Since you asked, bullying is the attitude that made you feel comfortable saying to Khazar2 above, "What's wrong with you Khazar2, that makes you feel emboldened to talk to me like this? You simply haven't got a clue." You're basically asking him what right he has to criticize you, which implies that you are superior to him. Well, guess what: we don't like your acting like you are better than anyone who disagrees with you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting and very revealing that you (We? How many of you stupid cunts are there?) choose to ignore the comment from Kzahar that I was responding to, which to remind you was "you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet." Still, whatever makes you feel justified in your own stupidity justifies your stupidity I suppose, at least in your own mind. EricCorbett03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, if you're going to complain about someone calling you a bully, does it really make sense to, in the very same post, make remarks about what you consider to be my 'stupidity'? You get called a bully because you act like one. I have tried in the past to respect you, but it's awfully hard to respect someone who chooses to be abusive toward me (and many others). I don't expect you to listen to what I have to say, and this place isn't that big of a deal to me anymore anyway, but I do ask that you keep in mind that you are driving people away from the project with your abusive attitude. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining about anything, simply drawing attention to the fundamental dishonesty here. We all know that Khazar will be back in a few days, and that I have never driven away even a single new editor, quite the reverse in fact. I suppose though that if by some kind of magic Khazar managed to drive me away you'd consider that to be some kind of win. Dream on. EricCorbett04:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that it is precisely those people who come to a page, make an insult to provoke an editor like Eric, and then go rushing to complain so that Eric gets it in the neck and they don't, who should be driven away from this project unless they can curb their compulsion to provoke. They should change since they are the initiators of all this; them, and those who seem blind to the issue of provocation as well. The whole situation is so biased in its response to provocation as to be breath-taking. Those provoked are often told "just walk away", and usually those who provoke have little or nothing done to them. I found out that when one tries to tackle the provokers, one gets attacked in turn and people begin to suggest I should have my admin tools taken away because of this. It is a sick, sick organisation if nothing is done to counter this. DDStretch (talk)07:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see how this happens now. An arguably abusive message was sent to me (after 3 edits) by an editor who admitted he has been accused of baiting Eric in the past where he said that my messages were "Horseshit". I then asked him politely to not post any message to me again, but he did, saying I was baiting him, and almost sugesting that I would block him. This is the kind of response that has happened to me before, just for suggesting that Eric's provokers need some action taken against them. I would far rather Eric moderated his language, but he is a free agent, and a lot of what I see on this talk page is a result of provocation (some is not). I also see this editor is monitoring this talk page to make borderline acceptable/unacceptable comments about anyone who makes a forceful point about the issue (like me), which then leads to a suggestion I should not be an admin because of that, just because I say that it is not all Eric's fault. It is very sad. DDStretch (talk)07:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some jealousy often at play over Eric's prowess as editor-writer, and attempting to put Eric down in a patronizing manner over civility breaches becomes an indirect way to play superior and make oneself feel better.
The way to avoid "incivility" is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Eric has the WP civility problem identified. Obstacles are 1) people don't generally have their self-knowledge and self-awareness sufficiently in tune to know consciously when they are laying down triggers, and if they know it unconsciously, then their egotistic/emotional/irrational side overrules, and 2) a cliched argument like "two wrongs don't make a right" is a dumbing-down gloss-over that has no traction with reality but sounds all apple pie while being an unworkable oversimplification -- for example, saying that to someone is basically asking them to be a Jesus, and not even Christ showed 100% patience, and at any rate Eric is an editor-writer and didn't sign up to be a Jesus -- it's not a workable or realistic or even a reasonable expectation; plus, even if those demanding from Eric perfect and infinite tolerance in the face of ongoing baiting had their way, the perpetuators would walk away emboldened with belief they can say or do anything here to anyone at any time. (Frankly I'm glad Eric gives a ping of hot cinder in someone's underwear who messes with him even the slightest, because that type of thing should not even start, and letting an initiator know they pissed him off by doing something rude at least offers a prayer toward that person's future self-correction. [In my driving career there've been incidents where another driver has honked angrily at me for doing something stupid, and in the end I learned to clean up my act that way better than any classroom instruction or safe driving manual could have imparted.]) p.s. The real issue here is a simple clash between Myers–Briggs 'T'-attribute personalities, and M–B 'F'-attribute personalities. ('T'-attribute editors: "Get your head screwed on right, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and not to feed your irrelevant emotions." 'F'-attribute editors: "Get your heart plugged in right, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and that can't be accomplished when the working environment is incivil and hostile." Neither is wrong. But the 'F'-attribute editors are overlooking the origination of incivilities, and it is as easy as it is shallow to pin incivility on Eric and make him the issue when he is more like a mirror showing the real problems. (Just look at the ANI right now giving false choice: "Eric or CIV -- one has to go." Oversimple, shallow, wrong. If Eric were not here there would still be the baiters for whomever they cared to bait.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I neither put Eric on a pedestal, nor do I want to throw rocks at him. I see both as bizarre and unconstructive, although one more understandable and yet worse.
