to do with Lightbreather until I've fixed up a few articles on this list (as I feel the best response to somebody saying "well you improve these articles then" is to actually do so), though I can only find primary sources for Carolyn Gallaher and I think it's only inherent notability through WP:PROF that stops the bio going to AfD. Still, if another person sends that Kaffeeklatsch stuff to MfD, I will not shed tears. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to all eight editors who have sent me mailing lists to look at - amazing how the same names appear time after time, perhaps they don't get much mail in RL. From what I've read, so far, it looks like this is probably jut two silly editors constantly exciting each other to greater and greater acts of stupidity - of course that's assuming that they are two separate editors. Giano (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Without even seeing them, I suspect who the gruesome twosome are. The conduct of one stinks so bad, I sometimes think she transposed the letters of her username.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think, Sitush, that you accidentally forwarded something to me instead of to your sex kitten mailing list--"Hello I'm Sara,i saw your profile and i became interested in you,i will like to know you more,honestly dear friend i will be glad to receive your conversation responds to my mailbox, so that i will give you my pictures and also tell you more about myself. Remember the distance, colour or language does not matter but love matters a lot in life". I mean, you know I'm married, right? Drmies (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different....

This just arrived through ILL. Mwwwwhhhaa... I can cover your (possible) ancestors.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My wife's family has been able to trace their ancestry back to the Anglo Saxons. I'm quite clearly a Norman though. Eric Corbett 01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What, you're not a Viking? ---Sluzzelin talk

Nothing like as far back but one of my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers was Johann Nikolaus Ganson/John Nicholas Ganson, a missionary in the Moravian Church who hopped through Greenland to Antigua, had a son in Barbados and died, aged around 79, in Qom in 1820. That was quite a big move, bearing in mind he was certainly in Barbados in 1817. There are several letters around, including the excerpt printed here. But why do I know he was there in 1817? Well, he is listed as an owner in the Barbados Slave Register for that year. So, not only am I male but I am also a descendant of a slave owner. I am most probably damned in the eyes of some Wikipedians now that I've said it. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

One of my ancestors failed to get back in the sea, like it should have done. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery - even in native cultures - was pretty much universal in this world. Meaning essentially everyone is likely a descendant of a slave-owner and of a slave. Both. IIRC, all of the Jewish tribes were "enslaved" as just one example. What would make a difference is how the former slaves of such a person regarded him or her - and for that we have very little ancient evidence, and very little more modern evidence. Collect (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done as much genealogy as I can...my only claim to fame is that Kirsty Wark is something like a seventh cousin......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unlike my fellow Antipodean, the interlocutor supra, my ancestry is very boring. Not even an interesting trace of the Convict Stain. It seems that during the time of the Australian "Gold Rush" some illiterate peasants in the most backward parts of Ireland, England, and Germany heard that the entire population of Australia were prisoners. With the prospect of a great improvement of their quality of life, they embarked on voyages to the Great Southern Land, and on arrival duly presented themselves at the nearest HM Prison, in keen anticipation of "three hots and a cot". Much to their dismay, they found out that they actually had to be convicted of a crime to enjoy the fruits of the reformed Penal System of Her Majesty, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India. My ancestors were honest. Profoundly stupid, but honest. Pete "profoundly stupid, but honest" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Possessive form of Louis

Could you (or one of your talk page stalkers) advise on the possessive form of French Prince Louis? At Talk:Magna Carta/GA1 a reviewer has commented on the use of "Louis's" which is used three times in the subsection "Great Charter of 1217" of Magna Carta. Any advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 13:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As a talk page stalker: I would say it's Louis' palace at Versailles, and Lewis's semi-detatched in Wolverhapmpton. Giano (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Giano. "Louis's" only really makes sense if that final "s" in Louis is pronounced, but it isn't. Eric Corbett 13:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - changed.— Rod ^talk 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Belated talk page stalker @Rodw: Hmm: Googling suggests that "Louis's palace" is much more common than "Louis' palace". Given that "Louis" is pronounced "Looie", and that you'd talk about "Looiez palas", phonetically speaking, I'd have thought that the "apostrophe ess" would be added after this silent "s". According to Wikipedia (!), "The English possessive of French nouns ending in a silent s, x, or z is rendered differently by different authorities." (Apostrophe#Nouns_ending_with_silent_s.2C_x_or_z). There are 18k ghits for "Louis's reign" and 14k for "Louis' reign", but the first page of ghits for the latter seems to include many occurrences of the "Louis's" version. PamD 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And the Oxford Guide to Style here on Googlebooks supports "Louis's". PamD 00:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said at the review my grammar is not good enough to make valid arguments on this one (and I'm not sure the English grammar purists would put much weight on ghits). The query was raised by User:Tim riley and once User:Giano and Eric (all much more expert on grammar than I am) had commented all with the same answer I changed it in the Magna Carta article. It has now passed GA but if you'd like to put the potential options (or any other queries) onto the talk page that would be great as we already have a "Further development" section for "nit-picks" as we are hoping to move it forward to FAC before the anniversary.— Rod ^talk 08:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver

I wish the two of you could have a discussion, but maybe she's not ready. How about making your comments on neutral ground, maybe on an article talk page, and then pinging the editors you wish to notify? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's very likely. Eric Corbett 23:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an American. We are eternal optimists. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We have another word for that here. Eric Corbett 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Yes? Do tell... Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm labouring under more sanctions that you could possibly imagine, so I think I'll pass. Eric Corbett 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Maybe we can work together to change that. In any case, I see you've brought some concerns to Talk:Henry Fownes Luttrell and you've helped to improve the page.[3] Good work. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it Viriditas so I'm still going to pass. Eric Corbett 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm trying to work out just which thread of civility is being put forward by someone who views their fellow editors in such terms: "some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems". I'm somewhat saddened (although not surprised) by the "preach and insult" method. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at User talk:Rationalobserver shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're at 3RR. How much clearer does it have to be before you get a clue? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say, How soon will it be before you get a clue? Eric Corbett 00:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, you should post that comment directly on the talk page belonging to the user whom you were actually talking to (if you haven't already). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  Why exactly should I do that? I made my point at RO's talk page, as she was the reviewer. Eric Corbett 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Stops RO from having any more ammunition for dodgy cases. It's up to you though, of course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The last few days have been pretty shitty - so I'm taking a big breath and going and edit somewhere quietly away from drama. Sasata is active in spurts so might ping him and Sagaciousphil onto fairy ring or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some form of virus on here at the moment making a lot of people particularly irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, it's sheer bloody edit-warring at its simplest tit-for-tat form. That's either a gift to those who already want to see you thrown to the wolves, or else it's a reason for those who support you to start questioning why they should bother. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy DIngley, how the heck can someone edit-war on a user talk page? Seriously. A person can be other things, but edit-warring? Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and best wishes, Eric. Montanabw- I think that the accusation of edit-warring is possibly most revealing. Here we have an assiduous editor, who is still a relative newbie. One on the first thing that they did after signing up was to start copy editing the policy pages. It was a helpful edit but weird behaviour. Any form of constructive suggestion is then seen as a personal attack and a Violet Elisabeth Bott reaction. This edit-warring is the I'ĺl scream, and scream till I make myself sick reaction from someone that has difficulty in interpreting humans. (Asbergic) I am sure the RO will be reading this, so I will say here what I have often said to students- you are totally misinterpreting the body language and intentions of your tutors while your academic work is outstanding. Find someone you trust, and ask their advice when you need to interpret human behaviour they will help you put it in context. There is strength in admitting the problem, (and here you will find more sympathy and like minded souls than in physical life). Given the above, RO the correct response is to reply- Thanks, Eric- I'll consider it. Eric, I think any unpredictable response must be treated as a warning that normal rules have been suspended. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Always find these "newbies" who instantly discover the drama boards to be uncanny in their precocity. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Montanabw has a point, and made me look a bit around. [4] This I don't get. OK, that unblock from indef was made in good fait, but by now ... Also some warnings have been made here already. On same topic... Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• One editor's behaviour does not excuse another's. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  Perhaps not, but it may go some towards explaining it. Eric Corbett 14:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. However we're expected, and even required, to behave better than that. Particularly where it invalidates the argument, "I, an experienced editor, am being taunted by a newbie". Such an excuse carries no weight - ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  You may feel the weight of such a requirement, but I certainly don't. The point being made is that many so-called newbies aren't newbies at all. Eric Corbett 15:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  It's an utterly trivial edit-war, and your chances at ANEW or the other one (Enforcement? AN/Lese majeste?) would be snowball-like. Why give those who would want it such ammunition?Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that Rationalobserver is an irritating sock/returned former/banned user or something of that nature. Doubtless this will eventually be proven and he/she/it will be banned - not for the first time I expect. It is just a great pity that it isn't currently obvious to those running this show, but I suppose that brings us back to brain cells again. Giano (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the dire consequences of "Experienced Newbie". This example still boggles my mind[5]. I'm not saying that admonishment of some kind wasn't warranted, but someone had it in for a Project Coordinator if an IP is taking someone to WP:ARE a month after starting to edit.. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. IPs can be very unpleasant; this one was blocked for three months only the other day. I wish I knew how to change my IP address, there's quite a few things I'd like to tell some people. Giano (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Educate me

