User talk:Eric Corbett

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

grow up

This might be vapid, but it's relevant. About a minute in.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who won't actually watch it...there is a phrase that says Twat means something different in England..I seem to remember someone somewhere saying that or something similar...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've become rather tired of Americans trying to claim ownership of the meanings of various words, and censoring their use as a result. For instance, I've never seen an English person complain about the use of the word fanny, even though it means quite a different thing in England and America. And it's not just so-called vulgar terms at issue here, as Dr. Blofeld will know after being accused of racism when he used the word monkey. Eric Corbett 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, my own view is that if a word offends someone, try to avoid it. For example "fags" might be cigarettes in the UK, but it's a serious insult to gay men here. There are some things where the context matters - it would be unwise to say "Paddy Wagon" in an Irish pub, for example, or "he Welshed on the deal" - those are examples of things where Americans have a term with racist implications and no clue how offensive it actually is... Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But it's pure conjecture to assume that the word welsh (alternative spelling welch) has anything to do with Wales or its people. Too many people look for excuses to take offence. Eric Corbett 12:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd immediately assume "Welshed" was referring to Wales and its people. I'm sure most words could be considered offensive in various different places. A "monkey admin with a gun ready to shoot me down for the slightest thing" or something similar to that is very clearly referring to a trigger happy admin with lack of control. If anything though as Cassianto rightly said it's probably offensive to monkeys to compare that particular admin to one... Often we don't know if something is offensive to one person or not. I associate monkey with "mischievous", not an ethnic minority. It's more racist to me that somebody would even associate them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But the word isn't Welshed, it's welshed. Eric Corbett 12:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this "red preview" for Melissa McCarthy's new movie the other night. I have a nagging suspicion they showed the best stuff in the trailer (as is the case in most crap movies), but that part did make me laugh, mostly because it reminded me of Eric. Some people get offended by certain words. Some people get annoyed with the thought police. Louis CK has a segment (easily found on youtube) about "faggot". If someone is offended over the use of the word in the non-homophobic way, their only legitimate complaint is crassness. But as we've seen all too often here some will seize any opportunity to take offense. That's 100% on them. Eric, it's not an "American" issue. You just dealt with a few nitwits who happen to be Americans. The ocean is not a barrier to crazy.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Words only have the power you give them. you assign the shock value or the appreciation. It's all perception. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that; words have power. We can choose how we respond to them, but that doesn't negate their impact - if you actually called me a certain set of words to my face, I could pretend they had no impact, but they still would. I also find it interesting that a lot of people who dish it out and call other people oversensitive can't take it when they are called on their own stuff. I recently watched this and thought it quite interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oi mate, over at Wikipedia they have just compared you to an admin... Cassianto^Talk 09:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A Minkey with ginger whiskers. Rings a bell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1934 cartoon

I noticed you removed the entry of that 1934 cartoon from list of adaptations of the Hansel and Gretel story. That cartoon is indeed based on the story. What's wrong with it? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You might as well ask what's wrong with that whole section of the article. The basic point of an adaptation is that it retells the story in a different medium, rather than re-imagining it. Added to which that entire section is an ugly and uncited bulleted list. Eric Corbett 01:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The cartoon seems to retell the story. Therefore it does qualify as an adaptation. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not what was said. The actual entry simply said that the cartoon was based on the Hansel and Gretel story: "The 1934 Oswald the Lucky Rabbit cartoon The Candy House is based on Hansel and Gretel. The character of Hansel is played by Oswald. Eric Corbett 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean the word "based" implies a derivative story that simply uses some elements similar to another story? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Something like that yes, as in this case. Eric Corbett 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The user who made that entry probably had a poor choice words on how he added to the list. I mean when I read the article itself, what it's about does qualify as an adaptation. 172.56.17.221 (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point. Eric Corbett 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Poem

spirale of justice

Talk:Gerechtigkeitsspirale, do you, Eric, or the guests of this talk show have ideas regarding the translation, - both literal as poetic? What is falsehood? Is it what Falschheit means, saying something knowing it's wrong, like Betrug (fraud)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The next word questioned was Gerechtigkeit, - I was sure it meant justice, but righteousness came up also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Difference between them and us

