This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks, and an apology
Hello Eric,
Last year, you were kind enough to offer a list of suggestions about Harry Yount to help me improve the article in preparation for a Good article review. The suggestions were excellent, and my apology to you is for procrastinating. But I've done what you recommended, and have also had User: Rosiestep offer some thoughts. I've finally nominated the article, and want to thank you again. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And a beer for old Domingo Gonsales. Thanks: it was fun working on this with you. I intended it years ago as a boost for poor old Malleus Fatuorum, who is no longer with us, and I wrote it up as a DYK just to rattle his chain a little bit. Anyway, please thank Dr. Corbett for allowing me (and all of us) to take up so much of your time; all the best to you and yours. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It's 5:30 here now and a lovely warm sunny day, so beer time is fast approaching. we have a few things to address at the Tiger's FAC btw if I'm to keep the one FA a month production line rolling. ;-) EricCorbett16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Last night was Greek night, with taboule and chicken and tzatziki, and a dozen people drinking more than they should. This afternoon we're taking it easy. The pool is looking great and I'll be making pina coladas. A bit too metrosexual for you perhaps, Dennis, but I'm sure Mrs. Corbett and I can down a couple of em, nevermind the caloric intake. Now for some Barry Manilow. (And I had my first beer long before noon today, Dennis--also, if you're offered a Magic Hat Cucumber and Hibiscus Ale, just say no.) Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Tonight is Spanish night chez nous with paella, just need to pop out and get a few bottles of San Miguel. EricCorbett20:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the pina coladas made my blood sugar shoot through the roof. Dinner is Spanish tortilla with leftovers. And beer! Eric, I'm going to try and work William March up to GA. It's not very good right now, and that's because of me. Any thoughts are appreciated. He's really a worthwhile writer--Dennis, you might like him as well. Bon appetit to all, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to get to the bottom of the badging issue, and it seems clear to me now that the Series I had the "Powered by Ford 260" shields, which were changed to "Sunbeam V-8" shields on the Series II. Nowhere can I find a reference to that rectangular badge though, which I'm becoming increasingly convinced isn't contemporary. EricCorbett12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Aha, caught you peeking into a WikIProject Equine-tagged article. If you are interested, would you care to turn your copyediting magic to a fun collaboration project amongst WikiProject Horse Racing? Oxbow (horse)? I want to nominate it for GA, there is a group of 3-4 other editors working on it as well, and IMHO we are at that point were an outside eye would be welcomed. The 2013 Belmont Stakes is coming up on June 8 (BTW, have fun with your Epsom Derby this weekend), and I anticipate this article and Orb (horse) (which I have not worked on) will both get a lot of traffic due to the Wikt:Rubber match that is apt to occur between them. So even though I probably won't have the time to actually get the green plus by the Belmont, I want it that good by post time. Interested in a copyedit/review? Thanks! Montanabw(talk)21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, typo. But with horse names, a totally illogical spelling means nothing. (grin) We are already getting feedback that it's jargon-heavy, and though I've now taken several whacks and toning it down, I'm bleary-eyed. I figure you've helped with enough of Ealdgyth's horse articles that you should have a good sense of how much technical language is appropriate (I loathe the people who want us to say, "a stallion is a boy horse" -- bleech) and where we've gone over the top (which happened some in this article). Montanabw(talk)21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, in the larger scale of things here it doesn't seem to make much difference. But then what do I know, I've wasted a large part of my day working on a fucking car. EricCorbett18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Police Protection Provisions
Hello,
Its me again! Due to the project pages never replying to me. Thought I would come and abuse your user page to get some of your watchers to read my article =P I can see that you are again super busy so I don't want to pester you too much for help; but I have listed some things on the talk page for Police protection provisions as I am a bit stuck. Would really appreciate your advice if you get chance.
Just replied to this on the talk page.. But in case you missed it =) I made it as a new article because the Children Act has over 100 sections and loads of Orders and parts to it so I have limited space in the Children Act 1989 article. I have many more sections of the act to cover and need to do an overview of the background/ reasons for the Act and the impact of it. Thanks very much for taking the time to read it ツStacey (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. What I'll say then is that you've got far too many short paragraphs in the Provisions sections that need to be merged in some way, and the lead needs to be expanded. EricCorbett14:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I believe edits like that and several of your others are corrosive to the long-term success of the project. I've raised your recent edits in that thread here. user:j(talk)01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've always found it interesting that you're allowed to say whatever you wish if you're part of the mob with the pitchforks and torches, but instantly criticized, disparaged, and threatened if you're objecting to the actions of said mob. Mob action is far more corrosive to long-term success than any single comment...which some of the members may realize when the mob turns on them. Intothatdarkness13:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right. When someone becomes persona non grata you're allowed to be as offensive as you like about them, and tell whatever lies suit your purpose. Strange that. EricCorbett13:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
And I note with some amusement that I've recently been accused of changing my user name in an effort to hide my block log. Doesn't seem to matter what you do here, there's always someone ready to assume the worst, even make things up if they have to. EricCorbett13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to think it's part of the closed society group psychology here. They simply HAVE to have enemies..."enemies of the state" if you will. It allows OWN of policy to continue unabated and makes for a handy smokescreen when things go south and get noticed by people outside the system. That same psychology also prevents some who have good intentions from looking too closely at the system, seeing where it doesn't work, and then taking positive steps to fix it. Once they've been part of the baying mob (even if they come in late at the edges) I think they fear it being turned on them. Intothatdarkness13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You may be right. I've always seen it as a manifestation of that all too common desire some people have to fit in, in this case by joining the mob in their kicking matches. The world in general and WP in particular needs more people like me, who just don't want to fit in. EricCorbett14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It's just been my observation of the place, first brought on by watching the reactions to you and a handful of other editors who simply don't toe the line when it comes to policyOWN and other little things that seem so important to the inner circle. I'm not convinced that there's some sort of clique or cabal (and actually doubt that there is...at least in the traditional sense), but rather a collective mindset that attracts people of certain personality or behavior types. They get vested in the process (as far as I'm concerned OWN of policy is FAR more dangerous to this place than OWNing an article) and then it's all downhill. That circle of OWN, though it shifts from time to time, is really a sort of closed society that draws on the "we're doing something really great here" mantra. Suck them in while they're idealistic, convince them that any attempt to change is "evil" or "an attack on the greater good," and you get the mob reactions. That and it seems to be commonly triggered by non-article events. Civil POV pushers, baiters, or others of that ilk are rarely dragged through the streets or crucified for all to see. Someone who questions "policy" or "the way it's done," on the other hand, will be lit up for all to see. Intothatdarkness14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Your proposition may be good, But let's have one thing understood: Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers
Collective mindset is probably correct. That and another "there are two kinds of people" clash: People who want to join the mob/majority and people who, due to inherent morality and principle, deliberately refuse to go along with the mob and seem drawn to the underdog like a moth to a light bulb. Both factions exist on wiki. We are amongst the latter. Montanabw(talk)18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
You have been extremely uncivil, in the future, and there for you have been blocked for one week, in the future. Cheers. :D—cyberpowerChatOffline04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Repeated sarcastic remarks at anyone who disagrees with him and favors a ban of KW.Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes, the mix of both produces fascinating results... The best way to avoid being called an idiot is often to avoid acting like one. I'm sure Eric doesn't mind being called "abrasive", just like I don't mind being called a "smartass"; truth only hurts if you refuse to look at it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh great, all the f----ng moronic assholes have followed Eric C here too. Eric, username changes aside, you just keep on being you, OK? (snorts coffee out my nose) Montanabw(talk)18:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought it read "he was a good asshole director" ... either way .. it's verifiable that Eric has dealt with enough of them that he should be able to detect and direct "assholes. Just sayin. — Ched : ? 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I always called him a "detector" since he serves as something of a lightening rod for the asshole discharges around here. Intothatdarkness13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Uninvolved" is one of the greatest fictions here...right up there with "community" and "consensus." Oh...and the ever-popular AGF. Intothatdarkness13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems bizarre to me to have a project on freedom of speech in a project that doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, so I won't be joining. EricCorbett02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Malleus! (Perfect word for the occasion. ["Bizarre".] You are a great writer, always choosing the right word. And I'm learning what that takes. [Thorough understanding, of everything relevant to the subject.]) You're refreshing to read, every time. Chases away my depression! (Thank you.) p.s. I've never had any direct w/ Kiefer, but respect his brilliance. But I understand him even less than I understand User:Penyulap! (I seem to have little problem understanding Peny.) What do you think about Peny's incarceration, anyway? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@Malleus, I'm sorry you feel that way, I respect your quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia, and it'd sure be fun to collaborate with you at some point in the future on articles related to Freedom of speech, if you ever change your mind. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso. It's hard to know what to think about Penyulap's indefinite block, as so much is hidden here. Suffice to say I think there's a great deal too much blocking goes on in general. EricCorbett11:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As a quick bit of background—I suggested you here as someone who could help with Cirt's forthcoming work on Fuck, based on your cunt-groping history. (Cunt, the only previous attempt I'm aware of to get an obscenity article up to less-than-crappy standard, was written by a certain Mr Andemu, who for obvious reasons is not going to be in a position to assist.) – iridescent17:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@Eric. I always thought this was an interesting concept as well...up there with all the jokes about "military intelligence." Sometimes unintended irony is the best irony. This isn't intended as a knock on Cirt, as freedom of speech is a very important concept and one that deserves significant coverage here. Good to see folks taking it on! Intothatdarkness17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to avoid cluttering Dennis' page...I used self-criticism there on purpose. It was more in line with old Communist (especially the Chinese and Southeast Asian flavors) doctrine/practice - confess your sins, swear to do better, and then turn on others who show the same sins (or get a break for those past sins and work equally hard for the new masters). Sins are, of course relative. In the case of hard-line dissenters (or those who are committed to quality article writing), though, your use of self-abasement is quite correct. Intothatdarkness21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I understood what you meant, I was just adding my personal spin. The only effect this ongoing hate campaign has on me though is to make me more and more selfish, less inclined to help anyone with anything. Whether or not that's a good thing I'll leave for others to judge. Those such as Kww ought to reflect on the example of Rodhullandemu, another admin who came to grief on the rocks of trying to ban Malleus. EricCorbett22:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow--excellent work from all involved. Thank you on behalf of our readers. Also, now I want to move to Scotland even more, and live in a Scots Baronial kind of place. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
It is not a subpage; the software does not allow for sub-pages in the mainspace. What do you want the bots to do? Since it is classed as a normal article all the ant-vandal/formatting/general fix bots should be working.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That is why I ask. But the bots however are not recognising transclusion, and missing the need to write within the //noinclude// tags. That is understandable but does ignore a basic tenet of programming, that you test first before writing. If we investigate the other route of moving to mainspace- then transcluding, there is one bot that will still tag the article as an orphan.-- Clem Rutter (talk)01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the sensible thing be to put it in the template space? Template:Harle Syke mills or some such. That way it can be transcluded across and matches how we handle say, navigation templates. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The deed is done! Do I need to include anything else in the template page- for example documentation- or remove anything that I have left in the noincludes? (Spelling mistakes and bad grammar excluded ) -- Clem Rutter (talk)10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It certainly transcludes OK now, but I'm not sure why you've got that <noinclude> section at all, as presumably this template is designed to be transcluded into articles that will have their own References and External links sections? So why have them in this template? EricCorbett11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be proper for me to offer an opinion at FAC on the article now, but I think it deserves to be promoted and I wish you luck with it. Having said that, if the review stalls then I will offer my vote rather than see the article archived. EricCorbett22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Uruguay Avenger
You removed the item about Uruguay built Hillman Avengers, marking it up as an "unlikely tale". Well however unlikely you might think it is, I'm afraid it is absolutely the case. I've been informed of this by writers from Uruguay, and this archived page also refers to it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091024015756/http://geocities.com/autosuruguayos/dodge1500pup.html
"To make matters worse, its structure (freestanding), lost all the stiffness necessary to cut and modified the rear. Not having a chassis, which bear the burden, after a few days literally bent in half, earning him the nickname "honeymoon", and that lasted 15 days ..."
The problem was that the Avenger (as per a few other vehicles of the time such as the MKi Ford Capri" gained part of the vehicle stiffness from the pre-stressed roof. Clearly this was lost in a pickup variant. So when loaded as a pickup truck, the vehicles literally collapsed.
Can you therefore undo that change in isolation, other edits you have made I dare say are fine, I've not checked through them.