General knowledge question: Where would I or how would I find figures to determine the Top 10 prolific members of WER since Dennis created it? Someone is going "around town" making claims that are hard to accept. How does one check the veracity of a fellow editors claims without seeming to be petty or trivial. I may be completely wrong about this (it wouldn't be the first time) but an administrator should be accurate, don't 'ya think? . Buster Seven Talk 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For a given page, select "View History" and then "Revision history statistics" from External Tools. e.g for WT:WER, [6] NE Ent 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ent. Turns out I was wrong. . Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification(s)

There is some discussion that would consider nonsense going on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that I'm certain you zero interest in, but I have mentioned your name several times to I felt like I should at least let you know. No need for you to respond.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, KnowledgeKid77, you've been mentioned as well.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As you correctly surmise, I'm not in the slightest interested in what happens at ArbCom. Eric Corbett 01:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Another fine article

I do like your new Bile Beans article, its title is nearly as good as the last one I created. I've seen the sign a couple of times. We have a friend who photographs these old painted on signs so we keep an eye out. I also met a man with a collection of bricks but I do know some other people with less eccentric hobbies. J3Mrs (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I really ought to finish that off, as I think the story of the legal actions isn't quite right. Eric Corbett 20:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been amazed at how much information there is to be found on patent medicines such as Bile Beans, much of it from JSTOR. I'll really miss that resource when my free subscription expires. Eric Corbett 19:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You've created an awful lot of articles J3Mrs, but were you thinking of Damhouse? Eric Corbett 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant Sitlington formerly known as Shitlington, I came across it in connection with some colliery stuff. I was going to start another yesterday but my I keep losing my broadband connection. I must get it sorted out. I had a summer job at William Edge/Roberts Croupline in Bolton in my student days. They made patent medicines and laxatives, perhaps they deserve articles. I like JSTOR too and the BNA. J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have articles on all the patent medicines and their manufacturers. Eric Corbett 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of US public and academic libraries supply JSTOR access to library patrons through their web sites: maybe there is some similar arrangement in libraries where you are? Or WP:RX might be able to set you up with something. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR through a deal JSTOR has made with my old university - I don't know how many such deals there are but let me know if I can help on a literature search for you, Eric, once your existing arrangements expire. Bencherlite^Talk 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My existing JSTOR subscription has got another four or five months to go I think, and I'm optimistic that it will be renewed when the time comes. I could get access through my old university as well, but only onsite, not remotely, so as it's about 200 miles away not much good to me. Eric Corbett 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to know that you still refer to "miles" in the UK. Not that I object to the metric system in any way, but the old ways still work fine as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Am I the only person on this encyclopedia who hardly logs in these days because every time they do they hear this constant banging on about a so called "Gender disparity among Wikipedians?" It is boring; it is dull and, personally, I doubt it even exists outside the tired minds of few exceedingly irritating Wikipedians with mammoth sized chips on their shoulders. As many editors don't identify and have asexual names, I don't see how anyone can possibly know what the status quo is. If these bloody people don't soon get over themselves and get a life, we will soon all be on the verge of shooting ourselves. Giano (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• After saying something similar, I just learned the term "shero" for a female hero ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• As you can see from the above Giano, I'm not even allowed to comment on your comment. WP is heading to a very unhealthy place. Eric Corbett 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. I said in a discussion that I couldn't add another comment because of my restriction to two comments, and was told that that comment was one too many. Such is the value of arbitrary enforcement. Btw, proud of having Thomaskantor here twice ;) - By the logic of my restriction, - I couldn't add an infobox because I didn't start that article, had to ask Andy anyway which type to use, but he could also not add it, so a third person had to copy from where I mentioned it, - such is the value ..., - at least it increases communication ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• There was even an article in The Times last week about Wikipedia's so called gender disparity as dreamed up in some study by an obscure provincial university in America - a study which proves only that some universities have more money to waste and less interest solving real problems than others. Giano (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• This latest twist seems effectively to be censorship on a large scale. Does anyone in "authority" here actually think any more? Did they ever? Are the current crop worse than their predecessors? And is it really ok for self-declared feminist arbitrators and administrators to involve themselves in decisions that are effectively closely associated and sometimes directly involved with feminism and its objectives? (Obviously, under the new ruling, you can't respond to this last query, Eric. It is a fucking stupid situation.)