Hi Eric, your usually pretty vocal. What are your thoughts on the differences between men and women? I mean, men stand up and go to the toilet and women sit down. Is that why they generally live longer do you thinking? 164.39.151.107 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any scenario in which it would be prudent of me to share my thoughts on that subject with you. Eric Corbett 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wise man, this anon IP is clearly just a troll out looking for drama. (And I can say that). Probably a banned user who is jealous that you aren't! Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While it shan't have been prudent for Eric to share his thoughts on this IP's question, perhaps we should at least call it out for its use of grammar. "do you thinking?" For shame, I've blocked the IP... but I should lengthen it for butchering the good queens English. — Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, what do men do standing up, women do sitting down and dogs do on three legs?
Shake hands

Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, dude! You almost gave me a heart attack with that signature! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ CoffeeWhy are you using Jimbo Wales's name in your signature? Where's your self respect? Is it really intended as an April Fools? I'd say you're more the April Fool for impersonating him :-)! 6:45 "I am active as an editor of wikipedia" ... Does everybody else here pronounce wikipedia as wikeepeedeea with heavy emphasis on the "ee" sound or is it just a Jimbo/American thing? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

He's had a stern heads up on WP:AN and his talk, all his edits have been "fixed" and I've told him that saying "oops, my bad" will go a long way. Still, I've been having too much of a giraffe today myself. In answer to your question, I generally pronounce it "dram - uh - board". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I pronounce that drummer bird --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ps: alternative WP:Great Dismal Swamp --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of those - WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES, WP:CESSPIT, WP:Dramaboard, WP:HAPPYPLACE, WP:POPCORN, WP:PITCHFORKS, WP:WARALERT, WP:Wikicourt, the list goes on.... though Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils is brilliant Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Difference: ours is pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld: Perhaps I am. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Tool Labs

There used to be all sorts of useful tools before the WMF took over and set up its Tool Labs, which hardly ever seems to work. What do others use these days to check for dead external links for instance? Eric Corbett 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Click on 'em :( - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I've had to resort to doing. Hardly a step forwards and a bit of a time sink when you're trying to do a review. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the WMF's remit is to make life as difficult as possible for editors, or perhaps just for white male editors. Eric Corbett 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See User:Dispenser/Checklinks (which is WP:CHECKLINKS). I don't know the details but there was a struggle concerning use of free/non-free software, or something epic. The result is that the tools still exist but they run on the author's website which means they are not subject to the WMF's rules, and users need to trust the author. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In that 10 questions for Jimbo link I posted above Jimbo mentions what a brilliant developer Brandon is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Jimbo qualified to judge? Eric Corbett 13:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He seems to think Brandon is the best! Might explain a few things... The Jurassic web design...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I am genuinely mystified to what on earth the technical issues were / are with Checklinks. The software has to retrieve a page, parse a template (which you could more or less do with a bunch of regular expressions, no parse tree required), open it up and report the HTTP status code. That does not sound like brain surgery? Or am I missing something terribly obvious? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the WMF that's missing something terribly important, chief of which is competence. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just run Checklinks against Snake Pass, which appears to be OK. ;-) Eric Corbett 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Checklinks no longer appears to be available. Scrub that, I found it here. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK ideas

I'm having a difficult time deciding which hook to propose for the DeYoung Red Diamond article. For being a rather short article, it has several interesting facts. Here are a few ideas:

• ...that the DeYoung Red Diamond is the third-largest red diamond?
• ...that Sydney DeYoung purchased the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, at a flea market?
• ...that the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, was mailed to the Smithsonian Institution uninsured in an ordinary box?

I know that several experienced content creators frequent this page, so I though this would be a good place to ask. Thanks in advance for everyone's input. --Biblioworm 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You can supply them all in the template and have it discussed in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but I've noticed that the selected hook defaults to the top one if there is no discussion on the nomination page, which isn't exactly what I want. --Biblioworm 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to sex those up a bit. What's the diamond worth/insured for? What did DeYoung pay for it? Eric Corbett 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any available information on that, but I could try to look for it. --Biblioworm 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should scrap the first option as not very interesting, but anyway, in all cases you need to specify that it's the third largest red diamond in the world or ever found. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "ever found" over "in the world", because "ever found" is more subjective and still leaves the possibility that there may be larger red diamonds that we don't know about. I agree that the first hook isn't very interesting, so I'll strike that. Here's another idea:

...that the DeYoung Red Diamond, the third-largest red diamond ever found, was originally mistaken for a garnet?