We have a very few bright-line policies here, which makes things clearer for the herding of the vast majority of editors. It may even be right to exceed 3RR in some cases, but we still maintain 3RR because overall it makes such management workable. Likewise CIVIL. It is very clear that an editor is not permitted to use such terms towards another editor: any editor. Eric's elasticity here stretches such a policy such that we can no longer hold others up to it. I would rather keep CIVIL than Eric, I see it as contributing more to WP overall. Long experience shows that Eric can't (rightly or wrongly, I know that he does get baited) maintain CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To hang onto words is shallow/surfacy. But I understand the current inadequacy and dysfunction of CIV policy drives no other choice than to desperately jump on individual word choices. (George Carlin said it best [paraphrasing]: "It's not the words, it's the intent behind the words.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping CIVIL is a joke, because quite frankly CIVIL is a club that can be used to beat others. Eric makes a very solid point regarding its typical use...it's normally only applied to the least-popular member of a dispute or the one who's finally had enough. Stubborn, mulish contributors who are convinced that only they know how to improve the climate, run a project, or possess the one true solution to a problem are often grossly uncivil, but they do so in a way that flies under the radar of people who can't be bothered to actually read and comprehend what they're doing. Too many seem to know and accept that it's ok to attack an enemy of the state or a particular group ("pulling masses" or "anti-admin brigade" anyone?), but you're an evil person if you use word 'X' or tell someone to fuck off when they prattle at you on your talk page. Provocation is ok, even encouraged, while defense is automatically evil. But to the point of Eric's question, bullying here seems to be defined based on who's being attacked and who's doing the attacking. By that definition, it would seem impossible to bully Eric, while any time he posts he's bullying someone, resulting in "Help, help! I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!" Intothatdarkness14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll go back to using the secret admin account Demiurge1000 claims I have. ANI is certainly a convenient way to help in building up a list of one's enemies though. EricCorbett19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say this as someone who generally supports you, thinks the civility police are petty, and even deliberately seeks out the illustrious Malleus/Eric/secret admin account/whatever to look at articles I plan to take up for the gathering of green plusses and gold stars: BUT sometimes one should be aware that it is a bad thing to cry wolf, and here I AM talking to you, Eric. You would do well to not unleash the hounds of four-letter invective and other insults quite so quickly. Aside for the times that you are simply shooting from the hip without regard for your target, much of the time this stuff makes you far too easy a target for mere idiots who aren't worth the drama, and for another, should there be a time that it is truly appropriate and deserved (we all know a few examples who deserve a major can of whoopass to be opened upon them) you will be ignored as ineffectual. Now, feel free to tell me to go fuck off and all that such, but then when you've cooled down, I have another racehorse article I think you need to tackle and you can have a grand time thrashing it thoroughly. (Pun intended, said racehorse has a reputation for not liking to be whipped. Perfect for you!) I'll be back. Montanabw(talk)20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I am deeply concerned by your rude and insulting behavior and I always have been. But I've never said anything, as I don't think my opinion would carry much weight with you or your coterie of supporters. But I speak up today because I think you really need to change. Top people such as yourself should strive to set a good example for the way you treat others, especially when you disagree with them. It's not so much the foul language, but I hate it when you say insulting and demeaning things about people I like and respect diffdiff. I urge you to change your behaviour for the good of the wiki. It's selfish of you to be so rude to people when you know it drives people away from the wiki.-- Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary I just looked in says a coterie is "a small group of people with shared interests or tastes, esp. one that is exclusive of other people": not quite what you said. More especially, it and other terms like it are common currency on WP, used to dismiss people's views by describing them – with no foundation whatsoever – as members of a sort of clique. It's precisely the sort of sub-radar, implicit rudeness touched on previously, which people often don't even seem to realise they are deploying, although many patently do. Otherwise known as poking. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the difference in emphasis: it's the difference in emphasis that I'm getting at above, have another look. Dianaa seemed unaware of "coterie"'s loaded meaning – otherwise they were being arch. Nortonius (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that "coterie" was "demeaning and extremely rude" until you claimed it was so, and neither your nor Dianaa's defintions seemed to make it out to be so—in fact the one you provide, with its "esp.", seems to make it even less so than Dianaa's, as it admits non-"exclusive" interpretations of the word (assuming "exclusivity" to be a source of "sub-radar, implicit rudeness"). If one were to conduct a poll of educated people, I wonder what score they would tend to give "coterie" on the "demeaning and extremely rude" scale. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to see you blocked, but I would like to see you recognise that firstly there is a policy against referring to any editor (any editor, any provocation) in such terms and secondly that such policies still apply to you too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect you to believe me, but no. You are a valuable editor and I want to see you editing. However there is a very simple (and reasonable) policy that you clearly just won't accept. I have no idea why, but it's obvious you won't. On the whole, that's an important policy in stopping this turning into a total swamp and we'd be better without you acting as you have, even at the loss of your positive contributions. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but find me a fresher one and I will do. You're right - it works both ways and if I'm asking you to behave then of course I have to insist that others do so too. You've been trolled and baited and yes, I'm on your side at trying to stop such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Words have power. The three c-words didn't bother me because I didn't know them ;) - You used one of them for Andy (and I didn't like it) but when it came to going after his head (hint: arbcom case) you were mercifully silent, thank you! - Khazar: when he left the first time, I was shocked. The second time I cried (and I don't do that often). When he gave us the Million Award for Kafka, I said: "For those who don't know: I am proud of editor retention, and won Khazar twice! Looking at the results, that may have been the best I did here." - Now, I let him go where he wishes to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very telling that nobody seems to be at all concerned about this edit, or it would be if it wasn't obvious that I'm the only one the civility policy is applied to. Is there such a thing as cunt shit anyway? EricCorbett17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a name like ANI no wonder so much crap gets sprayed around there. As I like straight talk and I'm also partial to cunts I like think of it is as a compliment, regardless of the intention, when I'm called one. Those I've known and loved have many distinctive and interesting qualities but I've never discerned stupidity--or intelligence--among them. Nevertheless when a user reminds someone I respect, like Mr. Corbett, of a "stupid" one, I just accept it as an opinion and see no reason to make a chicken's-bottom face, let alone to go all Lady Bracknell or run to Mummy. And while nobody likes to be called stupid, an easy way to avoid it is to avoid acting stupidly. Similarly if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. Recently in a far corner of Wikipedia a user who was spotted with his pants on fire reacted not by dousing the flames but by directing inane squeals of "Incivility!" at the user who had alerted him. It's so tedious when douches play the civility card. We need a WP:DOUCHEBAGGERY policy. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know who specifically you may have driven away. What I meant was that in my opinion when the top people's behaviour is less than stellar, it drags the tone of the whole enterprise down, and very likely costs us editors. My connection with Khazar2 is that he did the GA review of Nazi Germany and we worked together bringing Auschwitz concentration camp to GA. I am very sorry that he is retiring and I will miss him. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know then you shouldn't pretend that you do. The real reason for Khazar2's retirement has very little to do with me, but about the toxic environment administrators such as yourself have allowed to flourish here, with your uneven application of the civility policy. EricCorbett00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try and give you a different perspective on this. It's my view, for instance, that Jimbo Wales is among the most uncivil editors on Wikipedia. Think about it. And I'd go so far as to say that administrators are in general also among the most uncivil editors on WP, but of course they're pretty much bulletproof. EricCorbett00:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be part of the solution by talking to people and encouraging good behaviour and collegial editing. I can see I am not getting anywhere and will be un-watching your page now. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, let it die its natural death, that ANI thread. I just tried to undo your edit, restoring Sven Manguard's close, but my edit disappeared in the fray. You've made your point. There will be no admin (though candidates should be sought in your block log) to block AutomaticStrikeout or Doc9871 for their ongoing baiting, and those who seek to block you don't listen to you anyway. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be closed now, but I'm simply not prepared to sit on my hands while I'm accused of all sorts of heinous crimes including harassing other editors. EricCorbett05:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But being accused of all sorts of heinous crimes is the fate of any content editor who defends their own work, we're all evil, dontcha know? Just choose your battles, matey God knows I've had enough of them myself, and I generally tend to only use four-letter words when I'm making some tongue-in-cheek response on your talk page. You're good with words; defend yourself with more creative ones. Make your enemies look like idiots instead of victims. Montanabw(talk)18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of times that's not the difficult part. The difficult part is getting the other idiots to set aside their own idiocy long enough to look at the idiocy of the fool who is screwing up the content. There should be a rule that you can't screw with content editors until you at least get something to GA. I don't think that is too high a bar. GregJackPBoomer!01:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'm merely thinking of pragmatics, not the merits or demands of the situation. I read Khazar's statement, same as you, for example, and it's pretty clear to me that there's a lot more going on than that one exchange, but there's only so many reading lessons one can give. Yes, while I was typing the previous message it was closed again by someone sensible enough to estimate what was going on: a bunch of snark. No doubt this very comment will make me an enabler again in the eyes of some, but who cares. Oh, I think our cat is making eyes at me. Toasty has a lovely snore, which makes it easy to catch her if she sneaks inside the house: her favorite spot is Rosie's bed. You see, I like mammals very much, though it's hard to get along with those calling for your head in this tediously cyclical manner. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, sayonara (左様成ら, sayōnara) (literally "if it has come to this situation, then... ") is a final farewell. That said: Malleus, you can be - with no disrespect to anyone's lady parts intended - a real cunt sometimes. Peter in Australia aka The Prince of Niceness aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a fifteen-year resident of Japan, I can tell you "sayōnara" "strictly" means no such thing—my coworkers regularly exchange "sayōnaras". Wiktionary gives us this horseshit: "This term has strong connotations of finality" Meanwhile the Japanese Wiktionary merely tells us that it is a word used when parting ways, and gives us "Bye bye!" as a synonym. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a fifteen-year resident of Alabama one would've expected that parting greeting to be "soyonara, sucker". Thus we have incontrovertible proof that you're actually in ... Rhode Island. You've now learned a valuable lesson—that it's not always safe to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is great. More than great! I'm so glad I found you, Eric, and I'm just as glad that you were not blocked at ANI. You are my new hero and a game changer. Keep on Fuckin'! (oops, I mean;) Truckin'! - theWOLFchild23:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request: Argentine History
