User talk:Eric

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.

de-3Dieser Benutzer hat sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse.

it-1Questo utente può contribuire con un livello semplice di italiano.

es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

Search user languages

About Lefranc de Pompignan

Hi Eric: you've suppressed my correction : where I added dates and mentioned that Lefranc de Pompignan was bishop of Le Puy. You mentioned Voltaire and his Lettre d'un quaker. Read it : He attacked Lefranc de Pompignan as bishop of Le Puy :" De quoi t’avises-tu, dans une instruction dite pastorale, adressée aux laboureurs, vignerons, et merciers du Puy en Velay, de dire (page 38) que le système de gravitation est menacé de décadence ? Qu’a de commun la théorie des forces centripètes et centrifuges avec la religion et avec les habitants du Puy en Velay" ?. So it is wrong to write that the archbishop of Vienne was attacked by Voltaire. I maintain my version : you can rewrite as you want .. Cheers--Lou raspoutchou (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied on article's talkpage. Eric ^talk 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Honey bee

Hello, Eric. I can read the dictionary and referred to same in my original edit on the proper common name for Apis mellifera, so your comment seemed inappropriate. My understanding is that the dictionary is not the reference guide wikipedians should use for insect common names - instead it's ITIS, Tree of Life (ToL) and ESA Common Names of Insects - see [[1]]. I modified your revert and added that all three of these references use "honey bee". In contrast, they would run the two words together when the insect common name is not of that insect Order, as in dragonfly or butterfly. I mainly do mammal pages where we use Mammalian Species of the World and Tree of Life as guides to common names so it seems surprising to rely on the dictionary for insects.Schmiebel (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Schmiebel, I did not mean to imply that you cannot read. I just suggested consulting a dictionary before you unilaterally eliminate mention of a common name spelling. Convention in the entomology community, however long-established and well-considered, does not preclude mention of a longstanding alternative spelling of a common name in this article. And the second paragraph of an article is not the place for an essay discouraging the use of a common name. Dictionaries are in fact good sources for determining the prevalence of a term. The AHD lists honeybee as a standalone entry, and Google's ngram viewer shows honeybee surpassing honey bee in prevalence a hundred years ago. I do not cite these to promote use of the single-word spelling. I am the last person to claim that mob rule should determine what is considered correct, and I have no argument against honey bee, but I'm certain that your removal of honeybee as an AKA is inappropriate. We may want to move this discussion to Talk:Honey_bee#honeybee_vs._honey_bee, or create a new section there. I don't think this should be a debate between just us two. Eric ^talk 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cortado

Hi Eric. Yes, it is more than just take the edge off the bitterness, but either it gets moved to a dedicated section on etymology to be explained in more detail, or it would become disproportionately too long in the lede. At first I actually typed "reducing", then changed it to "cutting (out)". Your example of the whiskey is in fact the same concept as with the cortado - not necessarily a referrence to a negative quality, so perhaps "strength" is a better word that "bitterness". But in both cases, to some drinkers strong coffee and neat whiskey (especially in the case of lower quality whiskeys) can be unpleasant. In both cases, the person wanting to dilute it would say that "it is too strong". With reference to whiskey, the term "cut" is also used to the practice of adulterating black market whiskey with water. So I guess, after all, the better suited term would be "dilute", leaving out any reference to the result (less bitter, less strong, etc.). I will change that, let me know what you think. Thanks for alerting me. (Are you of Irish background? My favourite whiskeys!) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I also wondered about the comparison to macchiatto, so I am glad you removed it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rui- I think "cut" is good; I'll work it back in and see what you think. As for whiskey, I lean toward Scotch, though I apparently have some Irish strands of DNA! Cheers, Eric ^talk 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Good one. Good solution to cut through the etymological milkiness of an otherwise already dark entity. Nice and short.