Dude, I'm watching V for Vendetta, and I don't know if you ever noticed, but that's like totally happening on Guy Fawkes Night. You should, like, totally add that to the article. They even wear masks, man. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Goodness knows. Perhaps there's a feeling that all must have prizes, or that no article is unsalvegable, so reviews are dragged out as the horse is redesigned by a committee rather than have a clear, failing review at the outset. I haven't reviewed GAs for a while (heck, I've not done *anything* for a while, as I've been rather busy keeping another part of the show on the road, but that's another story...) so I don't have a real feel for the current approach, and I've always tended to review in my comfort zone. I also tend to write well within my comfort zone, as my collection of Anglesey churches shows! Thanks for the review, of course. BencherliteTalk00:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I've sometimes thought that I ought to restrict myself to a narrow area such as Anglesey churches. There's a definite endpoint there, so I can see the attraction. EricCorbett00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I want to put up Oxbow (horse) for GA, but I'd kill for a thorough review before doing so. We just added the stuff on the Belmont, so the Triple Crown rush is done and the article is apt to be stable now (pun intended) for a couple months until the summer handicaps, which will probably add relatively little until the [{Breeder's Cup]]. Montanabw(talk)18:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Promotions
Being rather preoccupied yesterday, I did not notice until today that the Sharpe and Paley list had made it; I had expected it would need more supports. Thanks for your help in getting it there. I see you have also done some work on E. G. Paley; thanks for that, too. Because of some impending family events, I shall not be nominating it before the end of the month. You asked if FLC is becoming more challenging. Maybe; I have noticed that if I nominate a list with a previously successful formula, often it is criticised and "improvements" are demanded. Indeed, looking back at some of my earlier successful nominations, the later ones are certainly "better" than the earlier ones. Maybe it's a sort of evolution. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
FA and FLC certainly evolve. If I look at my earliest nominations I'm rather ashamed at what I read, the standards were actually quite a bit lower than they are now. Parrotof Doom20:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
EC
Fixing my edit conflict with you on Oxbow, will be done in a sec. Then feel free to dive back in, I also left talk page replies. Montanabw(talk)19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect Bibliographic Information
Please stop reverting the correction of references on the Repton Abbey article.
As it is all the information is correctly referenced to the source from whence it has came. Removing referenced and incorrectly citing items as references, when they do not contain that information, is doing no one any favours.
You are clearly rather hard of understanding, and have no idea what you're talking about, or how to write a decent article. How many edits have I made to your rather poor article today? EricCorbett00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Phineas Gage "Good Article" review
Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language."
EEng (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember, the guy with the steel bar through his head. I think your reviewer is right, particularly about the first two paragraphs of the lead; they do really need to be rewritten/broken up. Would you like me to have a go? EricCorbett22:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Added some stuff to Oxbow_(horse)#Pedigree and did some rephrasing. Can you verify that it's still in comprehensible English? Hey Ealdgyth-- you may want tolook at this too, you do more racehorse biographies than I do. I'm going to be putting this up for GA or FA in the next day or two, I think. Welcome comments. Montanabw(talk)23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ping ping! Another reviewer has made some editing suggestions, I'm too bleary-eyed at the article to make some of the judgement calls, so could you pop over and look at what The Rambling Man has suggested at talk? The wordsmithing stuff is where I could use fresher eyes. Montanabw(talk)17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I have comments from SOMEONE ELSE, who is acting in good faith with useful thoughts, but I'm too bleary-eyed at looking at the article to have any sense of what to fix or not. But to save you time, just read the lead and the "pedigree" sections and edit away or comment if I lapsed into gibberish. I also asked Ealdgyth to look at the pedigree stuff. Montanabw(talk)21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
So it's not been all bad then. My assumption is that whenever anyone uses the word "gotten" they're either from America or Norfolk. It seems to me that American schools teach kids to slavishly insert commas after every clause, whereas I was taught "if in doubt, leave it out". EricCorbett00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm running Ubuntu and I just can't get it to work under either Wine or Crossover for some reason, so I've given up on it. EricCorbett22:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Quote from AWB page: "functions reasonably well under Wine on Linux". Sounds like your system and AWB have decided to be unreasonable. INeverCry22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It appeared to work ok in the various versions of Ubuntu that I have used but I couldn't make much sense of how to use the tool itself. If you are keen to try AWB then it is simple enough to set up a virtual clean install Ubuntu machine inside your workaday version and try it from there. Me? I wouldn't boher: I'm sure that it is great stuff but there are far more problematic issues with articles on this project than whether X should by removed from Y category or the interminable dash and date debates. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I used AWB under Windows for quite a while, and it even worked OK under Ubuntu until relatively recently, so I know how it works and what you can do with it. I suspect the root problem lies somewhere in the different versions of .NET, but there's no way I'm going to go to the trouble of setting up another virtual machine just for AWB. As you say, a lot of trouble for what? EricCorbett23:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and report me if that'll make you happy, I really couldn't care less. You and your tag-teaming friend are simply wrong. Live with it. EricCorbett22:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For cases of flaming assholes, I strongly recommend a good dose of this topical ointment. And Eric, correct or not, please try to avoid giving people valid reasons to block you, just in case an antipathic admin gets tempted. I don't think anyone wants to go through the inevitably ensuing drama. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Still, please try to force them to continue inventing reasons. Four reverts in a day isn't an "invented reason". There's a difference between not backing off and giving others valid (stress on valid, not good) reasons to block you. If you're blocked for a seemingly valid reason to ensuing drama will no doubt prove far more wasteful of everyone's time than if you're blocked for other stupid non-reasons; force others to be blatantly wrong by not giving them any chance to appear justified in their actions against you. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, on the basis that blocks are meant to preventative rather than punitive – which nobody in full possession of their faculties could ever believe – I've no intention of reverting the "et al" nonsense again. What I will promise though is that if certain editors don't get their arses in gear this article will find itself itself at GAR if it's listed in its current state. EricCorbett22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit to basically knowing little of the actual dispute, but I think if a whole GAN hinges on whether "et al" is italicized or not, something's wrong. GAN ≠ FAC and minor MOS-related details aren't generally meant to be pass-or-fail criterias for GAs. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And all of the kerfluffle has been about you and John trying to show off your superior MOS knowledge while pissing all over the expert editor who wrote the excellent article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Since when is it a bad thing to passionately try to use your "superior knowledge" to improve the work of another editor? Isn't that the whole point of the fucking project? Someone writes an article on a subject he enjoys and/or knows a lot about and does a pretty solid job of it; then other editors with other skills help out by ironing out minor details (like MOS-related issues). I sure know I'd love to have people like John or Eric use their MOS knowledge to improve an article I poured so much time into in order to make it even more perfect. If I actually wrote articles. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Because I happened to be reviewing the article in a collegial and collaborative way before John and Eric came along. And the reverts by Eric were based on flimsy reasoning and grand standing. And yes his antagonistic attitude pissed me off too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm, now I am trying but I wonder if it is enough...I hate it when there is alot of trimming of redundancies to do as the more I read teh more I become familiar and hence miss some bits. Question is, with a couple of text buffers, is this within striking distance of FA-level prose....