--Biblioworm 15:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems rather certain that Eric will be blocked again (look two threads down), and seeing that the talk page may be protected, I'll just go ahead and nominate the second hook. --Biblioworm 02:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Time for me to beg for help again...

BUt it's not a female, not even a female horse. Long dead American, actually, but still a bad boy. If you and/or your talk page watchers could look over Monroe Edwards, he's going to head towards FAC soonish, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

bump? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Forbidden topics

I'm forbidden to comment on RfA or the GGTF, but nevertheless I want to sign off by commenting on both.

RfA is a vicious travesty that ought to have been stopped long ago.

The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.

Now block/ban me, and see if I care. Eric Corbett 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, since I'm here, I might as well make a point: if you observe recent (in)activity at WT:GGTF, you can conclude that it's being slowly abandoned because people just don't care about the sort of activism not justified by any demonstrable problem, so it will only die its natural death by abandonment. On the other hand, Eric, you fell victim of a quite similar fallacy of your own: you spotted a piece of unjustified activism and immediately took the bait of opposing it by all means available, which eventually attracted (already too high) attention of trolls, admins, Arbcom and His Majesty to your case.

Morale: Don't feed the trolls. While largely undervalued, silence and ignoring by the wise are quite powerful weapons against losers whose sole purpose on this planet is to be paid attention, the more of it the better. And you sinned by givin' it all too much to them.

Go, and sin no more, my son. Let your sins be forgiven in the spirit of the Easter. No such user (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting also to notice that after all the palaver about a women-only space there is virtually no activity at the Kaffeeklatsch, as far as I can see (just one topic which wasn't about the Klatsch itself), and in 2 1/2 months just six editors have signed its pledge. Most of us are too busy building the encyclopedia. PamD 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

But No, Eric, please don't reply to this post! PamD 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Time wounds all heels.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No wonder my feet hurt... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Still got my popcorn. Hope all is well for your folks, I'm a lot less active but i hope things are improving. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Always good to know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice (pictured) declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"? Things seem not have improved too much since that was carved in wood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?
The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

From the church where Andreas Scholl began his career ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No such user and PamD: Maybe there's less activity and interest in GGTF and the Klatsch because people who are or might be interested in them are tired of trying to get through the virtual picket lines of protesters who surround it? All to make the WP jocks and cheerleaders, so to speak, feel better about themselves? Or to save Wikipedia from some community "disaster"? We can only guess, because those places weren't allowed to grow or die naturally; they were actively bullied by those who saw no value in them (and therefore must have no value) or were even threatened by their very existence. Meanwhile, the marginalized remain marginalized, and are still talked about behind their backs. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

LB, are you hallucinating? Perhaps the pain meds for the broken elbow? You are one of the primary obstacles to any improvement(s) that may be required. You were told from the get-go that your methods were all wrong, and so it seems to have proven thus far. - Sitush (talk)

I am no longer on anything stronger than ibuprofen. Thanks for expressing your concern. Oh wait! You didn't. (Eric's kitten dies - and being a pet lover, I agree that was sad - and Wikipedians put on black armbands. My best friend's kidneys fail and I break my elbow while visiting her, and it becomes a joke.)

But I digress. What are you on? Because your comment hardly addresses what I wrote. The protests at GGTF and the Klatsch weren't about me, they were about (at GGTF) evidence that there is a diversity problem and probably is a sexism problem on Wikipedia. Anyone could have brought up such topics, I was just one of the unlucky ones who did. At the Klatsch, it wasn't about me, it was about having a women-only area - and how that would destroy Wikipedia. Again, anyone might have proposed such a space, and there were dozens of people at the IdeaLab who supported that idea. I was just the one vilified for having the ovaries to speak it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're making a lot of fuss over a broken elbow, hardly a life-threatening or even particularly debilitating condition. I broke my arm after slipping on icy steps about five or six years ago. It wasn't unusually painful and it didn't prevent me from typing once the cast was put on my pinned arm the following day. The only real inconvenience was that the cast made it impossible for me to put my arm through the sleeve of a coat. Eric Corbett 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett: What is your purpose when you start discussions like this? Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What discussion? I was simply making a comment about the absolute dishonesty of forbidding anyone to express an opinion. But as it happens I have no intentions of ever discussing anything with the supporters of either RfA or the GGTF, as both have blocked up their ears and closed their eyes to the reality. Eric Corbett 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia is not a blog. When you start discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - you know full well that your watchers are gonna come along and stroke your ego and you'll all lift your virtual pints and say "Hurrah!" or "Good on ya!" or whatever the hell you say, and speak poorly of your enemies (or the insects or rejects or however you think of us).