Why I asked about your background, is your preference for "whiskey" over "whisky". Irish products are labelled "whiskey", whereas Scottish ones are labelled "whisky". I am referring to actual labels on the bottles, but now I see that "whiskey" (bourbon) is also the usual spelling in US English. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Ah, I never noticed it was just the Scots who eschewed the e. I've always just thought the lonely y was just an alternative spelling, somewhat rustic-looking. I like seeing that spelling, but I've never dared to try it myself. Maybe I'll take a couple snorts of the Talisker and give it a go one day... Eric ^talk 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Votre commentaire

Bonjour, puisque vous avez indiqué que vous parliez francais courrament je me permet de vous écrire en francais. Dans un forum vous me traitez de "high maintenance editor". Permettez moi je vous donner la définition de Wikipedia à ce sujet:Occasionally, some long-time users come to believe they are more important than other editors, and act in ways that seek to regularly receive validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by delivering and obtaining compliance with ultimatums, such as threatening to storm off the project in a huff—a "retirement" or long wikibreak. Other examples including threats to make vexatious claims at noticeboards, or to cease all work in a particular topic area. These dramatics are usually accompanied by a long diatribe about whatever petty issue is driving them away this time". Qu'est ce qui vous permet de me juger ainsi? Ai je menacé qui que se soit ? Posé des ultimatums ou bien brandi la menace de quitter wiki? Je me permet de vous rappeler que comme dans tout projet participatif, la retenue, et la considération des autres utilisateurs est de mise. Et votre formulation est clairement péromptoire. La prochaine fois, s'il vous plaît avant de jeter l'opprobre sur un des utilisateurs, veillez à mesurer votre langage, et soyez s'il vous plaît un peu plus courtois et respectueux des autres.--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Vos arguments décousus et irritables--et souvent hors sujet--sont difficiles à suivre. De plus, ils ne m'intéressent pas. Veuillez mener vos diatribes ailleurs. Eric ^talk 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My message was very clear, but maybe your French in not as good as I thought. It might have been easier in English for you. In a nutshell, please refrain to use incorrect term towards others since according to the wiki definition I'm not a High profile maintenance guy. Kind regards.--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Your messages are rambling and disjointed in both English and French. And you may want to re-read your French above before you go commenting on others' fluency levels. Go away. Eric ^talk 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. At last it shows that your opinion about me is very negative, so are your comments. My English is not perfect, but as for my French, you can show this message to any of a French fluent person. This is a perfect French, I'm sorry that you can't get it. Have a great day.--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

At sign example of roguelikes

Hey! If I uploaded a better quality image illustrating an example of how the At sign plays into roguelikes, do you think that would suffice? Thanks in advance!--DrWho42 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @DoctorWho42 - I suppose so. I don't really know how widely known the Roguelike games are, so I'm not the best person to ask. If you put a pic that shows the symbol better, other editors will decide if they think it's warranted. Eric ^talk 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi Eric. You posted on my talk page a couple months ago about a disruptive editor. Someone has brought an ANI about him/her here: [2]. Regards. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I made a comment there. Eric ^talk 19:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Eric ^talk 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

turnpike in nova scotian english

I was just cruising through wikipedia - im a dabbler who occassionally makes suggestions - not a pro at all - i see now i should "watch" the pages i edit and ill do that from now on. i see one edit i made you changed and i think, as you referenced in your comments, you did make an improper assumption.

(cur | prev) 17:55, 7 November 2013‎ Eric (talk | contribs)‎ . . (814 bytes) (-137)‎ . . (links, rm what I believe to be a reference to one specific trail in Nova Scotia. Sorry if I got something wrong--I'm assuming "turnpike" is not in general use in NS to refer to any portage trail along an esker.) (undo | thank)

i dont know what/ how to address this other than to write you this note and perhaps you can tell me, based on your experiene what the next step should be - i dont want to simply change the edit back withouth talking to you first.

turnpike is in fact used in two ways by canoeists in (south western) nova scotia - one is we do often say "The Turnpike" for a particular carry (our word for portage) between Annapolis and Digby Counties - but it is also used for ANY carry trail over an esker - thus we say i followed a turnpike to boundary rock, for example.

eskers are common in south western nova scotia - and the mi'kmaw did much more walking on these paths than canoeing, contrary to popular belief.