  With every decision like this, the politicisation of WP becomes more evident and, in conjunction with that, the project itself less worthy. We are operating in an environment that is increasingly more about control, social engineering and soapboxing than knowledge. I despair. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a hypothetical. If Sagaciousphil makes an edit I subsequently revert or amend am I in any way abusing her? Or vice versa? Eric Corbett 20:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sadly it's no surprise to see Jimbo Jong-un's lackeys kowtowing to the Supreme Leader by forcibly eliminating outspoken dissent from whatever happens to be the idiotic propaganda du jour. Power corrupts, etc. The word "arsecom" springs to mind. Time for intelligent editors to fork off? Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of enforcement request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just contact Sandstein directly? I'm quite certain he'd be only too happy to do the honours for you. Eric Corbett 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• How very droll; Gamliel is a proud editor-in chief of Wikipedia's newspaper. As he scours its pages for subversion there's no risk of him ever becoming a fearless Charlie. This place gets sicker by the moment. Giano (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• PS:I've just seen he even has the audacity to have "Je suis Charlie" on his page: What a hypocrite. Giano (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  I guess that once Jimmy Wales hands you the black spot it's all over bar the shouting. Eric Corbett 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, I think you are wrong. Even the biggest of mouths, bigots and idiots will realise that commenting on this one will smack a little too much of obvious persecution and vindictiveness. Giano (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  We'll just have to wait and see what Sandstein decides to do, as he practically runs the AE show. Eric Corbett 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think I don't know what your game is here, Staler and Waldorf. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you accusing me of now? Eric Corbett 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why not just go away instead of adding more incitement here? Pouring petrol on the fire comes to mind, and it isn't as if your sympathies are not well known. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He is referring to Statler and Waldorf. A U.S. entertainment reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's an American TV show! I thought he was referring to an hotel. We should all brush up on our American as there seems to be so many of them running the show. Giano (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact, the muppets Statler and Waldorf were in fact named after the hotels. Chillum 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hey Eric, I wasn't going to message you since I think that Graham Beards linking your name served as a ping, but I figured this wouldn't hurt. Graham recommended you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2 as somebody who could possibly give the Josh Hutcherson a good copy edit. I know you're always busy on here, but if you have any spare time and think you could help me out with it, I'd really appreciate it. Gloss 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I'm about to be blocked again, so I'm afraid I won't be able to help. Eric Corbett 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Again? Sheesh. But understandable, thanks anyways. Gloss 19:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that I've been given a temporary reprieve, until the next vexatious complaint. So as the subject of your article isn't a female I'll take a look and see what I can do. Eric Corbett 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Eric. Graham Beards (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was hoping you might copy edit one of my ancestors, she's been dead an awfully long time, and won't cause any trouble - I promise. She was quite a feisty, game old girl - quite ahead of her time. Giano (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  It's not the dead that cause me trouble, it's the living. Eric Corbett 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Try editing only during the hours of darkness. Giano (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'm running short of home soil though, and the Sun is getting ever so much brighter to my eyes. I'm now wondering if even mentioning the word "female" isn't in breach of my ArbCom sanction, so I think I'll wait until I see what chief-enforcer Sandstein thinks. Eric Corbett 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do we know if Sandstein is a Mr, Mrs or Ms? I've never really like to ask him/her/it. Or is that a forbidden question which can be construed as outing? This place is so difficult these days, one hesitates to pass wind let alone comment. Giano (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  I have a very firm opinion about what Sandstein is, but obviously I'm not allowed to share it. Eric Corbett 19:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's probably Herr! Giano (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just seeing your reply now. Thank you, Eric! Gloss 21:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm signing off now, but we should be able to finish this off tomorrow. Eric Corbett 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. Gloss 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There you go, all done now I think. Good luck with the FAC. Eric Corbett 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I do have one question for you though. The second sentence in the lead says "A native of Kentucky, Hutcherson began his acting career in the early 2000s, and appeared in several commercials and minor film and television roles before landing his first acting role in 2002 in the pilot episode of House Blend." But wasn't he acting in those commercials and minor film and TV roles? Do you mean something like "major acting role"? Eric Corbett 14:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, and yes major acting role would fit in better there. If you didn't change that yet I'll go do it now. Gloss 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to sort that out, as you obviously know better than me what it was you meant to say. Eric Corbett 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "aged eight, …" - feel free to send over any more concerns though, I certainly don't mind you being picky. Gloss 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Gamaliel

Whenever an administrator is shown to have been behaving less well than one might expect, the evidence is deleted.[7]