Hello Eric, can I please ask you to self-revert this edit or, at least, rephrase your comment? The part about Sandstein being aroused by blocking others is a personal attack and detracts from the point you're trying to make. As I'm sure you know, statements such as that one make it easier to ignore another person's complaint, without even examining its merits... SalvioLet's talk about it!21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Nice to see you trying to CPR that corpse. Do you think it could be fixed, like Maggie? Or is it beyond redemption? You might notice this discussion. Love to think we could fix it! I'm kind of busy, but it's tempting. What do you say? --John (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work, pretty far from FA shape right now I think. In fact I think it would struggle even to get through a decent GA review. Not sure it's something I want to spend much time on though, never been much interested in biographies. Maggie was different though. EricCorbett19:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I hope to have some time between Christmas and New Year, and I might take a hack at it then. It's way too late for TFA, but it would make me feel good to think it could make it for next year (2015). I might ping you then, if I get round to it. --John (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the annual drama again. Everyone complains that it isn't TFA material, but no one puts it up for an FAR nor will they take the time to do more than a cursory whack. Of course, given the tone of the folks involved in the last drama round, I can see why on one wants to bother. Eric, you might be the only person who can actually go in there and do anything, as the folks I'm speaking of actually like you. But good luck with all that anyway. Montanabw(talk)23:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs quite a bit of work, so I'm not altogether surprised that nobody's rushed forward to help. I'm not sure where the best place to start would be anyway, perhaps with some restructuring and less emphasis on Hawking's disabilities and more on his work. I'm not fond of the chronological presentation either. John and I had some success in restructuring Margaret Thatcher thematically rather than strictly chronologically, and something similar may need to be done here. EricCorbett23:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, not only is it unlikely that Hawking will be fixed up without her, I have a score of other articles that need her professional help, which I value. Please lighten up;[5] she hadn't even gotten to most of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I've been hanging on to some funds sent to me by a significant contributor to WP and intended for lubrication of vocal chords etc: a mate-y gesture from overseas that is entirely in the spirit of Wikimeets. Said funds have been burning a hole in my Paypal account for at least a year. I'm struggling yet again with my ears but will be under the surgeon's knife in the new year for various other things. Now is as good a time as any, I guess, to convene the meeting and, being Manchester and a part of the Real World, use of the vernacular is to be expected rather than upbraided. Feel free to choose a time and a place to suit you. Email me if you no longer have my mobile number for texting. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay but yes, as Richerman says. And R is welcome also! BTW, We'll get John Horsefield to FA before much longer, Richerman. I'm not seeing much more that can be said about him but he is clearly a significant figure and finding little extra worth mentioning is a sign that the useful sources have been exhausted. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a warming glass of Bell's for you to say 'Thank you' for being around to do some extra copy edits on Udny Mort House when it was on the main page. It was moved into a prep area at just after 10pm, then hit the main page at midnight (I doubt UK stuff is of interest then but that's part of the problems at DYK just now), so I'd slept through it all! Your help is always appreciated, so I hope you like whisky! SagaciousPhil - Chat13:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually realise it was on the main page! I do like whisky, yes, but I reserve it for my treat at Christmas time, as my wife thinks it makes me go a bit mental. ;-) EricCorbett13:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The item you reverted back into the lede is not represented in the main article. If you think it's important enough for the lede (which I don't), you should insert an extended version of this item in an appropriate place within the main article, perhaps in a new section. Valetude (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your rudeness is totally unwarranted, quite apart from breaching Wiki rules of civility. To refresh your memory, the lede is supposed to summarise the main article. Your insertion does not conform to this requirement. Valetude (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'd resolve this [minor] issue by finding out when she died and moving the disputed text to a position somewhere before the point where she admits having made it all up. And I'd rename the critical reception heading or remove it altogether, as it seems quite inappropriate for this subject. Parrotof Doom14:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with that Critical reception section name either as it happens. That section was originally called Society for Psychical Research investigation and was changed quite recently for some unknown reason, so I've changed it back. And I've really got no time at all for the slavish interpretation of what the lead may or may not contain as exemplified by Valetude. Sure, it has to summarise the article, but that's not all it can do. EricCorbett14:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does indeed summarise the article, so your point is irrelevant. Nowhere is it set in stone that that's all the lead can be used for though. EricCorbett14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wiki Guide: 'Each word, phrase, and sentence in a lead should be covered by equivalent content in the body of the