A lot of people hang on your words, Eric Corbett, and defend you, and follow your lead. So you have a beef with Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales and I don't know who-all else that pre-dates my knowledge of your existence. You could do a lot to help restore peace to this community by not starting such discussions.

I don't believe my ears are blocked or that my eyes are closed "to the reality," and since you're not allowed to discuss these things here, you can email me, if you wish, and we can talk privately. I'd like to start about what you mean when you say "the reality" - if you're interested. If you're not interested in that, maybe you could answer the original question: What was your PURPOSE in making the comment at the top of this thing that isn't a discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, what exactly are you doing here? I suspect it's looking for trouble. You say: you have "the ovaries to speak it." Well good for you, and we'll take your word on that. You know very well that Eric has the balls to be very blunt, but he is showing extreme restraint. So I suggest that you pack up your ovaries and go away. Giano (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We may each draw our own conclusions Giano, and I've certainly drawn mine. Eric Corbett 18:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	We've come full circle today with one of your first major contributions, Sale, Greater Manchester being today's featured article. I don't care what anyone else says, your article work should always be appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Support that, but appreciate also encouraging work ("chin up"), firm stance ("oppose") and language clarification (for example my "alleged long history" vs. "allegedly long history" as an infobox warrior), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that your love of infoboxes is about as certain as it is Eric being a great content contributor. Nothing "alleged" about either of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To tell me that I love infoboxes feels more offensive than four-letter words, and more offensive than calling my user page a place of hostility. The question is "warrior" or not, not emotional attachement or not. Proof of an edit war has not been provided, and will not be provided, because it's a myth. The closest was Sparrow Mass, in case you want to search. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're really showing your true colours now! If anybody here can keep a straight face and say "Gerda doesn't like infoboxes" I'll be most impressed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be my lack of language. "Love" is something I reserve for people, trees, flowers, music - living things that is, not boxes = reasonable tools for some people that don't hurt others, - call that "like" if you have to, but not "love". Don't box me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Without wishing to create drama, I'll just point out that the presence or absence of an infobox was not a topic of conversation on Snake Pass' recent GA, and the removal of an infobox on Piccadilly has not been a showstopper either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK ... that the contralto Maria Radner, who died in the Germanwings plane crash, performed Wagner's Wesendonck Lieder at his villa, Wahnfried?

You probably know that Wahnfried translates roughly to peace in madness. Meeting the article when routinely looking at new articles for project Germany made me sick. See what grew in collaboration, - I did little, but nominated and asked questions. I am passionate about people, and I love collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. It's like a blast from the past, and a reminder of why my RfA failed back in 2007. Eric Corbett 11:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Edited your comment

I've taken the liberty of adding a word to your comment. Please feel free to change it, and accept my apologies, if this was not the right thing to do. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Florence Nagle

I was thinking of gunning for FA for this, that would be quite some achievement to see her featured. What do you think folks? Open a peer review? It's definitely comprehensive anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Florence would make a plausible FAC, so I'd say go for it! Eric Corbett 14:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly been very well researched. Amazing really what all of us found and discovered on her together. I feel quite confident that it's a worthy candidate. I've just nommed Castell Coch though, perhaps we could wait a few weeks? We could open a peer review on the weekend and keep it open a few weeks and then nom?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a peer review would add much of value at this stage. I'd suggest that Sagaciousphil make the nomination, as in my mind it's largely down to her that it's in the state that it is today. Eric Corbett 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sagacious should be the one to nom it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

She'd prefer not to, so she's asked me to do it. Eric Corbett 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

... which I've now done. Eric Corbett 19:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And I supported, though I think I was too involved with the editing to be a neutral reviewer. But I'll watchlist and be glad to clarify any matters equestrian that may arise. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