Let me spell it out for for you Gamaliel. Tomorrow ... well not tomorrow as that's a Monday, but Tuesday, let's see who contributes more to WP articles. Eric Corbett 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I defended you in the last couple of AE requests against you. Given your comments here I am not going to defend you again. Chillum 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I give a shit? Eric Corbett 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to give a shit, I tried to salvage you as an editor. It is clear you are not going to allow that. Chillum 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, you know much I despise you. I couldn't care less what you think about anything. Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what has Gamaliel done today? Eric Corbett 18:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you need to be kept in line by Lightbreather

Apparently User:Guerillero thinks that Lightbreather should be your personal monitor. Take a look at this stating | "the removal of her from DR pretty much allows Eric to do what he pleases" and he apparently considers her a "saint". So in essence when you are hounded endlessly until she manages to get you banned her is the mandate from Arbcom. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Does User:Guerillero actually say that? Admittedly, I have only scanned the page fast, but although I seem him recommending her for canonisation, I don't see him saying she should be Eric's mentor. That would be blatant provocation of Eric, and I doubt Guerillero would be so stupid as to give those of us who think that Eric is being deliberately provoked ammunition. Giano (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Monitor, not mentor. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see now what's being said. This place is declining rapidly; if everyone Lightbreather takes one of her dislikes to is to be hauled into every Arb discussion, then there's not much hope for the project. Personally, I am not at all convinced that there is a huge gender gap, but saying so brings out shrieks of misogynism and seems to be as virtually risky as questioning Mohammed. It's all quite concerning as the Arbcom seems to be quite happy with the situation, but then I suppose they would be. Giano (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from it, EC. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That said, yes, there is a gender gap and it is at its worst at AfD, Gamergate, and whenever the TFA for Valentine's Day is debated. But EC is not apart of any of that crap, and he is not the problem here. So indeed, WP:IGNORE is well-advise. Anyone here needs a person who self-identifies as a feminist AND usually supports EC, ping me with links to the trouble spot. If I think it's worth the bandwidth to weigh in, I will. That said, I wish like heck that whole thing would just go away. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm less sure than you Montanabw that a gender gap exists. If is it does, then it's being grossly exaggerated and used for nefarious purposes and settling old scores. Its current advocates are doing it no favours at all. Before this blatant persecution and paranoia of Eric became so obvious, I was prepared to ignore it - even when I was told that GorillaWarfare was using Wikipediocracy to accuse me of attacking her because of her sex (My analogy to her (posted openly on Wikipedia) was actually don't behave like a pathetic fool if you won't be regarded as one). My experience of women on Wikipedia is that they are quite equal to men in every way, but as with male editors, one meets the odd irksome one too; I'm not expecting that to change whatever the gender gap warriors achieve. Giano (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever nonsense Lightbreather comes up with is taken as gospel by the more gullible members of ArbCom. Eric Corbett 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Be careful. Even mentioning anything directly or indirectly on your own page, is risky. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise that, and no doubt some will even now be trying to wikilawyer how it might be that just mentioning LB is a breach of the ArbCom sanctions, but thanks for the reminder. Eric Corbett 16:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that there IS **a** problem with systemic bias, and there is a gender gap, but this is not **the** problem. The problem is not the illustrious Mr. Corbett. The problem is stuff like the trolls at Gamergate and the AfD's of articles on women and people of color, particularly historic figures, on grounds of "not notable' because they can't be found in Google. Giano notes accurately that there are some using the subject for settling old scores, and that is not appropriate. It doesn't help solve the actual problem. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate (the settling of scores, that is), but it is happening and will continue to happen. It happened before this and will continue after it. Such behavior, after all, is one of Wikipedia's core attributes. Intothatdarkness 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably ought to hold this conversation elsewhere, since Eric isn't supposed to comment on the gender gap. (Although I do agree with you, Montana, but then again, I'm another of those women who has been successful here and is thus not "normal". ;) ). Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say Karanacs, I'm forbidden to comment, but I will nevertheless, in the interest of free speech. It's a great pity that this divide has opened up, leaving many male editors including myself very reluctant to participate in articles on females and so-called female topics, when we could be so helpful. I recall that you and I have worked on at least one boddice ripper novel together. If what I've just said results in another AE sanction then so be it, I really couldn't care less. Eric Corbett 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OOOOOPs! Eric, you the grammarian, know better: Make that "Articles on women and so-called women's topics (or, if you insist on the adjective and not the gerund, 'female topics')." As was pointed out to me recently (still not sure I agree, but) 'women" is a noun but not an adjective, while "female" can be either. My "female is biology but women are humans" protocol still holds for the noun form. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't choose this fight. Eric Corbett

You're right, Eric. I'm done here. Don't want to get you in hot water. Sorry to stir the pot. I just wish people wouldn't lump all feminists into the same pot, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's OK that I'm not even allowed to address your point? What kind of world is Wikipedia? My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes. Eric Corbett 06:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dysfunctional. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Primeval. - Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a woman stubborn enough to stay anyway, sometimes frustrated, - but then I see you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I love women Gerda, I think they're very interesting. Eric Corbett 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."