article, preferably in the same order they appear in the article. The content in the body of the article will usually be longer and more detailed.' Valetude (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading it again, all the words this time, even the big ones you don't understand. "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The issue then becomes one of weight, and I don't consider the cancellation of the BBC programme to be all that significant. Interesting perhaps, but not significant to a discussion of the rectory and its hauntings. Note also that it says "should not", not "must not". EricCorbett15:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that mentioning civility to you only gets an open laugh, but Eric, what is wrong with you that you talk to people like this? It's not effective to express your points, and it harms the encyclopedia by making everyone's experience nastier. This has been pointed out to you many times, of course, and I realize that the most likely explanation for why you so consistently ignore the advice is that you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet. But I'll never understand why otherwise sensible admins like @Drmies:, @Crisco 1492: and others always faithfully line up to defend this behavior. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I don't recall "faithfully lin[ing] up" to defend Eric's rudeness. I'll drop a hint that he may want to stop if I see he's being a little short, but I can't recall defending his behaviour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is that you, Eric, have always treated me politely, possibly because I did the the same, - it could be easy. - In the above, I like the dislike of "slavish interpretation". Look at the move request of A Boy was Born where people think it's set in stone that we don't use the capitalisation of the publisher and most sources but house style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your page is an excellent place to spot the self-righteous and easily offended brigade, I think they must enjoy being offended as they visit so often. J3Mrs (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet." I wonder if Khazar2 has the insight or integrity to recognise the absurdity of complaining to me about incivility while being incivil himself. EricCorbett15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Khazar. The thing is Eric isn't the type who goes about looking for trouble and makes it a point to go about the website picking on people. He doesn't set out to belittle people on his own accord does he? It's always when somebody turns up to complain about his work in his articles and he finds it irritating, as I do when somebody does it to me and being preachy about my content or deletion tagging me. I don't take deletion requests and negative comments well either, but that doesn't make me a bully or somebody who gets a kick out of being "big" over the Internet. It might seem rude to some people but Eric has zilch tolerance for people who turn up on his talk page who have reverted and start in a negative fashion, especially when he's usually right. Yes, he could probably be less abrasive at times, but I think he's one of the few people here who are honest with people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld15:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recently had a very slight but equally very pleasant and constructive interaction with Khazar2, in the GA review of Grandaddy: actually I was struck by the similarity of Khazar2's approach to a GA review to Eric's, for what that's worth. My experience is that I often get a good idea of who people are by working with them: that's how I formed a highly positive impression of Eric, and I got a positive impression of Khazar2, too. I think Eric's critics would do well to adopt the same approach, but generally it seems too much to ask. So, from my own experience, I wish Khazar2 well, but I agree with Dr Blofeld's assessment immediately above. Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that would require, you know, actually working on those article thingies, something a staggering number of editors seem to know very little about. EricCorbett18:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant by adopting "the same approach", and it seeming to be "too much to ask" – it requires actually working on those article thingies, in a coherent way. I wasn't particularly referring to whether or not you could be less abrasive, that's none of my fucking business. ;) Nortonius (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I could be less abrasive, but equally I could be a lot more abrasive. I'm no shrinking violet, and I don't take prisoners in real life, so I'm damned if I see why I should be expected to pussy foot around here. EricCorbett18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when a random user comes to your talk page, they do not expect you to beat them at being uncivil. Is a game they themselves start, completely sure that they can win, and then when they discover they are no equal to you at such a game, they go and file a complaint because you were uncivil, forgetting that they, themselves, were the ones who played the game first. I know for sure that my theory is correct because I've never seen you insult somebody out of the blue without them poking you first. So, if a lot of people stopped playing such games, you woulnd't have to play it either, and maybe we can all be happy :) — ΛΧΣ2123:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
let me expand upon what ΛΧΣ said: a complaint is made, as ΛΧΣ wrote, and then people look at the history. Usually a sad state of affairs results, but if one tries to suggest that the baiting needs comment and action then, as I found out, one gets anger directed back at oneself, accusations of bullying made when I suggested administrative action if an insult was not withdrawn, and no other admin steps in to support the notion that those who poke with the stick should expect to suffer any consequences. Instead, it is always the victim's fault (in this case, Eric, for being provoked)., and if someone, like me, tries to suggest action against the baiter and applies some mild pressure to them, much less than what they demand to be done to Eric, then mutterings of bullying and desysopping are then made. The whole set up is so dysfunctional as to make one wonder whether it is institutional alone, or also full of deeply troubled people with far too much power in their hands who support equally troubled people. I suggest it is the latter. DDStretch (talk)06:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should, it sets new standards for work place incivility!! Everything else pales in comparison, maybe with the exception of some of Joe Pesci's lines in Scorsese's films! There's a clip here see 2:00 onwards although this is only a small part of it...