John Frederick Stockwell

I just rescued this most unsavourable chap from speedy deletion, hanged for bludgeoning a cinema owner to death with an axe and being seemingly notorious enough for his own file in the National Archives. He's been dead for 80 years so I think we can put WP:BLPCRIME to one side, but it still needs sourcing. Who fancies helping? Hopefully the BNA will have something, and National Archives files tend to be quite full of salacious gossip if you look at the right ones. I realise Eric won't want anything to do with this as he's such a calm, peaceful chap, but maybe one of you stalkers might? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic that ought to be renamed to something like The Bow cinema murder, as it's not really about Stockwell at all. Eric Corbett 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just needed to confirm a title in sources, but The Observer called it the Bow cinema murder in 1934, so we'll go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't know how much you've used the BNA archives, but some of its search criteria seems to be a bit hit and miss. I've found two major contemporary news pieces on the murder, but one has the title "The Bow Kin Em A Murder" while the other has "The Bow Kinema Murder". No wonder I can't find anything. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I keep getting distracted when I use the BNA archives, there's so much there. BTW,the story as currently being related isn't consistent. We're initially told that Hoard was hit with the axe after he opened the door to the cinema, but later it appears that he was hit only after he tried to stop Stockwell leaving with a suitcase. Eric Corbett 17:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of the content appears to have been added by an IP here without adding any extra sources, which means either they have access to the book and TNA file that I don't, or they just knew about the incident (a quick search suggests it was part of a crime documentary on TV about 10 years ago) and wrote about it off the top of their head. The claim of Hoard being attacked immediately from opening the door came from the Simon & Schuster source this evening, and says, verbatim "On opening the door, he [Hoard] was attacked by an assailant armed with an axe". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just seen this, great job on salvaging it and interesting case. Yet another unwarranted speedy, when are people going to wake up eh Aymatth2? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well look on the bright side eh Blofeld, at least the article has ended up in a better shape than its subject material! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has definite promise, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Turn of the Screw (2009 film)

I'm happy to defer to your judgement, but I'm not so keen on starting sentences with "But" (with the exception of "But for"). Is that something which is OK? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a myth propagated by primary/elementary school teachers that starting sentences with conjunctions ist verboten. Eric Corbett 21:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll leave it for now, but it may end up getting reworked come FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Eric Corbett 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of grammar myths, so goes the one about ending sentences in prepositions. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, I think that Americans are more susceptible to these myths. Eric Corbett 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, here's one of my pet hates: "In 1986, X did Y". What is the point of that comma, other than to placate a long-forgotten elementary school teacher who didn't understand English grammar and just wanted an easy life? Eric Corbett 18:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eric, I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that. "In 1986" is an adverbial clause. I was taught that an adverbial clause preceding a main clause needs a comma, whereas one following a main clause does not. So it'd be "In 1986, X did Y." or "X did Y in 1986." The article on About.com agrees with me: "When an adverb clause begins the sentence, use a comma to separate the two clauses. Example: As soon as he arrives, we will have some lunch. When the adverb clause finishes the sentence, there is no need for a comma. Example: He gave me a call when he arrived in town." Are you of the view that an adverbial clause preceding a main clause never needs a comma, or do you think dates are a special case? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"In 1986" isn't a clause by any reasonable definition of that term. Unless you live in America of course. Eric Corbett 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"X did Y" makes perfect sense without the date; if "In 1986" isn't an adverbial clause, what is it? "X did Y" is the main clause. "In 1986" is an adverbial clause, as it gives us information about when the happenings of the main clause took place. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Only in America. Eric Corbett 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Prose woes (?)