for reference i would point you to the book "Canoeing the Tobeatic" by Andy Smith wherein he uses turnpike this way. As does Mike Parker, a noted nova scotian author who writes specifically about the backwoods of nova scotia.

as for "general use", i would not use the word esker in normal conversation as no one would understand but turnpike is a word used by hunters, snowmobilers and predominatly canoeists because they are the only people who "use" the carry trails.

if despite this, the article stays as it is, i wont lose any sleep over it - but just wanted to communicate how we here in SWNS use the word.

thanks Jonathan Shore (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan:- Thanks for spotting my error. You should be able to undo my edit, I think. If any subsequent edits have altered the page in a way that would conflict with your revert, the system will give you a message that the edit can't be undone, and you'll have to do it manually. But I would ask that you keep esker and portage without caps (the wikilink will resolve without the initial capital).

Here's how you post a link to the difference between two versions (called a "diff" here) via an article's history page: [<url of diff (copied from browser's address bar)><single space><whatever text you want here>] (without the <>). In the next sentence, I'll put a link to the diff you cited above and, when you go into an edit session to reply to me here, you'll be able to see how it's implemented: Here is the diff of my erroneous edit. Let me know if this makes sense! Eric ^talk 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks @Eric: - i made the change manually with small caps. it seems i only make changes to nova scotia stuff - our provincial fish, retired MLAs and words for canoeing - but it is fun to contribute now and then about my home - thanks for your help Jonathan Shore

Glad to help! Eric ^talk 15:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cape Cod

Eric, Why are my contributions to 'In Popular Culture' on the Cape Cod page not valid? My references were valid and I provided references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbrigg (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisbrigg: Chris, I didn't find the content you added to be notable. If we write about every mention of Cape Cod in every song and movie, the article will be a mile long. These "in popular culture" sections often get filled with trivia--tidbits that might be fun or interesting to some people, but that don't really belong in an encyclopedia article. You might find some guidance here (I haven't read through the whole thing): Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content. Eric ^talk 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eric: Okay, thank you.

Your cancelation and comment

Hi Eric, I saw that you cancelled my cancellation from a disruptive anonymous editor that keep changing all the names in English by German ones, like waad, Wallis or Walkerhorn for Grandes Jorasses for exemple, and thus leading in this article in the destruction of the redirections by creating articles that are not existing like the Waadt canton, or erasing French names in articles [3]. Furthermore he makes racist and antisemitic comments on talk pages [4],[5], [6]. In the article about Morat I just cancelled his edits, he not only modified the names used, but destroyed wiki links. You made a comment with your cancellation: [7] and I don't know if the comment that you made is addressed to me or to this user. Many of his others disruptive edits have been already cancelled by other users [8],[9]. I strongly suspect this user to be contributing with this second IP address [10], since he used the same terms and edits on similar articles, from the same location, where he keeps making antisemitic, racist and francophobics comments and edits [11], [12], [13], [14] and I could quote forever. Unfortunately nobody is very keen nor quick to intervene, at least not as fast as you my own edits. As far as I'm concerned I just reinstated the previous version that was accepted by all. Could you please tell me to whom you were exactly referring by being "a tendentious campaign editor". If you are adressing to me we can solve this issue by bringing this matter to the administrative notice board. I don't think that I'm a tendentious editor by reinstating the former correct version, especially by cancelling the edits from a what it seems to be a racist/antisemitic contributor, unless you are supporting this editor which is not possible. I just want to believe that you have been too fast in your cancellation without taking the time to check what was the previous edit.... But IF the comment and the cancelation was addressed to me, please next time before doing so, take the time to check what was the previous edit.--Gabriel HM (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discuss the article name on the article's talkpage. Don't refer people to my talkpage to discuss such things. And don't waste your time and mine leaving long essays here. Eric ^talk 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place since you made personals and unjustified attacks. This issue is not about Morat or Murten since I really don't mind, the issue is your comments. This is not the first time that you are doing it. Next time if you want to save your time and mine, refrain to do this. You are not above the rules, and I kept record from your previous attacks. I really hope that this is the last time that we have to have this kind of discussion, next time I will fill up an official complain, you might be an administrator, but the rules are the same for all.--Gabriel HM (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no attack. You seek conflict and drama on Wikipedia; I do not. I'm just here to help, and I call things as I see them. Go away, keep off my talkpage. Eric ^talk 23:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for the notice.