This is the most perceptive sentence I can remember you writing recently, Eric, though I haven't read everything you've written and there may have been something better that I missed. I truly hope that no one tries to argue against your right to make such a broad and wise statement. Hey, I will disagree with you when I choose, forcefully at times, and don't much like some of your cultural residue. I am a jerk myself sometimes, and welcome well-aimed arrows and barbs. It's not always easy to respect the totality of your work here, but at this moment, I choose to do so openly. Very well said, Eric. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Very well said, Eric. It's not supposed to be a war. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange that some females would choose to reject the help of what they believe to be 90 per cent of the editing community, but there you go. Eric Corbett 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100 Pages of Archived Talk
		Congratulations on reaching 100 pages of archived talk (truth be told: I lost count after 60). You have achieved a milestone that very few, if any, editors have been able to accomplish. The fact that very few editors would want to achieve this milestone should not dampen your enthusiasm. Even though the Wikipedia Community uses your page as the town dump, we thank you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your extensive collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100 Pages of Archives Award.

. Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: HA! I'll be sure to use that in the future :P --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 03:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Complete non-drama

Did you know? ... that Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey win horse races with Kittens?

• Not a GA yet, but a touch of wikignoming is welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review

My very non-girly topic is ready for uninvolved eyes, if you're interested in taking a look. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I think it's the most ambitious topic I've tackled so far...which means it's really long :( Any advice you have is very much appreciated. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kedleston Hall

A request that's totally not connected to females and their problems. Can you pop over to Kedleston Hall, and click on the thing that tells you how to pronounce it. I've always thought (and pronounced) it Kedleston to rhyme with kettle then 'stn' rather 'ston' with the emphasis on the 'e' as in kettle. However, that pronouncing thing makes a great deal of 'lest.' I suppose native speakers may know otherwise, and as you are from those wilds that are north of Watford, you may just happen to know. Giano (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Don't worry, it's now sorted [8]. At least I know now that whatever my accent is, it's not Derbyshire. Talking of accents, I do have one (I'm told) although, I agree with you all, it's hard to believe - so it's good time to say this, English people have no idea how irritating it is to those of us phonetically challenged, when they keep saying "Sorry?" (and are clearly not) and looking at us as though we are half-wits. FFS say "what" or as my middle son's girlfriend says "Wassat" (hopefully, she won't last long) or "I have left my deaf-aid at home" or even: "speak properly or go back you foreign bastard." Whatever, just something I thought I'd mention at this opportune moment. Giano (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keddùlstun. But how useful are these pronunciations? Who says "Dudley" like a… like a… like someone who comes from Dudley? Last time I heard some of 'em talking, I thought they were Swedish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia: "(/ˈdʌdli/ ^ⓘ DUD-lee)", though I don't see why we can't have the local as well as the national [ronunciation covered. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I need a little admin help

After watching a fascinating programme on TV last night about the history of endocrinology I decided it would be good if we had an article on organotherapy, which I just started. But I got a warning before saving it that a previous version had been G11 deleted. Obviously I've got no idea what the previous version looked like, but before I carry on with the article could anyone who can see what it looked like have a quick butchers and reassure me that I'm unlikely to go down the same path?

I'm not trying to promote anything, just cover the early history of endocrinology. Eric Corbett 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted for not having enough content. This was the extent of it: "Organotherapy is a therapeutic method consisting in the stimulation of a specific organ in the body from a corresponding organ of a healthy mammal by triggering the creation of antigens in the host.