my last buff, Corona Borealis...stalled at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corona Borealis/archive1)...maybe because the prose could be snappier (?) - anyone wanna look at the prose ...or even just the lead might help...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused by the last two paragraphs of the Mythology section. Why would the natives of New Zealand and Australia have names for a constellation they couldn't see in the southern sky? Eric Corbett 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They can see it, but it is low in the northern sky. Some of these constellations that only appear for a short time seem to have significance because of their novelty. The big dipper can be seen from northern Australia too. The aborigines also held more significance in distinctive patterns of fainter stars sometimes than the brighter stars. Makes for fascinating reading. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not at all clear from the article, although I see there's a brief explanation in the linked Northern Celestial Hemisphere. Presumably the explanation lies in the Earth's wobbly rotation? Whatever, even a note to explain what's going on would prevent another non-astronomer from that WTF moment. Eric Corbett 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, thankfully for all constellations I've found an online source so that all have the latitudes they are visible from, and it is listed in the Characteristics section (currently second sentence in). With some, if I come across a source that really spells it out (like best visible in autumn in the northern sky from Oz) I try to get them in as well - it sounds like it'd be good to find some from what you're saying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just speaking as someone with rather little interest in astronomy who lives in a big city often covered by cloud, so I rarely see stars anyway. But maybe I'm not the only one who might pop at the thought of a constellation in the northern hemisphere being visible in the southern hemisphere as well, when I've never seen the Southern Cross for instance. Or maybe I have, but just didn't notice? Eric Corbett 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, no. that's much too far south, as is Alpha Centauri. Anyway, this is why having laypeople is good for reading these. some of this didn't seem obvious to me. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Varagavank

Evening Eric, any chance you could give this a read/copyedit? I passed the other one a week or two ago but I'm reviewed this one and it doesn't quite seem there. The dates I find repetitive and I think it should really have more on architecture. Additional comments at the GAR by you or anybody here will be appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Tell you what, I'll look at this if you look at Corona Borealis (see above) as I think I need someone not familiar with astronomy to take a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks. I was about to comment at the FAC but I see it's been archived?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes - this being the problem - I've had a bunch of astronomy editors look at it, but not a layperson, so need this to happen as preamble before next FAC, which will be in about 10 days....mainly the lead. It got no comments in a month and was archived. I generally find this happens when some article I've buffed is a bit on the dry side....sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No comments whatsoever? Crikey. I'll give it a read now. Let me know when you nominate it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, there are far too many sentences/paragraphs beginning with "In XXX ...". Eric Corbett 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced by Varagavank as a GA, I think it needs more work before it meets the GA criteria. Eric Corbett 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mattisse as a GA reviewer

Hi, I believe that you have experience of Mattisse and their vast drawer of socks. It turns out that they were the GA reviewer for Herbert Hope Risley, an article that I pretty much rewrote some time ago before sending to GAN. Should I be concerned about this? I am working it up for a possible FA run but if Mattisse is that problematic then it may not even be GA. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(watching) I experienced the reviewer on the strict side, failing Unionskirche, Idstein, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

She could be a good reviewer, unless she felt slighted, in which case she could be difficult. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think she was generally a good reviewer, so I wouldn't be too concerned Sitush. Eric Corbett 09:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur. The issues with Mattisse were all in relation to her interactions with other people; I don't think anyone has ever raised an issue with the actual content either of her or of any members of her sockfarm. – iridescent 10:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't some people convinced Matisse is Rational observer here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mattisse has never stopped socking, but RO is not Mattisse. She had the capacity for doing good (albeit superficial) review work, unless her knickers were in a bunch (which they were whenever another editor had even a trivial disagreement with her or questioned her knowledge or edits), in which case she became unhinged and her work became erratic to the point of introducing more errors than she fixed. In short, Sitush, just because she was once involved in a GA means little at this point; when she got fussed and introduced prose and citation errors, they were easily noticed and fixed. Since she continues to sock (and follows Eric closely), discussing how her socks are recognized is not wise ... she does continue to edit. PS, Iri, there were numerous issues with actual content; as FAC delegate, it was most frustrating to watch nominators have to deal with issues introduced by her copyedits. Of course, I couldn't always say that on or during the FAC review ... and just had to wait for the issues to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The worst types of editor are those who go through articles introducing errors on purpose and disguising them with references. I don't know why anybody would waste their time doing that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think she ever did it on purpose; it happened when she got rattled (which was not infrequent). Once she tagged a lot of citations as "Failed verification" because she didn't seem to realize she had to access and read the full journal article instead of just the journal abstract. And then trying to point out her error rattled her even further ... after something as minor as that, where she didn't accept correction, her work would just fall apart.

But, Sitush, back to the question ... I don't think whether an article is or isn't a GA is that relevant at FAC anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, thanks to everyone for their thoughts. I see that Eric has also wielded his special brand of polish. I have got one or two things to add to the article and, ideally, I'd like to reduce the number of quotations a little without losing impact. I will take the thing to FAC in the near future. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)