I do agree with using edit summaries for important changes/reverts/things that you want to make a note of. Sometimes I make a large number of edits/tweaks at a time and trying to put an edit summary in for each one would take too much time away from what I'm trying to do. It may be best to suggest that people put in edit summaries at key/important momnts. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they're always worth providing as a courtesy to your collaborators, and I'm guessing someone has come up with a way to automate them for mass changes. Eric ^talk 02:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Re "blanching" vs. "blanch"

You say that "blanching" rather than "blanch" looks amateurish. You can always challenge the current policy, though of course you should bring some evidence. As far as I can tell, this is standard practice in reference works: Chapter or section headings in cookbooks? Encyclopedia (not dictionary) headings (though the Oxford Companion to Food has an entry for "poach")? Library subject headings? --Macrakis (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Ah, I had not considered the cookbook angle--good point. That immediately called to mind the index in the Joy of Cooking, which I just confirmed uses -ing for procedures. My Food Lover's Companion, on the other hand, goes with the infinitive. I guess I tend to go by dictionary entry style as my standard. Never seen the Library of Congress subject heading listing--thanks for that. Though we must read US gov't publications with a grain of salt; they'll tell us to write Douglas fir with a hyphen—an abomination for which any good English teacher would rap our knuckles.

But WP is not a dictionary: it is not about words, but about the concepts behind them. --Macrakis (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I realize that. And I know full well what Wikipedia is not. Eric ^talk 03:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No offense intended. There are a gazillion WP rules, and I'm sure I don't know all of them. You just mentioned "I tend to go by dictionary entry style as my standard", so I thought you might have been unaware of that guideline/policy. --Macrakis (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, none taken! I'm definitely aware of the policy. I just meant that I start from a more traditional view of reference works in my endeavors here. But over the years I've been forced to broaden my views, given gems like these two, for example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_threat, Headlight_flashing. Eric ^talk 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Eric. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers!

Hi Eric, thanks for the pointers on always writing an edit summary and using sandbox and preview functions to minimize editing clutter in articles like Asilidae ! To be honest I'd been avoiding the sandbox because I couldn't find any immediate pointers explaining how parallel editing occurrences are resolved, for example if someone else would be editing the same article with versus without using his or her respective sandbox. Pdeley (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pdeley: Hi, you're welcome. As your watchlist grows, you'll see that it's a big help and time-saver if the other editors are leaving summaries. And I think you'll find that edit conflicts will be rare in the field where you've been editing. You might find some helpful guidance on that topic here: Help:Edit conflict. Eric ^talk 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Patsy Cline

I'd like explanation on your comments regarding something I deleted on Patsy Cline's page. I removed cause of death and added it in with location of death because cause of death isn't an option for a musical artist's Quick Facts box. Do you not observe your edits after you make them? I'm wondering. It doesn't show up. It serves no purpose. I did nothing wrong in removing something that doesn't show up. I was trying to think of a way that it could. There is no need to intimidate and threaten. I respond very well to positive, friendly feedback, and that's what should be used when communicating with one another. I hope that the mistake can be fixed. Otherwise, I will remove it again. Thanks. Clarawolfe (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, abetted by your chaotic editing and failure to use edit summaries. Any threat or intimidation you may have perceived is entirely your own invention. Eric ^talk 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm over it. I've never been described as chaotic before. I'm flattered. Usually the medication cancels that, but the Lithium must be rendered powerless when I'm on Wikipedia. Dungeons and Dragons at my house next week? Yes...it's that obvious. Clarawolfe (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Translation help