From: Dr. Mariano José Bueno Cortés, BIOSALUD-Institute of Biological and Anti-Ageing Medicine" I honestly don't think it should have been deleted, but yours is better. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I feel more comfortable about carrying on with it now. I thought the endocrinology article might have covered it, but it doesn't. It also contains the longest sentence I think I've ever seen, the entire first paragraph of the lead! Eric Corbett 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all quite interesting - I never knew that. However, if you are developing an interest in editing medical pages, for your own safety please do avoid gynecology. Giano (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be careful. My interest is really only in quack cures though. Eric Corbett 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

... but now you come to mention it, I'd need to cover the Brown-Séquard Elixir, extracted from the testicles of dogs and guinea pigs. Obviously male dogs and guinea pigs, and then there's the question of the castrati – again obviously male – and the treatments for hysteria in females. I wonder if that comes under the general rubric of "gender-related"? If it does, then I'm not sure how it's going to be possible to continue contributing here. Which is maybe the idea of course. Eric Corbett 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to avoid all "hysteria in females." Giano (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that'll be possible in this particular case, as treatment for hysteria generally involved removals rather than additions. It's the more general "gender-related" restriction I simply don't understand. Eric Corbett 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the article will be fine and I for one will support seeing you work on it. I am watching what's going on with the ArbCom review of Andy's infobox restrictions, though. If logic prevails, it will bode well for you as well, but if the pitchfork brigade wins, then I would advise you to be cautious. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For those who want to see that longest sentence Eric thought he'd ever seen, it's in this version, before he started to tidy it up. PamD 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But at about 79 words (I don't know what Word's word-counter does with the greek bits etc), it's a minnow compared to the whales described in Longest English sentence: any advance on 13,955 words? PamD 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I bet Lightbreather's "Readability" meter[9] would put that at about a PhD level! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not tempt fate by mentioning LB on Eric's page. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I've noticed the efforts you've made to show a kinder and gentler side of yourself. I never doubted it was there, and obvious to those who would look deep enough; but it is nice to see you sharing that so openly. Thanks Eric. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pussycat really, but like all cats I have sharp teeth and claws, and I'm not afraid to use them. Eric Corbett 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A corndog for you!

	Corn dog
	I would like to show my appreciation for you, Eric, by offering you this classic American treat. I hope all is well in your life, and I wish you good health and prosperity. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, the corn dog and prosperity go together, but good health?? =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Eric, would you be willing to take a look at radiocarbon dating? It's probably the next article I'm going to take to FAC, and it's a departure from my usual topics, so I'd really like someone with a good eye for poor phrasing to cast an eye over it. I am still tweaking it very slightly, but I doubt I'll be adding more than one or two more sentences, so I think it's ready to be looked at. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, maybe not until tomorrow though. Eric Corbett 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- whenever you can get to it is fine. Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You've been busy

MediaCityUK popped up on that red box notification thingie when I logged in so I looked to see what you were doing. Am I right in thinking I need to relearn how to cite references? I've noticed a couple of things you've changed in the past and having no interest in such things I have to declare myself baffled and somewhat disgruntled. I think it a pain, you do it and then something changes and you have to do it again. Why do we bother? Talk about wasted effort... but you have kindly put it all right. Thank you. (I shall use this page as my exemplar until it all changes again.) J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. All the citation templates have been rewritten in Lua, and "updated" over the last weekend. Sadly, {{citation}} in particular no longer works properly for web citations, and I suspect it's only a matter of time before it's nominated for deletion. Eric Corbett 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And they wonder why editors leave. I'm fed up with relearning stuff I never wanted to learn about. I hope that whoever rewrote it is going to rewrite all my citations, there are quite a few! Shouldn't editors be informed? J3Mrs (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about editors? Eric Corbett 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs. Why do "they" have to make life difficult for editors like us. Why cannot {{citation}} do for everything? I've used it for virtually everything. Why do we have to have cite this, cite that, cite the other, when one comprehensive one could (if the "experts" agree) cover everything. We simpletons get fed up. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From reading the various citation talk pages it seems that the {{citation}} template needs to be given clues as to what's being cited, such as |newspaper=, |journal=, |work= and so on. But as you know, in the past the |contribution= parameter worked perfectly well for that purpose, until some clever-clogs decided to change things without any proper discussion among the users of these templates. It would be so easy to fix the citation template, but obviously that's restricted only to trusted users, aka administrators and their lackeys, who by and large don't understand what they're doing. Eric Corbett 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All I want is to write articles and to compile list-articles, and to reference them in a simple-to-use method. I don't care about modes, separators, ps, etc. Just let the "experts" make things simple for me (and others), and stop going on technological jollies. It's this that will drive editors away (even more than misbehaving admins may do). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what we all want Peter, but the recurring problem here is that who develop the software don't use it and therefore don't fully understand how it's being used. I don't know what it takes to become a template editor, but I'm quite convinced I could do a better job. Eric Corbett 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. See this. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When will the veil be lifted from their eyes? I was a software developer for more than thirty years, but I never developed what I wanted, I developed what the customer wanted. Eric Corbett 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that every day someone trashes our work. Eric Corbett 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's simpler than that: Experts are crap. Remember?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Although Trappists don't take a vow of silence, they are not encouraged to speak much. I think that must be what the i.d. of the spokesperson for these changes refers to: lack of encouragement to speak to a broad base of editors about a change that will affect all content that should be referenced. Visual Editor, that strange media display thing, now this. It seems like writing content is becoming a major battleground between editors and the powers that be.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear that very few give a fuck about writing content. Eric Corbett 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem here with the development model. From all evidence, the boys and girls are correctly following their college notes. The first phase was investigation, where the examined the available notes and from that documented their perception of the module. (citations/visual editor--ot whatever). This was primarily a paper exercise. This document would be peer reviewed and signed off at phase meeting/keystage meeting. The clock is ticking and Wikipedia is growing and becoming more sophisticated and changing- but not for them- the document is fixed in time.