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Within shouting distance certainly, but it obviously needs some more work on the prose. There's this in the second sentence of the lead for instance: "... it is has a population of 6.8 million in 2011 with a metropolitan population of 7.75 million". While local government seems to be pretty comprehensively covered I don't see anything about Hyderabad's relationship with national government. But with a little bit of work and attention to detail I could see this getting through FAC in the not too distant future. EricCorbett13:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh. Pesky edit conflicts. MoS is not something I would ever challenge you on; although didn't I once get you on something to do with date ranges? I forget which article it was on... It isn't worth edit-warring over though, even though you are totally right on this one. --John (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite possibly you did, although it might have been image placement under section headings, I can't remember either. The MoS changes silently and is self-contradictory in many places, as it is in this case in fact. But I know I'm right, and when I know I'm right I don't back off. It's not the Wikipedia way I know, but then I've never been a Wikipedian, as you may recall. I simply don't understand the attitude on display here. Why would any editor not want their article to be the best it possibly could? EricCorbett22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame to say but this looks like WP:OWN to me. I have backed off to see what'll happen; it isn't the end of the world if that article doesn't make it. --John (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know what it is, but if the article is listed in its current state I'll likely be taking it to GAR. EricCorbett22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You probably should stick to FA reviews, you are very clearly not able familiar with how GA is supposed to function. It is supposed to be a collegial experience in which the article is improved colloabioratively not the Spanish Inquisition. If you folks start turning GA which has hitherto fore been reasonable collegial and helpful review form for the most part into a minihell modeled on the FA process Wikipedia goes down the drain. No volunteer editors will be willing to be pissed on like that for a measly green plus sign.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is of such supreme indifference to me that I wonder why you took the trouble to post it here. I've done more GA reviews than you've had hot dinners, and unlike you I'm quite familiar with the GA criteria. EricCorbett22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeh, Eric, what on earth do you know about GA standards after a mere 255 GA reviews and 321 GAs checked during the Sweeps, not to mention the dozens of articles you have improved to GA status? Oh... BencherliteTalk22:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
That is 255 nominators I feel very sorry for. You may know something about MOS, but you know very little about how to keep editors contributing their volunteer work and time to this project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, I have every confidence in Eric's ability to work with other people. On occasion I have asked if he would review the article of someone new to the GA process precisely for that reason. I have never once regretted doing so, and considered making the request again recently (in the end someone else made the review). Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty agitated I must admit. But I think I have a good reason. This is about the future of Wikipedia - if there isn't a way for editors to write articles and get them in reasonable shape and get some kind of collegial recognition for their time spent without first being dragged through your MOS fueled version of Chinese water torture then this project has none. I for one have certainly reviewed and written my last GA if this is the new standard of review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. When I spot that you've signed up to review one of my articles, I know that the article will be all the better for your editing and questions. BencherliteTalk23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hell, I've been asking for assessment BEFORE a GA or FAC because once Corbett has reviewed it, I'm pretty much immunized from inept troll reviewers and usually attract folks who know what they are doing! Montanabw(talk)16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, you can deduct me from the "That is 255 nominators I feel very sorry for" also, Eric has reviewed some of mine and it was a pleasant experience. In fact, I said as much on this talk page when one completed. And it should be italicised. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We live a time when criticism, especially here on Wikipedia, is considered to be a personal attack, which is at the root of this nonsense. Yet without criticism we can't improve. I've always found reviewing to be difficult and time consuming, yet I did it because I believed in GA/FA, not necessarily in Wikipedia if you get my drift. If the attitudes of those such as Maunus become prevalent here it will be no place for me. EricCorbett23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Criticism and egotistical grand standing are two different things. Most people can handle criticism just fine when offered in a collegial spirit. Most adults don't enjoy being lectured by a selfestablished schoolmaster. If your attitude weren't already prevalent here, we'd be gaining new editors, retaining expert editors and creating more high quality content at a much higher rate. Perhaps we'd have less perfect italics, but I'd be able to live with that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I've given you enough chances to demonstrate that you're a rational adult, so please don't post here again. EricCorbett00:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. I'm occasionally reminded of the story of the football match played between two primary school teams. At half time one was losing 9-0, so the match was abandoned to avoid further humiliation to the losers. But if I'd been their coach I'd have tried to put some fire in their bellies and go out in the second half to win 10–9. I guess I'm just out of step with how things are supposed to work today. EricCorbett16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The Sunbeam Tiger is a high-performance V8 version of the British Rootes Group's Sunbeam Alpineroadster, designed in part by American car designer and racing driver Carroll Shelby. Shelby had carried out a similar V8 conversion on the AC Cobra, and hoped to win the contract to produce the Tiger at his facility in America. Rootes decided instead to contract the assembly work to Jensen at West Bromwich in England, and pay Shelby a royalty on every car produced. Two major versions were built: the Series I (1964–67) was fitted with the 260 cu in (4.3 L) Ford V8; the Series II, of which only 633 were built, was fitted with the larger Ford 289 cu in (4.7 L) engine. Two prototype and extensively modified versions of the Series I competed in the 1964 24 Hours of Le Mans, fitted with the larger engine, but neither completed the race. For two years the Tiger was the American Hot Rod Association's national record holder over a quarter-mile drag strip. Production ended in 1967 soon after the Rootes Group was taken over by Chrysler, who did not have a suitable engine to replace the Ford V8. Owing to the ease and affordability of modifying the Tiger, there are few surviving cars in standard form. (Full article...)
Getting a car article through FAC, or indeed any article, is no mean achievement, so you're entitled to a grin or two. EricCorbett23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To get an article through FAC and on to TFA in such short order, especially without a wait at GA, is quite something. I can't buy Dennis a beer but Eric will drink two in recompense when we next meet. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite likely a few more than that, although not at your expense. I don't know why it is that some people don't trust my judgement when it comes to articles. I'd be the first to admit that I'd be a piss-poor diplomat, but I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia, not some new-age utopia. EricCorbett23:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
What I don't understand are these continual allegations that I'm unable to collaborate, therefore not a Wikipedian and so on. Recent accusations that any nominator of an article I review is a poor unfortunate victim of my vengeance also puzzle me. I've always taken reviewing very seriously, and I've never used it as a weapon, yet others feel free to throw all the work I've done in my face as being worthless. But it's apparently OK to try and humiliate me because I'm Malevolent Fatuous, whereas I get blocked for using the word sycophantic. It's a strange world here in Wikiland. EricCorbett05:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of your work on this article when I was at a classic and antique car show in Yountville, California with my wife and son the other day. This may not be the best photo, but I hope you like it.