Hi - sorry to bother you. Quite awhile ago, you helped me with some translation for an article that I've been working on in my sandbox. The article is about a French animated short film called Le Building. This whole past year has been kind of crazy for me, and so I still haven't moved the article from my sandbox into the mainspace. There are only a few more additions that I need to make, but it's been slow going, since some of the sources are in French - and I don't speak French. I posted a request for help at the French WikiProject over a month ago - no one's gotten back to me though. The source that I would need help with translating [15] is a little bit longer than the ones from earlier, but there's a second source [16] (with much of the same material) that Google translate actually does a pretty good job with. I could use this second source instead - the only problem is that I'm not entirely sure whether the second source qualifies as RS. It's an interview with the filmmaker, and the website that publishes it seems to be affiliated with a magazine in some way. So I'm inclined to treat it as a quality source. But it would be helpful to have someone fluent in the language look over the site, just to make sure. I know that it was a long time ago that we had last talked and totally understand if you don't have the time to help out right now. But I just wanted to ask, since no one else has gotten back to me on this. --Jpcase (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JP- Well 3dvf, according to their "about us" page ("a propos", bottom left), has been around since 2000 and has 30,000 users. It's a business, and pretty spastic with ads, but my sense of it from poking around the site is that it's legit. (RS = reliable source, yes?) That said, the author of the interview piece is given only as a site username, which wouldn't look as encyclopedic to this old curmudgeon as Le Monde. Are you saying that the Monde piece didn't fare well in Google Translate? Eric ^talk 02:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I finally tried Translate, and I was amazed at how well it translated the Monde piece. I could easily go through it and fix the errors if you like. Here it is:

My dream was to come to the United States to do animation, but I lacked a specialization. I entered the third year at the Gobelins and came out major of my promotion. I had the opportunity, along with other comrades, to make a short film, entitled The Building, intended to be screened at the Annecy Animation Festival. On the day the jury met, I knew that many animation professionals would be there, starting with Shelley Page, the European representative of Dreamworks Animation. In the corridor where I was waiting for the results, I see her heading towards me and handing me her business card. She invited me the next day at lunch and, at the table, told me that the studio wanted to hire me. Going out of the Goblins was a tremendous asset. In her eyes, she was the best animation school in the world, and I felt how much she benefited from exceptional training, of which she had only to reap the fruits for her employer. It took me nine months to get a work visa. Meanwhile, my short film toured the festivals and won several awards. I went to Dreamworks in June 2006. If I had been able to get conditions equivalent to those offered by the Americans, I would have stayed in France, but that was never the case. I was signed for a four-year contract. I know that in France I would have found myself begging for a CDD. I have absolutely no time in the United States, to say the least. I became the youngest Dreamworks supervisor. I started on Dragons. Afterwards, I supervised the animation of the main character of Chat Potté. And there, the studio has just promoted me head of character animation on the penguins of the Madagascar suite. In France, when I was with my classmates, I understood that it would take me a lot of time to take responsibility in the field of animation. Dreamworks systematically takes the best. I do not think we realize the importance of the investment, especially as employers have to justify to the US immigration services that they are recruiting exceptional items that they would not be able to find at home . The working week at Dreamworks is more busy than in France - 50 hours a week, which can become 70 as soon as we fall behind on the production of a film. Nevertheless, the studio sets reasonable objectives for the animators, which is on average three seconds of animation per week. It is the rhythm necessary to produce a quality animation.

Eric ^talk 03:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton helping out with both of these! Google Translate usually works well enough for me to follow the basic overview of an article, but since I'm planning on using some quotes, I want to make sure that everything reads smoothly. When he says, "I entered the third year at the Gobelins and came out major of my promotion", do you know what that might mean? I believe that the person writing (Staphylas) was valedictorian - would that be a possible translation? The username as author is the main reason that I wasn't sure about 3dvf as a source - but looking at the website's other interviews, it seems that most of them have all all been uploaded by the same user. So my guess is that "shadows44" is simply the username for a 3DVF staff member - which would put my reservations at ease. If everything else about the website seems more or less legit, then I'll treat it as a reliable source (RS). For the author field, I could just write something like "3DVF staff member". --Jpcase (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No prob, glad to help when I can! Yes, I'd translate that sentence "I entered Gobelins in the (or my) third year and finished at the top of the class." FYI, "CDD" is temporary or fixed-term job. There are a couple funky hiccups in the Google translation, so don't hesitate to ping me if you're thinking of pulling any other quotes from there.

