User talk:Eric Corbett

Please

Can you have a look at Trinity Chain Pier for me? I just wrote it (I've been meaning to for a while) and it could probably do with a critical eye. --John (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few little tweaks. That {{Inflation}} template isn't really suitable for converting the value of capital projects such as building a pier though. Added to which your conversion of £304548 is far too misleadingly accurate.

I've had several discussions at FAC about the best way to deal with these conversions, and I'd suggest consulting Measuring Worth and using their historic opportunity cost conversion, which gives a value of £349,400. I'd also recommend adding a note giving the basis of your conversion, as in Note e. of Little Moreton Hall. Eric Corbett 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I think I made the same mistake with the Inflation template at Leeds and Liverpool Canal, I presume the same advice would suit?--17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappedinburnley (talk • contribs)

The {{inflation}} template only measures consumer price inflation, and is meaningless with regards to wages or capital projects prior to around 1950, as the entire market was totally different; it's intended for things like rent, tickets and cheap paintings where "what could the buyer have got if he'd chosen to spend it on clothes or food" is a meaningful question. (The template documentation does say this in huge bold letters at the top, but nobody ever seems to read it.) In my experience, for capital expenditure it's more useful to give comparisons to other things from the same period with which the readers is likely to be familiar ("The Fooville and Bartown Railway cost £100,000 to build, more than three times the cost of the navy's largest battleship"). ‑ iridescent 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I admit I did see the huge writing on the inflation template but disregarded it. I was going to fix, replace or remove it, but I forgot as I was carried away with the joys of creation. I am glad I brought it here for review before publicising it more widely, I had a feeling that would be a good thing to do. I will use the measuringworth website as Eric suggested. Anything else? My own feeling it that it's a shame that there seem not to be many good book sources which deal with what was an iconic landmark. The equivalent one in Brighton was the subject of a painting by Turner. This one; a few mentions in biographies and gazetteers, some local history sites, and a few grainy black-and-white images. Frustrating. --John (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apart from the fact that the lead is obviously too short I think it's in pretty good shape. I've done something similar to what Iridescent is suggesting for the medieval period, comparing the cost of construction of a castle with the monarch's annual income for instance, but I think for the 19th century I'd go with one of the GDP comparisons. Eric Corbett

I'd suggest pestering User:lirazelf—if we're going to go to the trouble of having a Wikimedian-in-Residence at Museums Galleries Scotland, it would be worth seeing if she can coax anything out of the bowels of the National Museum of Scotland or one of the local history museums. ‑ iridescent 19:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@TrappedinBurnley: yes, indeed it would, exactly the same advice. Eric Corbett 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've got it sorted. Would you mind casting an eye over it to make sure I didn't do something daft? There are four instances.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you both, I had no idea such a position existed and I shall definitely pursue that line of inquiry. If User:lirazelf is not summoned by this ping here, I will go to her talk. I have expanded the lead a little and changed the currency calculation (it makes surprisingly little difference, but you are right that this is more accurate). Eric, thank you for the edits you made there too. --John (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Resident duly summoned! Will have a think... Lirazelf (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you again, especially User:Iridescent for researching the original name of the pier, which certainly made finding old sources a lot easier. I also appreciate User:Lirazelf offering to help, and your copyedits. I am not sure, given the variety of names, that Old Chain Pier is the best title for the pub section, as it was undoubtedly named after a popular name for the pier. More importantly, I really need a beer and pub expert to research what the building was between being a Victorian swimming pier ticket office and an outré pub. Did you like the story about the crazy landlady with her swords and guns? She also used to wear bamboo glasses. A lot of local people I've talked to are aware of that story. I'd still like more sources, more sources. --John (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Dig out local papers from the time of the pub's opening, as they'll almost certainly have something along the lines of "a new pub has opened in the building which was formerly a…" somewhere. Given its location, I would be surprised if it wasn't previously a military storeroom of some kind, in which case the 1945 date for conversion to other purposes would make obvious sense. ‑ iridescent 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

      (Adding) If you're in Edinburgh, the big Waterstones on Princes Street has a very good local history section, and it would be worth browsing through there. ‑ iridescent 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

      • I took your advice, User:Iridescent. See what you think of it now. --John (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Added a big stack of rather nitpicky comments to the talkpage. You might want to poke your head in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edinburgh to see if anyone's interested in having a look. ‑ iridescent 19:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I've attempted to answer your perceptive comments there, and I have flagged up the projects you suggested. Could do with a hand with the reference formatting though. --John (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and give me your thoughts on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stockport County F.C.