Thanks for your three recent GA reviews. At some point, would you mind casting your eye over Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan? It's the longest I think of my Anglesey church series - ironic given that it was part-demolished in the 19th century - and I think it's worth taking a shot at FAC with it at some point. An EC copyedit would work wonders, I'm sure. No rush, and no obligation, of course. BencherliteTalk13:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the context of the Normans, it isn't as obvious as it seems to the modern eye. After Stephen and Matilda, Anglo-Norman/Angevin custom was to hold the coronation of a successor while the reigning monarch was still alive (to make it obvious to all who the chosen successor was, and prevent a repeat of the civil war that followed the death of Henry I with no confirmed successor). I can easily imagine someone aware of this practice, but not aware of when it started, taking it to mean that William's coronation was just to anoint him as the successor to Edgar the Aetheling as-and-when Edgar died, not to crown him king on the spot. – iridescent19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's me put in my place then. Whatever Ealdgyth thinks is fine with me; I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone I'd be less likely to edit war with than her. Apart from you maybe. EricCorbett20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Although the hypothetical reader who is aware of the (dare I say "obscure"?) Anglo-Norman/Angevin custom of crowning successors but who is not aware that William was crowned king rather than the Aethling's successor would be exceptionally well-read and exceptionally poorly read at the same time, surely? BencherliteTalk20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Angevins (the Anglo-Normans sorta end with Stephen (The "Norman dynasty" is really a misnomer ... and no one is really sure what to do with Stephen .. .he gets lumped in with the Normans, but strictly speaking he should be his own dynasty. But then, Stephen's always been a problem child) so it's not good to say they had that custom - their custom on the succession was "sprint to Winchester to seize the treasury") borrowed the idea from the Capetians, who did it for a very long time - 200 or 300 years. The Angevins only did it once, and it didn't really work so well - see Henry the Young King. (Richard I was on the outs with his dad, John had to get rid of Arthur, Henry III was too young to have been crowned, and by the time of Edward I, the Capetians had pretty much quit doing it, so there wasn't much point in it. And Edward had a very secure succession - he was actually on Crusade when he became king, and he was so unworried about it that he stayed a while longer...). But, some folks might not be clear if William wasn't crowned something else... better to be specific. Ealdgyth - Talk20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You could dare say obscure, but you'd be wrong. This originated with the Anglo-Normans and Angevins, but so did the British monarchy; this is still the practice today. The difference is that since 1301 the heir is crowned Prince of Wales, not Crown Prince of England—they still go through a formal investiture ceremony. – iridescent20:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize you've been busy terrorizing poor unsuspecting editors at GANs and stuff (my tongue is very FIRMLY in cheek - your GA reviews are excellent and I'm not sure why that article blew up in your face...) but surely I didn't do so well that you only had that few issues with the poor NC article. I really doubt that I didn't manage to strew commas liberally .... Ealdgyth - Talk00:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
As you say, I've been busy terrorising unsuspecting GA nominators, allegedly, so I haven't yet finished with your opus. I'm amazed you even want me to continue with it given my reputation. I sense that my reviewing style is not the Wikipedia way, so I may restrict myself to commenting on FAs in the future. EricCorbett00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not easy to scare off. I kinda like your crumudgeonly persona. I'm trying to summon energy to figure out what the big "push" is next. I should do Battle of Hastings, but I'm feeling like working on a bad boy cleric instead... just to pick the cleric... Do I wanna work on the first guy to escape from the Tower or the wanna-be abbot of Evesham that was accused of all those nasty crimes by his monks? Ealdgyth - Talk00:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand this "curmudgeonly" thing. You ask me a question, I tell you what I think. What's curmudgeonly about that? If you might be offended by my reply then why ask me? EricCorbett01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Flambard’s definitely the way to go. He was a son of a bitch, but his life is an interesting story. He got his guards drunk so he could climb out of the window, but the rope which had been smuggled into the Tower was too short so Flambard had to jump the last bit and portly bishop nearly broke his ankles.
Speaking of which, the article describes the story as a "popular legend". Orderic Vitalis may be embellishing things, but the details that Flambard was held in a room where the window had a dividing pillar rings true. That would have been one of the high status rooms, befitting the bishop's status. It might be more neutral to say "According to Orderic Vitalis..." than "popular legend", a term which was in the earliest surviving version of the article. What do you reckon? Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
See WP:AUN for rules regarding using commas in numbers with more than three digits, as well as parentheses. As for the image size, "use the size specified in preferences for logged in users, and use a size determined by resolution for anonymous users." I.e., do not force a different size thumbnail. If you have any other problems please reply here. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
My tone seems to be consistent with yours. Also, see my "I don't give a fuck for your so-called rules if they're against common sense" here. EricCorbett06:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am just trying to apply the consistent formatting decided upon by a multitude of WP users. I personally would never use a comma and a space rather than writing 4719cc, but "4,719 cc" is what WP has agreed to. This is not my preference, but the goal is to have everyone here using a unified style. I have not accused you of being uneducated but only provided links supporting my edit, so my tone is nothing like yours. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think consistency is better than each individual choosing his/her style preferences. As for the picture size, it is so that individuals can choose their thumbnail setting preference individually, but I agree that for a wide and low picture such as that one a little wider would be better. As for the parentheses in the infobox there is a rule: Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unit conversions. I would love to have WP agree to let us write engine sizes and engine speeds without the comma. In some countries you only use a breaker when there are five or more digits (e.g. 5000 and 50 000) which seems best to me, but again, it is not for us to decide here. I would love to partake in a conversation about this in a place where some change could be engineered, btw. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply to what Choppers is about to ask here, since I need to go to lunch :)
In line two of my link above is spelled out, as an example of the chosen style: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long - commas and all. Enjoy your lunch, I am making an omelet with peas. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow! I guess I shouldn't have listened to my automobile project brethren: Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping_of_digits), Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250). I am going to take away all those stupid commas right now. The only problem is that conversion templates automatically add commas, which will lead to a wild mix of styles in all articles. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
yes, let's fix Bora right now but I also started a conversation here, please drop in an state your support for a change to this silly policy. I've also started a conversation at Template talk:Convert#Commas, which will hopefully lead to some better code, at least for engine sizes as that is where it is most likely to affect us. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Tiger II
Also pinging User:Dennis Brown. First congratulations to you both on a splendid article. I was reading through it once more (my last read through was shortly before you started the FA process) and noticed something. It's nothing I'm complaining about, simply that I noticed it. First I'll preface my comment by saying that I do have a reference script installed in one of my *.css or *.js files which does cause me to see this, so it's nothing that the normal reader would ever notice. In reference item #15 I see:
^ Shelby (1965), p. 218 Harv error: link from #CITEREFShelby1965 doesn't point to any citation.
and in Bibliography:
Shelby, Carroll; Bentley, John (1965), The Cobra Story, Trident Press Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFShelbyBentley1965.