I agree re 3dvf--I think it's common practice to skip the author parameter in the {{Cite web}} template (wrap in <ref>...</ref> for in-line use). Eric ^talk 21:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong in stating that the Civilizing mission took place in the fifteenth century or affirm that there are contemporary affirmations related to the civilizing mission?

What's wrong in stating that the Missão civilizadora took place in the fifteenth century or affirm that there are contemporary affirmations related to the civilizing mission?

189.100.80.196 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

The changes were sloppy and not explained. The place for this discussion is the article's talkpage. I'm moving it there, and changing the section name. Eric ^talk 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

You asked for it, you got it. You cannot troll other people without getting some backlash. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Danke für Ihre anhaltend hilfreiche Zusammenarbeit! Gut gemacht!...und...Bravo! Eric ^talk 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

interaction ban

It is clear from your recent behavior that you are engaging in a vendetta against Edelseider. You have been asked repeatedly to respond as to whether or not you would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban, and have failed to reply in any way. In my role as an administrator I am therefore imposing a "final warning" condition on this account.

User:Eric is indefinitely banned from interacting with User:Edelseider. Failure to abide by this restriction will be met with escalating blocks

This will be recorded at the editing restrictions page and remain in effect indefinitely, unless and until it is successfully appealed. I also note that this is in effect a two-way interaction ban as Edelseider agreed to this voluntarily. More information on the scope of interaction bans can be found by following the links in the above statement and the section header. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: First, I presume and trust that my reply to you, here on my talkpage, will not be construed as interacting with Edelseider.

Re the IBAN: No problem here; I never wanted to interact with him once I saw his reaction to my helpful suggestion that he use edit summaries and the "show preview" button. I remind you that he brought up the complaint on ANI, one that I found to be frivolous and exaggerated.

Re my failure to reply to you: A quick glance at my contribution history would show that I've been away from Wikipedia for several days. I'll leave it up to your imagination as to what real-world demands might tear a person away from such a delightful exchange. A more thorough look at it would give you an idea of what I do and don't do on WP;. I copyedit and provide other gnome-ish help. I don't seek drama, conflict, or affirmation.

Your rather categorical statement, "It is clear from your recent behavior that you are engaging in a vendetta against Edelseider", makes it clear to me that you and I take different approaches to deductive reasoning, and that we go by different definitions of the word vendetta.

The single action I took that ostensibly prompted the accusations in the ANI complaint was to simultaneously post the same comment below five instances of the same, seemingly self-promoting A-class nomination. The lamentation of a grumpy copyeditor, meant as a head-up to others, that's all. Mea culpa, not my finest moment. But it is a stretch to construe it as a personal attack, and it certainly does not even remotely approach any interpretation of the term vendetta that I have ever come across. Yes, I can see where my comment under the nominations, especially taken out of context, might be viewed in a poor light. But after a quick look at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article, the worst anyone should conclude from my comment is that I was annoyed at how the article has been edited, and that I am unfortunately capable of expressing that annoyance through sarcasm. A one-time, atypical venting from an exasperated copyeditor hoping to alert other editors to the irony of the self-promotion in the nominations. A comment on the editing, and not mentioning any one person, you might note. Why Edelseider might infer it as a personal insult is anyone's guess.

For me to engage in a vendetta against Edelseider, I would first have to have perceived some insult or injury from him, which is impossible. I do not grant him that power. I do not take him that seriously, because, regrettably, I am familiar with his history on Wikipedia. And "vendetta" implies that I have engaged in a tit-for-tat conflict with him, which I clearly have not done.

Anyone who applies a bit of diligence to researching the histories of the accuser and the accused in this matter will see that one has a long history of engaging in contentious behavior, making personal attacks, and being blocked--across multiple user accounts and multiple wikis--while the other does not.