♦ Dr. Blofeld17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Deadwood owes something to it, then – while the writing in Deadwood is superb IMHO, it casts Ian McShane in a whole new light…! I'll try to get sight of Glengarry Glen Ross, thanks for the tip. Nortonius (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether I've ever taken a dump made me feel like I just slept for twelve hours? Khazar, I don't know what I'm supposed to be having made apologies for here, and I don't really care so much. I think I've worked with you in the past, and I don't recall anything unpleasant; I thank you for ascribing sensibility to me. Your opening statement here wasn't exactly neutral, IMO, and while I would have responded differently (we don't "talk wet" in Alabama), it's common knowledge that I am not Eric Corbett. I've defended a lot of people here on Wikipedia, a lot of whom a lot less likeable than Eric, and most of them couldn't hold a candle to him in terms of writing. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're not me? I bet the CUs are on the case already. But Khazar's not interested in the truth, simply trying to make a point at my expense. Isn't there some policy against that? Is that why he's gone into temporary hiding under the retirement banner? EricCorbett21:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Khazar said was uninformed and rude, but I'd like to vouch for him nonetheless. He's done a lot of good here and I'll miss him. Now I will stick my nose out again. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough I find I can very easily do without uninformed and rude, so fuck him. If you ever see me going to a random user's talk page and abusing him or her as Khazar has abused me then please feel free to bring down the wrath of God. But it makes me sick to my stomach to see the vapid responses on his talk page about bullying, when I get blocked for using the word sycophantic. Just who the Hell is being bullied here? EricCorbett22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I don't think anyone was bullied here. We have a case where a ticked off editor came to your talk page, posted a ticked off message at you, to which you replied in kind, which ticked him off to the point where he couldn't take it anymore, causing other editors to become ticked off that one of the most prolific content contributors of the last year (Khazar) who retired in a huff, causing them to post messages trying to empathize with him, which further ticked you off to the point that now it is likely only a matter of time before someone baits you into saying something likely to get you as the subject of a headline on a drama board, which will tick a whole bunch of other people off including yourself even more so.
I empathize with content contributors such as yourself, Eric; you are the subject of much undeserved inflamed rhetoric and hate. However responding to Khazar's admittedly unnecessarily inflammatory comment in kind only served to tick a whole bunch of people off which ultimately ended up with you being ticked off (as you said above: "it makes me sick to my stomach ..."). I think the only way these types of situations do not occur in the future is if you prevent them from occurring, which is sad, as they are not all your fault, but people know what buttons to push. I am not saying you need to be a doormat, I am just saying that if you did not always respond in kind to negative messages you receive, instead either reverting, ignoring, or replying in a moderately collegial manner so as to defuse rather than escalate a situation, not only would the encyclopedia have less ticked off people, you would be one of them, and could more quickly get back to the area where you ultimately excel – writing high-quality articles for an encyclopedia that strives to be a repository of the world's knowledge. We need people like you and Khazar to write it. Best regards, GoPhightins!04:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look. If you piss me off I'll tell you that you've pissed me off. If you don't want honest people here then so be it, and I'll no doubt end up banned. EricCorbett04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I say I don't want honest people editing the encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia to have integrity, those who write it must have integrity, but to have integrity, one need not reply to inflammatory rhetoric with inflammatory rhetoric. One can say that someone else pissed them off without setting off a firestorm. GoPhightins!04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Khazar assume I'm some kind of coward, hiding behind a keyboard? Isn't that another one of those personal attacks so often ignored if directed against unpopular editors? It's been a long-standing rule of mine that I would never say anything about a person I wouldn't say to their face. I met quite a few WP editors at a meetup a couple of years ago, and I doubt any of them would say I was different in real life. EricCorbett04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins - here's the thing. People everywhere get the shits, and it has to come out some way. You'll find folks that, when really miffed with somene, blow a gasket and are fine once done. Then you'll find some "civil" ones that seem to roll with "revenge is a dish best served cold". The latter ones can often wait months or years...it might have been an Oppose in an RfA several years ago, a reversion, an argument, or they follow "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - these hidden grudges have undermined progress here. Now most folks in the latter category are articulate and would be able to explain any of their subsequent actions in terms of policy or something that will obfuscate any clear evidence. Even better, they can write an Arbcom Election Guide! This behaviour is a real barrier to big-time change as it can defuse or short-circuit consensus pretty quickly. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in that "revenge is a dish best served cold" camp myself. Unfortunately though I forget the specifics of why I recognise a particular editor's name, and whether they're friend or foe; I should set up a database. EricCorbett20:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Epi, what Eric is doing is actually good for the article. You want the reference section to display in 2 columns, but on handheld or small screen devices that is a problem. The "30em" does the same thing (two columns for regular screens) without the problem for small screens. Just as a hint, Eric almost always knows what he is doing and is normally helpful.