Not sure how close this is to you, I just passed it at GA as it was a nice read. Feel like I should give them a shove to FAC if poss. Anything to add? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary

[1] hey, thank you. You seem to be quite competent yourself. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Borley Rectory article

Articles on Wikipedia should never make assertions or claims for the factual truth of religious beliefs and spiritual or supernatural phenomena. The reasons why doing so is not acceptable in a secular encyclopaedia should be obvious. Therefore it is required that your recent edits must be reverted. Afterwriting (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing "religious" about hauntings. Ghosts clearly exist, they've been reported throughout history. The only question is, what is that people are actually reporting? I think in fact that it's you who's taken a wholly inappropriate religious stance, not me. Eric Corbett 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your beliefs about this your editing is a a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. No claims of objective or factual truth about such things are ever acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. Let's see who agrees with you on the discussion you ought to have started on the article's talk page. Eric Corbett 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not just my "opinion". And the onus is not on me to initiate further discussion on the talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The onus is most definitely on you to justify your pseudo-religious stance. So let's see what you have to say for yourself on the article's talk page. Religious fervour doesn't cut it with me. Eric Corbett 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What "pseudo-religious stance" and "religious fervour"?! The onus is very clearly on you to attempt to justify making truth claims in articles in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. Afterwriting (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The truth is that hauntings were reported. It's not for me, or for you, to speculate on those events, or from a position of scepticism to assume that they must inevitably be "alleged". Eric Corbett 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Daft isn't it. This "fringe theory" thing really seems to be an American thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable GAs

Hi. History of Japan, a "level-4 vital article" was recently rewritten and submitted for GA review which it promptly passed. It opened with:

• "The first evidence of a human presence in Japan dates back to 200,000 years ago, but it was not until around 32,000 BC that an established Paleolithic culture came into being." (Correct answer "It is likely that humans first arrived in Japan hundreds of thousands of years ago by crossing the land bridges that have periodically formed ... The earliest undisputed evidence of human habitation is of Late Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, from about 35,000 years ago.")
• and next section: "Today historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland who conquered the native Jōmon people." (Correct answer "The Yayoi technologies originated on the Asian mainland. There is debate among scholars as to what extent their spread was accomplished by means of migration or simply a diffusion of ideas, or a combination of both.")

The article is now being dealt with, but maybe you or a talk page watcher might want to find and look at the reviewer's other claimed 235 GA reviews - especially any that fall outside of the scope of pop culture (their field of expertise, judging from their claimed GAs). There could be a lot of similar efforts out there marked with a '+'. This doesn't look like much of a review to me. Cheers, anyway. zzz (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussed here zzz (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time. Only a few days ago I had cause to report this as the reviewer was quickly passing GAs in order to get their score up. Cassianto^Talk 08:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting the first evidence of people in Japan wrong by 150,000 years seems like a bigger deal than getting the weight of cattle wrong by a couple of %, but point taken (I think). The Japan review is far less detailed than that of the cattle, though. zzz (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is clearly not ready for reviewing in its current state. I nearly made a couple of additions, but I should gain some perspective first as I have not edited in this field. Excuse the disruption. zzz (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing them you fool. And my gripe wasn't with the cattle's weight; it was with the article as a whole. My point was that the quality of some "GA"'s are shockingly bad in comparison to some others. Cassianto^Talk 14:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True. There's only a handful at WP:GAR for some reason. zzz (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Workhouse

I see you reverted my edit to the page "Workhouse." I have no problems with it, but I figure I should ask.. Does Wikipedia officially use British or 'murican English? Wertercatt (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)Since there is no such thing as 'murican English and no place for such slang in an encyclopedia, your question is pointless. However, if what you are asking is whether Wikipedia uses British or American English, the answer is that both are used. See MOS:ENGVAR. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) It depends on the article, best to use whichever form is already being used and do not go through and change it all absent consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Interested by your usage of "absent" as a preposition, Montanabw, meaning "in the absence of" or "without", I checked the Oxford English Dictionary - which identifies it as a U.S. legal term. I must admit I'd never come across it until recently, and then mostly in Wikipedia discussions. But then Wikipedia discussions can tend to legalism. Is it in MOS:ENGVAR? John O'London (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd best take the fifth on that! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger

Good to see you back Eric. I intend to take Rod Steiger to FAC later in the week, I wondered if you could give it a read and edit beforehand? It looks in good shape to me, but I'm sure you'll spot a fair few things!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR input

Hey Eric, can you look at Chrome Division and Alphastates, articles I've nominated for GA reassessment? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Freida Pinto

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

Antonelli Bros Ltd

This article about an ice cream company in your neck of the woods just came in on CAT:CSD. I've tidied up but since you're local you (or any of the Greater Manchester regulars) might be able to do a better job, I dare say? I've got a gut feeling they were probably more popular in the early - mid 20th century than nowadays. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

opinion notability of murders vs murderers

As you've been active at Moors Murders article, I thought I would seek your opinion about a similar article. I've suggested a page move at Talk:Peter_Sutcliffe#Proposed_page_move. It seems logical to me that we should have an article about a set of murders in preference to a biography of a murderer, in exactly the same way as the Moors. What are your thoughts? Is there a difference between the two cases I am missing? --ℕ ℱ 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

R. M. Ballantyne

I saw you reverted my edited on R. M. Ballantyne. I can't read the source because it is behind a paywall. But more of Ballantyne's books other than the Coral Island are obviously certainly read. There are reviews for them on Amazon and Goodreads.

How would you clarify the article to say that the Coral Island is most read, but not the only of his books that is read? Jehorn (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say what the source says, which I did. If you can find another source to contradict the one cited then we can make whatever changes are necessary then. Eric Corbett 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Thank you. I didn't expect that. Wow. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious

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

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

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

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

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

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification

I did this NE Ent 01:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem on Montanabw's failed RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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