I'm likely seeing that due to the script from:
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
which I have in my monobook.js file. Which causes a big bold red "Harv error" to appear in references. While I've had a "poke and hope" go at {{sfn}} in the past, I'm by no means proficient in it or even familiar with {{sfnp}}; so even though I looked - I don't see what's causing it. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. IIRC User:Shyamal was able to find and fix a similar issue with the Aylesbury duck article a while back. As I said, a very minor issue, but I still thought I'd mention it. — Ched : ? 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh ... OK. Because there are two authors, both have to be in the sfnp .. got it. Sorry I wasn't able to catch it myself, but I'm teachable. — Ched : ? 17:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Robert Radclive, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hangman and Quandary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
When it takes an uninvolved user (i.e. me) about 30 seoonds to dismiss one of your claims (the "IP block without escalating blocks", when it actually had twelve) as complete fiction, it's hardly likely that people are going to waste their time reading through the rest, is it? Similarly the Fladrif stuff - you don't mention that Doc James actually unblocked Fladrif first, before reblocking him after further evidence turned up at ANI. It hardly makes me wish to plough through the rest. His block of you was wrong, and it was overturned. But I see nothing to suggest a continuing pattern of abuse of the tools; indeed, many of your diffs are purely of issues that don't involve tools. And there's been no RFCU. So good luck with that one. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's your point, really. I've hardly interacted with Doc James in my 7 years here, and only saw the case because I have the page watchlisted. But you should know that evidence for a RFAR needs to be both clear and watertight. And it wasn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is, sorry you can't see it for whatever reason. And people wonder why participation in wiki nose dives every year...abusive admins and bullies rule the place. PumpkinSkytalk19:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed your holiday! I need to address a comment or two that Iri left on my talk page, but it shouldn't affect much of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Think we're good now? If so, and if John's happy, I'm leaning towards FAC shortly. I'm sorry I don't have more to offer you on Mount Vernon... but I've never been a big student of American history. (I think it's the old "familiarity breeds contempt" thing... I got force-fed it so much in school that it never interested me...) Ealdgyth - Talk22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, other than the brain fart of totally unciting one of the explanatory footnotes (Blargh, that was a big oversight!), I think we're ready. How's Mount Vernon looking? Ealdgyth - Talk19:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we're about as good as we're going to get with the conquest, so FAC sounds like a plan. I haven't looked at Mount Vernon again yet, been a little diverted with The Coral Island and a few other things, such as SandyGeorgia being blocked earlier today. EricCorbett20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys. I'm a multilingual speaker and red some of the articles linked to this "personage". Undoubtedly his hyperactive life generates confusions but no doubt leaves an intriguing test above all for his campaigning against priests pedophilia. Absolutely brain-mangeing but if someone has time to go deep and through the articles about his life, may be something interesting could be made out of it by a competent English writing user. Yeah the problem seems only be the conversion of thoughts from Italian to English. You guys are great editors so you should find a way to tell the personage religious experience washed up as though poor online-sourced, his story is well recounted by the available sources linked to the article itself and all the information about it are there concentrated, above all on the link "Gabriele Bojano (September 25, 2011). "FROM MONKHOOD TO CRIMINOLOGY. THE THOUSAND FACES OF ANGELO A TORIELLO." (in Italian). Cronache del Mezzogiorno (Corriere della Sera group) (Italy)". If this said: "Besides many life's experiences, Toriello is a former “showman”, having rubbed shoulders with some Italian and International artists, and a Franciscan Friar with the religious name of Friar Emanuel, who in late 1996 exposed catholic priests as paedophiles, marking the point of his social activism peregrination, although since he was young he has always been involved in volunteering activitieBold texts", you should also let be written the religious experience in more details and of course in cleaned up way and English language, but user Drmies should not just omit it, as if the source is valid for this introduction, the same source should be valid for a deeper content. Yes just the right way to be written has to be monitored.
Just had a cursory read of Kidnapping of Aldo Moro which also exhibits (but not to the same degree) the defects of the Toriello article. For instance "On 9 May 1978 Moro's corpse was found...after 55 days of imprisonment, during which Moro was submitted to a political process and the Italian government was asked for an exchange of prisoners"- and the rest of the article gives an impression that Italian "political speak" is allusory and full of circumlocatory phrases. To paraphrase an English writer on the Years of Lead (can't remember his name) you've read three pages of the newspaper article and you still don't know what the fuck they're going on about. So Toriello is a former "showman"- what was he? A carnival barker, an Italian Bruce Forsyth, a flasher? Ning-ning (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey again. Forget about what he is and what. As much he has been or he is a "news subject" which could be of some interest for the public and follows wikipedia guidelines what we care about. I think users and above all expert editors like you mission is to edit over the top contents to restrain them to wikipedia guidelines preserving form, tone, neutrality, grammar, rubbish and from vandalism as well. That's all!. Rest we should leave to the press and be neutral about the subjects as much as sources are verifiable and reliable. This guy may be hyperactive, eccentric or whatever...I think we are not his judges of what he does and how many things he does! We should just stick to our best motive to expand and edits contents in such a way to preserve Wikipedia from rubbish. I have seen user Ning-Ning doing a great editing job and in the end that is what matters, above all keeping in consideration the Italian format of writing which pumps up contents. though not expert I can try editing the content with the help of you guys after seen user DrKlain asking help. I would appreciate user Ning-Ning feed back. Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.118.236 (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You know, I'm feeling childishly pleased with that, and I probably wouldn't have been so bold as to go straight to FAC without you. So it's credit to both of us. EricCorbett16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, when we started out with the Tiger I was dubious we could even get it to GA, sources seemed so thin on the ground. But I'm up for another ride. EricCorbett20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't been keeping up Gerda. Apparently I scare away new nominators at GA and I'm unable to collaborate. EricCorbett21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
GA would have taken ages, and I knew we were good enough for FA, give or take. I'm trying to encourage Montanabw to take her Oxbow article straight to FAC as well, but she doesn't seem to have our courage. Ealdgyth is to my mind a model nominator; she never gets upset when her prose is "fixed", except if the meaning is altered or citations misplaced ... it really is my impression that WP's female editors tend to gravitate towards the higher quality end of the scale. If there really is a gender gap, that's a good enough reason to try and plug it, not some PC hand-waving. EricCorbett22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
While I vote for an even gender ratio, I cannot enshrine my own gender, and as for collaboration, I have to say that in my quest for quality control, I have been accused of WP:OWN so many times that I've just, um, owned it. Montanabw(talk)22:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there are a lot more women here than the headline stats suggest, as I recently said elsewhere. I completely understand anyone choosing not to reveal their gender, but my own experience is that in the editors I've worked with the gender ratio is about 50:50.