It's OK, a little too peaty for me, but good for a change of pace. I'm iced in right now and the only thing I've got on hand is The Glenlevit French Oak reserve. I'm out of beer too. :( GregJackPBoomer!02:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks, GregJackP. Sorry, Eric. The columns don't align correctly on my computer screen because they are in different widths (30em for the reflist and 35em for the citations). Epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citations aren't correctly formatted, so they should be correctly formatted. Can you do that? Or would you like me to show you how to do it? EricCorbett02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you may already have gathered, I'm not a very forgiving person, but I am a rather forgetful person, so let's move on. It's very late here now, so tomorrow. EricCorbett03:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Eric's method is the way to do it and it was how I used to do refs BUT I was told that it should all be the same and cite webs, news etc should be included in the bibliography along with the cite books and everything else so everything was standardised. To me, it's more sensible to use the bibliography the way you suggest - and much easier to boot as the refsort script I use sorts them that way! I'm off to bed and will see the magic you've worked in the morning! Thanks for sorting it, Eric! SagaciousPhil - Chat23:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were told wrong. I just changed what I did to show you what I was talking about, but if you're happy I'll do the rest as well. EricCorbett00:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind doing the others it would be great! I'll try doing it that way on the draft I'm messing about with later (once I've kept my promise about Gingerbread house). I copied (pinched?) the script you use (segregate-refs) and I'm trying that out as it looks really handy; I'm not sure if I've quite got into the way of it yet or if WikiEd is clashing with it as it sometimes seems a bit bizarre. Maybe I've put it in the wrong place - should it be in my 'common.js' or 'vector.js'? SagaciousPhil - Chat11:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked and I'd cleverly put it in both, so I've taken it out of the common.js now and just left it in vector, so I'll give it a go - thank you! SagaciousPhil - Chat11:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! Thank you, Eric, that looks much better and it actually looks like a simpler and more straight forward way of doing refs. You are most definitely on my speed dial now and you can have some Laphroaig at Christmas! SagaciousPhil - Chat15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think hub is a perfectly good word in general, but I don't think it's the best word to be using in the case of Tiruchirappalli. I'd prefer to use the word centre. EricCorbett13:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across a reference to two wives sold in Pontefract and another attempted sale at the Wigan Register Office in 1875 if you're interested. J3Mrs (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One seller had an interesting name. This is the exact quote from the book,
"In 1803 Husband Smith took his wife from Ferrybridge to Pontefract and put her up for sale in the Buttercross the bidding started at twelve pence and she was knocked down at eleven shillings. The purchaser led his bargain away by a halter amid showers of mud and snow thrown by the spectators. In an earlier transaction in 1776 John Nutt delivered his wife in a halter to the Buttercross and sold her to Mr Ryder, a stay maker, for five shillings. A witness records, 'All persons seemed perfectly satisfied.' "
It has just occurred to me that Husband wasn't his name, but they did have odd given names in Yorkshire.
Found it, tidied away, not by me. I can provide the citations etc if they are of any use. Reported in the Mancherster Courier in 1875 "Last week two men and a woman went to the office of a registrar at Wigan.One of the men was husband to the woman and the other had agreed to buy her for four shillings and sixpence. The money was paid before the astonished official who was requested to let them "Sign their hands to a bit of paper"< a proceeding which in their ignorance they believed would legalise the transaction."