Coding now takes place- and the the boys and girls discover that there are incompatibilities in their model- the same incompatibilities that we have been hilighting since the previous generation of obscure changes. Their college tutor will have given them a ticklist of how to approach incompatibilites- so they will apply one of those strategems. KISS- keep it simple, then simplify some more- make the changes that affect the statistically fewest articles. I will keep to myself my POV about mentors that don't reference their work- and don't explain to newbies that the reference is more important than the trivia. But logically, being a prolific editor puts you in a statistically tiny group.

I have looked at the syntax of Lua-and it seem deceptively simple, and it will be a fairly easy to patch after the boys and girls give up, but there is no excuse for them to start coding before fully understanding the required algorith, and changing that. The development model needs to be revised, but until them I suggest that an extra phase is added- alpha testing whereby- they ping this highly stalked talk page, asking for comments before passing te code round the office for peer review. Our comments may be vicious but they will be constructive. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't use {{citation}} normally but when I'm "guest starring" on articles that do, I use that for consistency. It ain't broke and it don't need "fixing". I think Parrot of Doom's FAs all use {{citation}} too, and anyway, aren't there still a load of FAs with free text citations inside <ref> tags bouncing around? Lua doesn't look particularly out of the ordinary for those of us who've been writing code in any language you can think of (including ObjectPAL) before some admins were born, but the fundamentals of how to bugger up software development beyond the call of duty were well documented in Fred Brooks' The Mythical Man Month several decades ago and haven't really changed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask the person who's editing Module:Citation/CS1 to fix it? I'd have done so already, but I'm not sure exactly what the issue is -- "contribution" used to work and now it doesn't? NE Ent 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already have, but to no avail. Eric Corbett 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Better idea, why doesn't whoever is editing Module:Citation/CS1 ask content editors what they want? There must be somewhere to on the encyclopedia to solicit opinions. I don't understand either but I am discouraged if I find red error notices in the ref section of articles I've written. This is something that particularly affects the most scrupulous of editors such as Eric and Peter I. Vardy. It doesn't make life any easier for new editors. I learned about adding ref by copying what experienced editors did in Good Articles not by reading reams of instructions. J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Could ya'll verify the recent change is what's causing the ugly red warnings on MediaCity UK references? NE Ent 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what alerted me to the problem, it's been going on for a while. J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Any comprehensive works on your wiki-philosophies?

I confess that I'd be very, very interested in reading them, and not in an ironic sense. ResMar 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, certainly not written by me anyway. Eric Corbett 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should consider writing it up, then. I find all the buzz on this talk page curious but amn't willing to dig through ArbCom and related clutter to figure out why you seem to be such a polarizing figure. ResMar 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that I would choose to waste my time on such an exercise. Eric Corbett 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This problem left as an exercise to the reader. ResMar 16:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You were right, and I was wrong

First off, I apologize for joining in the feminist bandwagon against you. I see now that it was a huge mistake, and I was blinded by my loyalty to women. I don't expect you to forgive me, nor will it matter much, as I think I'll be retiring soon. But the females here don't treat each other with the respect they demand you treat them with, and my number one pet peeve is hypocrisy. The prime directive of Wikipedia is content creation, and I applaud your accomplishments in that area. I finally get what Sitush and Giano tried to teach me about civility, and I am now in near agreement. E.g., what good are banned words if people you trust throw you under the bus the first chance they get, all the while acting civil in the strict sense, but speaking with a forked tongue in the other? I.e., I'd rather you called me a cunt than pretended to be my friend before stabbing me in the back. I'll stop rambling now, and I won't be surprised if you revert this edit. I just wanted you to know that I can see your side of it now, and I think you are right to stick to your guns, and others are right to defend you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)