User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I have "retired" from adding content, but will wean myself from Wikipedia by tying-up some loose ends; however, there will be some tasks left undone.

Old stuff, part 1: (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's talk about it...

(...or not?)

Hi Eric[edit]

Can you fix that poem/ book link I don't think it was supposed to be a new entry but maybe a reference at the bottom of the page. And even if it was couldn't it be left for someone to create a stub and make something out of it? Kristinwt (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Helpful "Welcome" information and links
Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Cultural depictions of spiders. I greatly appreciate your efforts to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Green Giant (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

January 2014[edit]

Old discussion with "Dah Orihginal™ (talk)"

Hello Eric, you can call me 74. Came over here to give you some trouble about your previous IP address, but I see you have wisely vacated my A-block turf as of December. Thanks.  :-)   Now, if you please, would you mind showing me your badges, please? Certain standards to keep up around here. ( You can blame JJ, they mentioned your moniker over at the Bladesmulti mentorship-subpage. )

  With all *that* stuff out of the way, I have some possible answers for your question about 2007 (there was a sea-change from inclusionism to deletionism ... the mind of the mob shifted from "we need more people to write these articles" and into the mode of "we need more wiki-tools to delete all the crap that all these new people are creating" ... which was backed up by exponential policy-growth at about the same time). I can actually chat about this for hours, I fear, so if your interest is just a passing curiosity, please stop me NOW.  :-)   But if you want to help me figure out how to get the graph of 5+edits/mo folks trending back upwards, to follow the steady monotonically-increasing trend in our readership, or for that matter, just share the mechanisms you are using for your sigmoid predictions, that would also be much appreciated.

  Apropos of nothing, there was an article about a mayor, from just southeast of Kansas City, that I wondered if you could comment on the wikiNotability thereof? Does this person belong in a dedicated article, or rather, in a mayor-subsection of the article about the city? It's a borderline-case in my book. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marvin_Megee No prob if you have little interest in these things; WP:REQUIRED applies as always. Anyhoo, nice to (virtually) meet you, and thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 I took a quick look at that article and agree that it is marginal. I would have liked to at least seen one reliable state-wide source establishing his notability. I personally would tend to allow it. I didn't check to see if there are any standards regarding notability for small-town big-wigs. Since he or his policies aren't mentioned in Greenwood, Missouri (except listing in infobox), I wouldn't recommend merging; it would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. BTW, did you check out the "Fauna Gallery" at Greenwood? It's a hoot. I don't object to a little humor in a "serious" article, as long as it's subtle (somewhere, there's a small-town article where the infobox lists their 'motto' as "We make duct tape!"; I was tempted to challenge it, but...)
 Regarding the Wikipedian Experience, I just found the '07 discontinuity surprisingly abrupt; and assumed there was an obvious answer. When I get the chance, perhaps I will expound on the subject. [Watch this space].   ~Anyway, pleased to meet you (in a virtual sense), ~E: (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, if they get added to the Greedwood article, it would not be a 'merge' so much as a 'discombobulationary cull' down to a couple sentences (or maybe three sentences), with every fifth word backed up by a cite. Like yourself, I've not looked up WP:BIGWIG yet, partly because I'm lazy, but mostly because I like to stick with the pillars (and WP:GNG). I note for the record we do have an article on the commissioner of Covington, Georgia.
  Obvious answers about why we peaked at 50k in 2007, and then have been declining since (now just under 30k on enWiki) seem few and far between; I've been looking around for some time now, since September or thereabouts. To *me* it seems obvious what the solutions are, but not everyone agrees with my *obviously* brilliant and clearly wikiRevolutionary schemes.  :-)   So I'm still working on it. At the moment the goal is to get a new voting-system worked out for the ExecDir slot, and write up a one-page Wikipedian Jungle Survival Manual. You're welcome to be a contributor to these, if you get the hankering please expound away, and of course you are also just as welcome to toss peanut-shells from the second-floor seats in the balcony, if you like observing. See you around the 'pedia, let me know if there's anything I can help out with. (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (( ahem... Dah Orihginal™ ... <grin> .... ))

"Carrier": Thanks[edit]


Thanks for making those improvements to the episode summaries. They do read much better now. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 22:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Wrong user[edit]

My apologies sad Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Np. Actually, thanks for showing me the {{helpdeskreply}} template; I knew  there must be one, but couldn't find anything at {{tb}} where I assumed it would be. (I wonder why Sinebot didn't catch the OP's omitted signature.)   ~Eric: (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Note to self[edit]

Hello, self!
I wanted me to remind myself about this source for Sugar glider:

And this one for "crew kit":

  • "A Sailor's Kit". Maritime History Archive. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Retrieved 4 March 2014. 

~Cheers, ~: (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for this. I forgot the # of hours is entered twice. Hopefully that's not all that happened to MH370! --Marc Kupper|talk 18:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See Also of MH370[edit]

Since you are new, I want to clear this up with you. The See Also section isn't needed yet because the wreckage hasn't been found. If you look at China Airlines Flight 611, Northwest Airlines Flight 255 and TWA Flight 800 you will notice the See Also section will be with similar causes and the people involved, since we don't even have the jet, we obviously won't have a cause TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

I saw that you removed Bennyramiro's spam link from the article and then were reverted deceptively for "IP vandalism." Just letting you know that your efforts have not gone unappreciated. Thank you also for removing the links to Air France that keep popping up. Also you should make an account!

FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

restoring refs[edit]

Hello, You asked (on my talk page) how I restored the orphan refs on [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. There may be better ways of doing it; I used what I would call a brute force method. I think there should be better tools for handling refs, and maybe there are, but I haven't installed any special scripts so I just edit an article by hand: copy/paste, etc.

(1) I opened another browser window and brought up a version of the article where the refs were still defined. (2) I looked for the definition of an orphaned ref, such as "CBSradar", selected the full definition (from the opening "ref" thru the closing "/ref"), and copied that (ctrl-c). (3) I went to the current version of the article, clicked on edit, and searched for the first appearance of the ref: CBSradar in this case. I selected the <ref name=CBSradar /> and pasted the full definition on top of it.

Nothing original about any of that.

I could have been more thorough and located the first non-lead use of the ref and fixed that one, but I didn't want to spend any extra time, lest I encounter an edit conflict.

You asked your question on my talk page, and I'm answering you over on your talk page because I wasn't sure you would be watching my talk page. NameIsRon (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Old Stuff, part 2: (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A kitten for you![edit]


Thanks for removing vandalism

Piguy101 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]


Your 2nd edit at Cultural depictions of spiders was the sort of thing we need. Too many of these are unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the 1st edit adding Enemy was by: Special:Contributions/Miltonwalksalot.  I was curious and did a little research; apparently, the spider symbolism was a much discussed topic among the movie-critic community.  —Btw, I have been major contributor/editor on Cultural depictions of spiders for awhile (also previously as: —now defunct), and would appreciate any comments, etc., because I am "semi-retired" from WP; currently, mostly tying-up loose ends that I've left behind. With that article, I started with the philosophy of inclusionism and perhaps it is time to cull the herd a bit (?).   ~Thank you for your attention, ~E: (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fictional Story[edit]

Hi Eric, I hope you are well. I hope you remember me. I had a thought running through my mind, thought I would share with you, seek help from you too since you are aware of me and my work.

I hope you have watched the movie '300'. Is this movie similar to 'Da vincihi code', e.g., in the movie '300', they assume that the viewer will have the basic understanding of the past histories, about the 'Gods' and 'oracles', they just go through with the primary story/topic through the 'Gods' and 'oracles'... I sat wondering, giving people the complete understanding of the basic in detail, is not just extortion amount of hard work but a lot of information to include, which might bore the reader... I have not read the 'Da vinchi code' I just have the basic understanding... Also how much can you lie in a fictional story? The links you provided last time, after reading some, I came into conclusion that, a fairy tale is sometimes enough lie as it is and depends on personal belief system, how much you want to dwell in it during/after reading the story and so on. ( (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC))

Lightoller cotton mills[edit]

Hi. There is not enough verification in the citation for your edit here. I looked into the Lancashire local papers and learned that new mills and chimneys were occasionally built on the same or adjacent sites, but found no evidence of multiple separate factories, except that there was a partnership dissolved between a Lightoller and a Tattersall involving a possible Manchester mill. Sorry about that, but we need better and fuller sourcing for such an edit. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The chart that I used as a reference indicates three different locations for cotton mills owned by the Lightoller family: Water Street (1788), Standish Street (1802), Lyons Lane (1852) as well as a 2nd one on Standish Street (1819; which may or may not be a rebuild of the 1st). I believe the Chorley Historical and Archaeological Society Chorley Mills chart to be a reliable source, and a commonly reasoned interpretation of the information to be valid and not "WO:OR" or "WP:SYN". ~Eric, aka: (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 
Yes, Eric, there are indications of three possible locations, and I would like to help with the inquiry into them. However, the CHAS chart is rather casual contemporary research which is not thorough and does not provide its sources. For all we know, the three streets mentioned may be contiguous, with parts of all three being eventually swallowed by successive developments. For instance, what are we to make of the following newspaper quote: [A meeting was held to consider purchasing] the partially burnt Victoria Mill, of Messrs. R. and J. Lightoller, who are now in course of liquidation, [which was offered by the liquidators for £17,000]. This offer includes the mill in Standish Street, containing 12,000 spindles, the Victoria Mill, gearing, vacant plots of land, and nine cottages. (Preston Chronicle, Sat. 9 June 1883, p. 3--accessed at The British Newspaper Archive. It sounds to me like one big complex rather than separate complexes. In any event, the family cotton history is of questionable relevance to the subject of Charles Lightoller, who never worked in it and whose father fled from it to New Zealand. Bjenks (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, even if the four mills were at the same "big complex", there would be a plurality of mills. I am willing to compromise if you could come up with deliberately ambiguous wording (but I am not fond of " least one mill"  ~E: (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, really. The CHAS itself places a number of mills in a complex (eg, see here). How about "He was born into a family that had operated cotton-spinning mills in Lancashire since the late 18th century."[1]
  1. ^ Heyes J. A History of Chorley cited at Chorley Mills page of Chorley Historical and Archaeological Society. Accessed 10 December 2014
Sounds good.  ~E: (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on "Oops Defense"[edit]

I was actually considering reverting that edit...but then it would probably have turned into an edit war. I do see the irony -- perhaps we should insert an HTML comment. Thoughts? Eman235/talk 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Eman235: I made the original edit quite awhile ago and don't recall my thought-process, but probably was an actual spelling error (oops!); however, "correcting" it would negate the subsequent entry by User: Luxure -- I'll add a <!--(sic)--> comment.  —E: (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Eman235/talk 22:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)