I think the net effect of this unfortunate ANI process will be to prompt the departure from Wikipedia of someone who provides a moderate amount of much-needed copyediting, anti-vandalism, and language help, and does not seek accolades or to bloat his edit count; while at the same time it will reward and encourage the continued adversarial behavior of editors with altogether different agendas here. Eric ^talk 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to go back over this point-by-point with you, but I would add the following:

• I was not the only one who perceived a problem here, and you'll note that I asked for both of you to just agree to disengage
• I did see that you were inactive in the middle of this for whatever reason. Unfortunately, ANI moves rather quickly and if something isn't resolved in about three or four days it tends to jst get archived and forgotten, leaving the underlying issue unresolved.
• That being said, I'd be happy to retroactively change this from a final warning to a voluntary iban if you would just indicate your willingness to abide by it.
• Nothing in this iban, voluntary or not, prevents you from doing your normal activities. All you need to do is avoid direct interaction with one specifc other user. Given the vastness of Wikipedia content and the large number of other users, this won't be difficult to do. If the other user is really as bad as you claim others will notice and deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Beeblebrox, and for the offer. I don't mind the iban wording remaining as it is, unless it keeps me way higher on the naughty list than I would otherwise be. The less of anyone's time this takes up, the better. It's highly likely that I would have abided by the terms of the iban for the rest of my WP career in any case, even if it had not been in effect. Eric ^talk 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome

For my edit on user talk:Starspotter. Being appreciated on Wikipedia has been a rarity, so thank you for doing so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversing edits

English may or may not be your first language, but please show some humility when reverting changes in any case. Far from an "unhelpful" change, making the sentence "nonsensical", it improved the accuracy of the sentence! Noldorin (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NoldorinElf: Thanks for the chuckle regarding my English fluency! Now for yours, which is no laughing matter, it seems... Please enlighten us who are less learned than you as to how the following sentence, as you have rendered it in the Noiret article, is grammatically functional: He was an indifferent student, and several prestigious Paris schools, including the Lycée Janson de Sailly.

Have you consulted the OED by chance? Mine gives this as the first definition of scholar: One who is taught in a school; now esp. a boy or girl attending an elementary school... The second definition in the AHD is quite similar: One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student. According to those two dictionaries, the definition you categorically assert in your edit summary--and thanks for providing one this time--is not the only meaning of the word scholar.

Normally I would move a discussion such as this to the article's talkpage, but I'm holding off on that to avoid embarrassing you further, as my talkpage is probably less visited. I'll give you some time to calm down and reflect on your edit and on your indignation, and to work on your "improvement" of the sentence in question. Eric ^talk 18:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Eric: You evidently have some basic problems with logic. Here's a link for you to the OED entry I'm referring to, which clearly reflects contemporary usage: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scholar. Note well, the definition as "a student or pupil" is labelled archaic! The primary definitions are precisely the ones I gave in the edit summary, and are the ones I had in mind when I made what should have been a very uncontentious minor edit, initially. You can tell me to calm down all you like, but I've clearly rankled you far more than the reverse. I doubt someone as pig-headed as you will show humility now, but I've clearly demonstrated your usage of the word is inappropriate insofar as it is archaic. Noldorin (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NoldorinElf: The website you link, while belonging to the Oxford University Press, is not the OED site. And in any case, it does not demonstrate that the word scholar, as used in the Noiret article, is incorrect. You're straying further into both poor behavior and embarrassment here, as well as continuing not to examine your edit, it seems. I'll give you one more chance to both look at the sentence you created and to adopt a civil attitude. Eric ^talk 20:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell are you tell me to do such, you supercilious prick? You started this argument by being rude and personal; I'm doing nothing more than responding in kind. So yes, you rather brought this on yourself! The OED site is subscriber-only, so obviously I can't link there. But it's pretty clear that the definition of scholar generally as a student/pupil is archaic. The petty affront you took to my minor edit speaks only of your small-minded character, and nothing else. I shall report you now for your unacceptable behaviour, and let this be the end of the conversation.