That registry office transaction might usefully be added to the article if you've got the citation details. I'm reminded that I started an article on the Manchester Courier earlier this year, which still needs some expansion. EricCorbett11:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its from citation |last=Challinor |first=Raymond|title=The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners|publisher=Frank Graham|year=1972|isbn=902833-545 Page 354
Eric, thank you so much for all your help with getting Pitfour estate to GA! You have been truly wonderful and working with you has been a pleasure and a delight; you've patiently put up with all my inexperience, tweaked and prodded until the pig's ear of an article has developed into a silk stocking! It's been a great learning curve and I hope we can keep working together in the future! SagaciousPhil - Chat12:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA recommendation
Hi Mr. Corbett, I was wondering if you could help with something, please? I'm looking for a GA-familiar editor to help out at Talk:Katy Perry#Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status so Katy Perry can obtain Good Article status; I told a fellow contributor to the Katy Perry article that I'm not a GA expert but would try to find someone who is (as I told them, many of my GA friends are either gone or hardly active). I was wondering if you know someone who'd be able to help out? I know that you're skilled in regards to GAs/FAs and I'd like to have your input, but I don't want to add to your workload and I appreciate that BLPs aren't usually a subject that you get involved with. If you can suggest someone, that would be very much appreciated. :) Thank you! Acalamari21:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been keeping up with what's happening at WP:GAN for a while, so I don't know who's still active there as far as BLPs are concerned. EricCorbett00:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
,Here's an even more fun argument I'm having at the moment - would you say that "largely" and "much of" could be used for each other in the right circumstances? It's being argued that they couldn't here...and has resulted in a bit of arm-wrestling.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tool the liberty of protecting the article to enable discussion and resolution, rather than block anybody. I hope that was ok. --John (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It never ends, and every time it gets taken to ANI there's a chorus of "ban the witch", never any thanks for what I've actually done, far more than any of them, and perhaps even all of them put together. EricCorbett01:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for your trouble, and that I wasn't there to help you. I tend to ignore AN/I as far as possible. It's a reasonable rule of thumb that anyone who spends more time there than in writing articles is a useless cunt who should be blocked if they cannot reform. Their prissy pomposity is one of the worst things about this project. Best ignored, but I realise that may not always be an option. --John (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all in the difference between commenting on a specific editor and making a generalisation. If I say "Editor A is a cunt" that is a personal attack. If I say "People who spend more time correcting the manners of their betters than they do improving the project are cunts" I think that's a case of "If the cap fits, wear it". --John (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be careful; it's hard for people to strongly disagree without disrespecting each other, yet it's impossible to edit here without occasionally disagreeing with people. I've got a lot going on just now in real life, so I try to restrict my time here to things I can do without disagreeing with people. As I tell my daughter, an awful lot of life consists of getting along with people you don't particularly agree with, for the sake of some higher purpose. It's amazingly hard sometimes. Hang in there, and remember to drop me an email or a message if you're getting stressed. I won't unblock you (or block you), but I am always ready to listen. Take care, and I remain hopeful that we can do some more article improvement some time. Oh, and you're always welcome to call me a cunt; friends here in Scotland often call each other that and it's really quite a minor chaff. Take care of yourself, --John (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try telling that to the fucking Americans who appear to believe they run this place, and that they're occupying the moral high ground, when in fact they're lying face down in a moral ditch. EricCorbett19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric, I stumbled upon a really bizarre & cold-as-ice photo on the Pedia ... It left me speechless, also a bit in shock. (Somehow I don't think it'd phase you, though.) Is OK to drop it here for "sharing"? (Don't know why. Maybe one of your stalkers will have a ready caption. Then I could laugh & breathe again.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My statement has nothing to do with that, for what it's worth. Eric knows what I'm talking about. Go ahead and call me a stupid cunt, but I'm right and you know it... Just chill and let nature take its course. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yes. That's what happens when articles are written by "true believers" rather than Wikipedians. Magic, in general, is poorly covered on Wikipedia (the spiritual/supernatural kind, not the Penn & Teller kind) which is a shame considering how much a part of human history those belief systems are. Stalwart11103:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
☠Jaguar☠ is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
DYK for Gingerbread house
On 25 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gingerbread house, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the world's largest gingerbread house(example pictured) had edible walls and measured 2,520 square feet (234 m2)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gingerbread house. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Merry Kwanzaa and Christmas from me too, Eric. Please give my regards to Dr. Corbett as well, and all the furry friends, feline and ferretine. I raise my glass (of Chimay Blue) to you, Drmies (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas Malleus! Two years ago I think you sent me one of these. I think it's about time I returned the favour ☠Jaguar☠23:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eric, season's greetings and lots of beer to you (well that's all I'd want anyway). You might recall doing a GA review for me in April 2012, and commenting that I shouldn't "be afraid to drop by any time you've got another article on a non-existent church"…?[6] Well, I don't have a non-existent church, but I do have an exceedingly obscure, intrepid, 9th-century Norwegian, who is the first written source for the name "Denmark", among other feats of daring and adventure. I haven't nominated him for GA yet, but maybe have a look and see if you'd be interested? Obviously no problem if not. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC) ps I'm in no hurry![reply]