I also think that people will simply be people regardless of gender. Some of the nastiest, least collaborative people I've met have been women. It may also be worth considering what areas draw large clusters of articles, and then looking at what sort of people tend to follow or support those areas. If you follow the supposition that most video gamers, for example, are male, then it also stands to reason that most article writers in that area would be male. Same can be said for sports. Both areas seem to be fairly combative (at least that's my impression). Everyone's mileage will vary, of course, but I've found MilHist pretty agreeable, and most of them are male. It could simply be that the more academic or "high brow" topic areas attract editors that are more accustomed to working with others, and if those areas are in turn frequented by editors who happen to be female, it would tend to create the impression that Dennis commented on. So for the TL/DR version - I think topic rather than gender is the driver behind a collaborative atmosphere (or lack thereof). Intothatdarkness13:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(to Into) ... "It could simply be that the more academic or "high brow" topic areas attract editors that are more accustomed to working with others" ... ROFL. You obviously have never been seriously involved in actual academia. True academics (as in university profs) are so not amenable to actual collegiate working together (unless there is an obvious benefit to them...) that it's not even funny... sometimes I wonder if that's one reason so much of Wikipedia's original editors wanted to avoid attracting actual academics. (And Eric ... me? Model nominator??? (snickers) You just can't see what I do BEFORE I start typing replies to folks... ) Ealdgyth - Talk23:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this earlier. I have actually been involved in academia. Still am, actually (as in the university prof variety). I also said "accustomed to," which doesn't necessarily mean "good at" working with other people. In fact they quite often are not especially good at it. Horrid in many cases, as you pointed out. It's a festering mess in its own way, but I'd also contend that you need at least some of them to catch the major content errors wandering around in the history stuff. Intothatdarkness20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
Thank you very much for an expeditious and, to me, stimulating review. At your service if I can be of help with any of your articles at peer review, GAN or FAC. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I loved that book, especially the first half, until the pirates arrive. I'm pleased to hear you're familiar with the book, as my co-nominator Drmies wasn't. EricCorbett23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Drmies read the Dutch equivalent of said books; they always ended up in Indonesia. Hey Eric, I just made Peterkin a 13-year old boy, since that's what he is on p. 191 of my Penguin edition--I see now that on p. 13 Ralph refers to him as "about fourteen years old". We have a slight inconsistency, esp. since on p. 191 the boys have already spent months on the island. I leave the choice up to you, to either revert me or leave it be. BTW, rereading the book I'm enjoying it more than I did the first time around. That 19th-century English takes a bit of getting used to. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It does. I'm struggling to get through Ainsworth's Lancashire Witches at present. It seems pretty obvious that authors in those days were paid by the word. EricCorbett01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Not readers, though. I just lost a couple hundred bucks reading Irvine's "Separate Accounts: Class and Colonization in the Early Stories of R.M. Ballantyne" (one of Nikkimaria's suggestions), and found it not only a total drag to read but also of little use to us, unfortunately. On to the next one. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Back to the island
I don't like the sentence I just added. It's from the Maher article, who'll find a better use elsewhere in the article. Can you add it to the Works Cited? I'm asking because it has DOI: 10.1353/chq.0.0620 and I don't know how to those DOIs, apparently... Drmies (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Pardon the long quote: "The choices that Frederick Marryat and Robert Michael Ballantyne made in recasting Crusoe tell us much about the influence of ideology on children's fiction, as well as the complex interchange between history, myth, and text. Marryat and Ballantyne had to find means to simplify the Robinsonade, to make it a mouthpiece for celebrating God and country. Their adventures must necessarily lack the subtle colorings of the prototype, Robinson Crusoe, a book written for adults, though beloved by children. In simplifying the Robinsonade, they produced romances that express an ambivalence to romance, novels that present a pedestrian realism." So it is the two of them also, the "novels that" being in apposition to the "romances" they produced". Drmies (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Added a bit more from one of the useful articles linked at the FAC. (Please copy edit for my usual infelicities, US spelling, hyphen/dash issues...) Can't comment there right now; housecleaning... Drmies (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm reading "The Broken Telescope", which makes me want to add to the background section (not unlike what we did for TMitM)--a paragraph that discusses (briefly) the Robinsonade, Rousseau and the idea of the child, and (social and natural) Darwinism. She argues that the novel isn't simply a reflection of Victorian values imposed on the world and reflected in the novel, but that there is an instability. E.g., on Jack's "miniature Pacific", "it always remains evident that the exotic is viewed through a distorted western textual lens--a circumstance which ultimately undermines, and introduces irony to, the surface display of absolute authority" (139). Wait--that last note probably fits best in the Themes section. Anyway, I'm pondering this; don't know if I'll be able to take care of it today. There's fried chicken for lunch, with some luck a nap, and company tonight. I wish you and Dr. Malleus could come by for an evening, or two. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There's almost certainly something in there that could be added, but I've tried to steer clear of getting too much into the Robinsonade stuff, which has its own article anyway. What's for drinks? EricCorbett17:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's not so much the Robinsonade but the context of the genre in the early 18th century. Can you re-evaluate your "except for works such as..."? Drinks--well, it's not payday yet, so it's regular beers. I'm terrifically low on liquor, I'm afraid. Maybe you should come next week and I'll make Old Fashioneds. Or Sidecars! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I live in Manchester, so I've been to Wales loads of times as it's only about 45 miles away. I think we're going to somewhere around the bottom of Cardigan Bay, but I leave all the arrangements to my wife. What's the point in having a dog and barking yourself? EricCorbett17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've always wanted to go to Wales. Green Knight country. Dylan Thomas country. Even W.G. Sebald country. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Haven't found any 19th-century reviews yet. I did find this (anonymous) comparable tale, and this--neither book/author covered by our encyclopedia. And my searching confirmed the amazing popularity of the genre, if that needed confirmation. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrecked on the Bermudas is quite a yarn. I don't know what it is--it's totally predictable and formulaic, with totally unbelievable dialog, and yet I just read one chapter and find it difficult to put down. It's about three brothers going from New York to England on an old ship that their father commanded decades ago, and they even brought their dog with them. And the captain is a drunkard. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking an online mandatory training on harassment as we speak. In about half an hour I should be an expert on the matter, with a PDF diploma to prove it. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"You know, Sarah, those comments that you keep making about my disability, they really hurt my feelings". "Oh come on, you know all the girls think you're hot with those strong arms from pushing your wheel chair." [I'm not making this up. And both characters are pretty hot, by the way. Wait, that's harassment.] Drmies (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis! Oh, we're not supposed to leave swastikas on other people's desks. Can I have mine back, please? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You know what's funny? All these people, including Dave, are so goddamn goodlooking. Especially the girl who dated her professor for a few weeks. Ah, one can always dream. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Mandatory, so we can feel good about ourselves and say we're actively promoting a happy work place. You should tell your boss to do the same thing, and maybe United Educators will give you a cut of the action. Dennis, I wouldn't mind, if it wasn't such trivial bullshit. A dude in a wheelchair gets harassed by a woman who says he's hot--really, when did that ever happen? A guy hugs too many people--sure, that can happen. But it's all so trivial compared to the shit that happens in real life, and it's all presented like it's solvable. "Harassment traning"--there's a section where you hear a bunch of examples and then you have to check the box, was it an employee being harassed, a bystander, was it via email: duh, too stupid for words. What's useful is helping people figure out what can be considered harassment, and what to do short of reporting to stop it. How does one stop a bunch of construction workers from whistling to women? You empower the woman to be convinced that it's wrong and that it's entirely acceptable for her to find the supervisor and rip him a new one, for instance. Saying "that's harassment by bystanders"--no shit. And that's what I'm getting a certificate for, for realizing that someone who gets demoted because they're always late for work is not a victim of harassment. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh Dennis Brown, reread Essentialism (I know, it's not a very good article right now). Not all men are dogs. Not all women are angels. Besides, where does that leave the Third gender? I was (I realize in hindsight) sexually harassed a few decades ago by a female coworker. ("How?" you ask? That's private. We'll discuss over beers.) It wasn't a big deal to me, but man it was uncomfortable. Eric! Sorry to take up so much of your allotted server space. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Eric, do you think Mount Vernon is ready for GA yet? I've been away for the last few weeks, but am more or less around now. Giano 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much, although we've still got a problem with sources for the last paragraph of the Lawrence Washington (1718–1752) section. EricCorbett21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you need sourced? Weirdly, I might have it in my genealogy files - first hubby was distantly related to that Washington family, so I have a few things on the Washingtons. Ealdgyth - Talk21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no sources at all in that final paragraph, and MONGO has been unable to come up with any. EricCorbett21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Emailed you the Wall article - it looks useful. Check your usual email for something from me. I will post any others I find useful. Ealdgyth - Talk21:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth. That pdf has some interesting additional details – I just followed your link and downloaded it. The story of who built the first house at Mount Vernon seems more complicated than the article would lead one to believe, at least according to Wall. May to have to rewrite this paragraph to match the available sources. It's rather curious that the work of getting Mount Vernon up to GA spec has fallen to a Brit and an Italian don't you think? EricCorbett22:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
No odder than me doing most of the medieval English history articles (it sometimes feels like it's a one-woman research project (I know that it's not a one-woman polishing effort... you and John and everyone else do a LOT of work on my prose) but there is at least HC and Nev who are doing castles and kings... (Yes, Nev, I saw your comment about Flambard. I'm half-afraid that if I finish off Flambard I'll lose interest in editing Wikipedia....) Ealdgyth - Talk23:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Aaaagh! don't give up just yet Ealdgyth - I've just ordered two books to use as reference material for a new article I'm planning on a Medieval English subject that hasn't been covered yet, and I'll be looking for your help on that. Intrigued? - I hope so. :) Richerman(talk)00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
before we GA it, I am just playing arownd with some ideas here [[:File:Mansionplan1.jpg] (which is far from finished) - I wonder if any one here knows where there are any plans on the internet - I can only find an old one allegedly drawn by Washington himself. I don't want to spend hours on it, only to have someone say that's not right. Giano 13:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we're quite ready for GA yet. I'm still trying to sort out who it was built the first house on the site. EricCorbett14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I know; for a national monument and shrine, it doesn't seem very well documented does it? If it's ever finished it looks like this will be the definitive work on the place. Perhaps we will get some sort of national recognition - a sort or republican Légion d'honneur or a life ticket to Disneyland or something like that. Giano 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A ticket to Disneyland I could quite happily do without; I'd probably punch Mickey Mouse in the first few minutes there. EricCorbett14:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
When you have it ready for GA, let me know. I owe BOTH you guys a review (actually, more than one), plus I've visited there and specialize in that era when I teach US History over at the local college. Thus, if you screw up, I should be able to spot it! (LOL) Montanabw(talk)17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
From what I've read I'm pretty sure it was Augustine, but I'm unclear about when it was renamed Mount Vernon. EricCorbett23:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Commas
...and can spot a tendentious troll reviewer at 50 paces. But I'm not saying that at the article talk page. I've also probably pissed off a person who usually haunts FAC recently, (for other reasons, so like "Voldemort" please don't say "infobox") and may need backup to address anything that person might raise -- or better yet, someone other than me to address it... ;-P Montanabw(talk)22:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
And you are right, looks like she will support. Surprised me, but in a pleasant way. We have two support votes now, if you know a good third reviewer, maybe let them know it's out there?? Montanabw(talk)23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Another one of Buffbills7701's reviews I see. I certainly wouldn't have listed it, it needs an awful lot of work. EricCorbett19:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
... in fact it's pretty dreadful, so I've opened a GA reassessment here. Buffbills clearly doesn't have much idea what he's doing. EricCorbett21:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that too. Any criticism is seen by kids as a personal attack these days it seems. I've found from experience though that you tend to make more enemies than friends when reviewing, especially at GAR for some reason. EricCorbett22:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Buffbills doesn't strike me as an asshole. He may well be nicer than us, and I think he's of good faith. Listening to criticism is hard; so many years of marriage and teaching writing have taught us that, I suppose. Oh, I've been looking at Cath Kidston's mugs, and there's some pretty ones, but so much of it is soft and pinkish. Prettiest mug I own is from Royal Kendal, and I broke the ear. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If I ruled the (GA) world I'd institute one simple rule: every reviewer should have written at least two GAs themselves. When I was heavily into windsurfing the rule for instructors was that to assess anyone you had to be at least one grade higher than they were. EricCorbett23:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just an anal retentive asshole editor at heart or something. I'll admit I find the pop culture topics such as music or tv shows to be more work than history articles, but reading for flow and clarity is something that I find reasonably easy. Why do you find them hard? Maybe I should do more GA reviews... pick up some of the slack. Ealdgyth - Talk00:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The reading part usually isn't the hard part! Hey Ealdgyth, thanks for linking my main man Ker. Too many Anglo-Saxonists still need to get written up. Or wrote up, if you like. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What you really have to do Nuno93 is to get a native English-speaking copyeditor involved, and work with him or her to make the text presentable. Buffbills was wrong to list this as a GA, and I've now delisted it. EricCorbett13:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
discussing a small change to Gunpowder Plot
I see from the edit history that you've been vigilant about Gunpowder Plot. It seems you've made a lot of reversions of both deliberate vandalism and ill-advised, if well-intentioned, edits. I want to thank you for your hard work and skilled editing, but I'd also like to discuss a change that I think the article needs. I fixed a grammatical error, and you reverted the fix. Do you want to discuss it on that article's talk page? Maybe we can come up with a fix that meets your high standards. TypoBoy (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If I may, no grammatical error was fixed: there was no missing conjunction. However, there is something to be said for the change, since "unmarried, childless, and steadfastly refused" places three words in parallel that can also be seen as not grammatically parallel, since the first two are adjectives and the third is a past participle indicating an ongoing action/attitude. But that's style, not grammar. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the "and ... and" construction. But as you say, this certainly isn't a matter of grammar. I can't help but wonder why it's taken TypoBoy seven months to bring this up though. Anything to do with my delisting of C.A. Peñarol do you suppose? EricCorbett16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
