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.
Is it? So telling someone that disagrees with your edits that they have WP:OWN issues is fine? It would be nice if folks just didn't reach for the block button but actually investigated issues. But I guess I should expect this. Too much trouble to actually investigate the talk page issues... easier to block. Never mind that the "fuck off" comment was when Eric got templated with a message (that didn't even point out what the perceived personal attack was...) Ealdgyth - Talk21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Even a mild-mannered TPS like myself could figure that chain of events out. It's always ok to be a full-on douche if you don't cuss, but the second you do... And doesn't this show ALWAYS repeat itself about this time? Intothatdarkness21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I watched Demolition Man the other evening. You may remember the machines that automatically issued paper tickets every time someone used a swear word. John Spartan, having found no toilet paper in the loo, swore repeatedly into the sensor to get as much paper as he could to wipe his arse. That's pretty much how I feel about these stupid blocks. EricCorbett22:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
By that token we should just abolish the 3RR - we have to have some standard and telling someone to fuck off has to beyond the pale. Its not as if Eric can't make the same point without resorting to profanity. SpartazHumbug!21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Full moon tonight, maybe? I don't know, I'm going to have to go off to shoot holes in paper targets shortly. Tonight is our Halloween themed night at pistol club - we're doing zombie targets! And glow-in-the-dark targets! And pumpkin targets! So at least I have a way to release my annoyances with the people around here who seem to think winning an argument is more important that anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You'd be very far from the only one, but it's obviously one rule for you and another for the worthless plebs like me. EricCorbett21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It is handy having a cloak of invincibility. I don't actually deserve it, but it seems a shame not to use it once every couple of years if I have it available to me. If I could loan it to you, I would, but I can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember that. You should just switch to one of your many admin sockpuppet accounts for the next 2:30. I'd let you use mine - I'm about to go offline - but if someone saw my account make an article-space edit without at least seven commas and two misspellings, they'd know something was fishy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there no end to administrative yuk on Wikipediedia? To be consistent Spartaz, you should now embark on the full time job of locating and blocking admins who are uncivil to content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I was called a prat earlier on today, but I didn't go crying to Mummy. So my question to Spartaz is how do you grade profanities? EricCorbett22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You can call me a prat if you like and I couldn't care less. Personally, I'd only instunctively block for calling someone a cunt or telling them to fuck off - anything else would depend on context and the circumstances so there is no straight answer beyond that. Check my blocks I do very few and mostly for disruptive socking. SpartazHumbug!22:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Mrs Spartaz doesn't count as off wiki collusion but thanks for assuming the worst. I'm not on IRC and not plugged into any wiki social networks so no collusion at all. SpartazHumbug!23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean that a humerous comment to my non-editing and very disinterested wife along the lines of I bet I'm going to get called a prat is now colluding about something? Really Eric you need to work on your perspective a bit. I'm off to bed now, your block will have expired in the morning and you can go back to insulting other editors. SpartazHumbug!23:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Eric, I thought that was kind of funny. I can't believe Mrs. Spartaz is actually so involved that she'll take a bet on some wiki business, but hey. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I was told once that calling someone a "donkey raping shit eater" is frowned upon. But "prat" seems a bit over the top really</sarc> Shitty block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Piss poor block. Saying "fuck off" isn't even a personal attack, and its downright tame compared to transgressions which go on at ANI every day. Now, Spartasz, how about "bugger off", "piss off", or any of the other colourful terms? Are you seriously going to unilaterally declare a single word verboten? Wow... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It's time for content editors to rescue Wikipedia from this bizarre system. Content builders are at the mercy of hundreds of these loose cannon "admins". There's no centralised control, not even a mission statement so admins know what they are here for. Each admin just rolls their own idea of what they think they are about, and then acts them out, like Spartaz. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, this is the last time I edit this talk page, Eric... I really suggest you stop name calling. You are not welcome here if you are going to keep up with this, and it is unacceptable behavior. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Party's over, folks. Eric doesn't need your fatherly or motherly advice; he needs mine but he won't take it, and that's his good right. Spartaz, fo shizzle, there was no need for that. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Given that we don't have a civility policy -- just a meme we wave our hands at every once in a while -- sporadic blocks are the logical consequence of playing civility / admin roulette (the ball lands on 00 every once in a while). Anyway, you've come up here: Wikipedia:Administrator_review/Floquenbeam too. NE Ent01:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I expected better from an experienced admin - but then again, I can't say I'm shocked. The thing is, when an editor gets treated like shit early and often - it takes an utter fool to expect some sort of turn the cheek Mr. Nice Guy attitude. Typically a reasonable person would expect open, honest, and blunt speech from the offended party - but then again, this is Wikipedia huh? — ChedZILLA01:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I've never been one for turning the other cheek, but it's quite clear to me that anyone who knows what they're doing and Wikipedia are quite incompatible. So I think I'll remain on a voluntary block. EricCorbett01:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just focusing on the sig colors. Eric's is green. Dark Mistress's is pink. And Ched's (my good friend) is patriotic. The rest of us are dull.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that many will be disappointed that the block wasn't indefinite, until I grovel at the feet of the admins. But as I've said several times before, I'll decide when it's time to leave, not the impotent sanctimonious arse holes like Spartaz. EricCorbett15:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Considering that a short block clearly doesn't have the intended result, and that your previous long block for personal attacks was for 1 month (with some subsequent lengthening and shortening), you haev now been blocked for 3 months for the continued personal attacks (calling someone an "impotent arse hole", not in the heat of the moment but after your block has expired and "after some serious consideration"[1], and adjusting it a few minutes later to change it into "impotent sanctimonious arse holes"). Fram (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention "cunt" [2]. Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm changing this to indef. Every single edit since you've been blocked yesterday has been unacceptable. I will be blocking this talk page and moving this conversation to the administrators noticeboard to discuss further. WormTT(talk) 15:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another pathetic drama. Everyone knows Eric won't change his behaviour (and nor should he). If he wants to contribute, blocking his account indefinitely will make no difference, since he can just open another.
I've unprotected this page, since whatever Eric says isn't hurting anyone's feelings but the people watching it (and you can just stop doing that). Try not to offend the peanut gallery, Eric. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
WTF is going on here? Seriously. I see another freaking arb com case in the making and frankly this really disturbs me. I thought that Wikipedia was not censored and that all such civility blocks were to be discussed. Oh...I forgot, not all admin remember that their personal opinion is as important to everyone else on this on this site. Look guys...if you think you're proving a point...I would only say...it may not be the exact point you were trying to make.
Eric...get a grip please. You are not above everyone else and you know it. How does your being blocked improve this project? You are just adding fuel to the fire. Why is it so hard for you to be respectful and why do you always seem to fall into these traps. Yes...traps. Sometime you are like a bear in the woods looking for the bear trap to complain about how much it hurts when your foot is caught. Get over yourself and PLEASE try to remember that editors are real people with feelings that...when pushed to a wall, will snap back. Why not try taking a very long break and looking deep within yourself about what you want from this site, or...just say "fuck it" and find Larry Sangers site and see if that is any better for you. Personally I have always respected you, but respect is not something you seem to care much for (I think you even said as much to me once). If you continue down this path....eventually editors that support you (me being one of them) will lose interest and just not give a fuck themselves. Seriously...how far should you take this and what is your exact point? Then again...I probably don't count in your book to begin with and am not the person to make this attempt. I think you are worth at least this much...but others will probably disagree.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me put it as simply as I can. I have absolutely zero interest in some 1960's hippie idea of civility, and respect is something that has to be earned, not awarded by fiat. EricCorbett00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I am old enough to be considered a 1960's hippie. LOL! But...respect is something that you give to everyone until they demonstrate that they don't deserve it...otherwise you are admitting you treat EVERYONE with disrespect until they prove they deserve YOUR respect. Frankly....why does anyone give a shit if you respect them. You don't want anyone else's respect. There is a logical course these things take by your own words Eric. I don't really care if you like me or not. I like you so tuff shit brotha! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Tomorrow an article I worked on will be appearing on the main page. Hopefully some of you civility warriors will keep an eye on it, as I obviously can't. EricCorbett00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: To say that if you do not treat everyone with respect, then you (necessarily) treat them with disrespect is a fallacy called "false dilemma" and various other terms. The "necessarily" is there because of the way you have made the argument. You can read about it in False Dilemma. It is one of the fundamental issues one looks for when analyzing errors in arguments. In short, one can suspend any shift to either extreme (respect or disrespect) until one has sufficient reason to make that move. Imposing "assume good faith" cannot equally arguably be imposed, though wikipedia tries to do so, but that is quite different from issues of respect. DDStretch (talk)03:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Meh....treating everyone you encounter equally bad and until they prove themselves worthy...is just reverting AGF...that is simply not a false dilemma. It is saying you can't cooperate in a manner to Wikipedia standards and I think Eric is better than that because he is capable of being civil, he just allows too many editors to get on his bad side too quickly. He is one of the top content contributors we have but he is human and after all...to err is human.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You obviously have not understood the point I was trying to make to you. You use biased language ("equally bad") when I clearly said you make no judgment ("suspend any shift to either extreme"), so neither "bad" nor "good" would be appropriate here, if indeed they would ever be. And my use of "false dilemma" here is entirely correct, because you implied that if you did not respect someone, you must disrespect them, which is clearly untrue: there is a middle ground which is why the false dilemma is also called the law of the excluded middle'. It similarly doesn't mean that you do not cooperate to wikipedia standards, either. Again, you have not thought clearly enough about the issue. As I said, it says NOTHING about civility here, and the language will be neutral, because you can be non-decisive about whether to give respect or not to people whilst still being perfectly civil in your interactions with them, which is really the only objective way that respect could be assessed. Please go back and consider very carefully what I wrote and how it doesn't imply what you wrote. These flawed assumptions you have made and expressed are some of the major issues that makes such drama on wikipedia almost inevitable, because you assume people adopt extreme positions when they may not do at all! DDStretch (talk)04:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that you think I am causing drama with you, because that is not my intention. Neither am I trying to cause drama in the wider sphere; quite the reverse! I am trying to make a wider point by showing how drama can be prevented by reducing some specific logical fallacies in thinking. This particular logical fallacy, if used, will make people think one is accusing them of having an extreme position that they do not, and thus, drama will become more likely. One can stop that at source by thinking and writing better. We all make mistakes, and it is helpful to have them pointed out. I am sad that you still maintain that you cannot agree with me. I am acting to try to improve matters here. It is all part of Critical Thinking, which I would say, needs to be improved on wikipedia in general. DDStretch (talk)04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of what you say has merit. But we can't control how people think. The odd thing is...I was trying to improve matters myself as well but don't agree a mistake was made. For whatever it's worth, I understand what you are saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I know and accept your intentions were good. But I do think wikipedia does try to control how people think by encouraging certain kinds of behaviour. It is known in experimental and cognitive psychology that this can be done: behaving in certain ways will tend to affect your thinking about the relevant things. I am interested in the fact that you say you understand what I am saying, but that you do not agree with it. The obvious question is "why?" Karl Popper once wrote "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get closer to the truth". I'm interested in this issue. DDStretch (talk)05:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Because understanding you and agreeing with you are not mutually exclusive. What you want is an explanation of my reasoning to disagree. It's already there, but you want more. I just don't have the enthusiasm to say more on it ( your original past not the rest).--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course I know that understanding and agreeing are different and need not be so closely bound together as I never said they were. In fact, I think you have slipped up and used "mutually exclusive" incorrectly here. What you said implies that understanding me cannot happen at the same time as agreeing with me. I assume you meant the opposite of this and should have written "mutually inclusive" instead. However, you say that your reasoning is there. I consider I have rebutted them, and this has been done mainly on points of logic. The fact is that you HAVE committed a logical fallacy in your reasoning, and from that, your entire position falls to the ground. Yet you still say you maintain your position, and that, I assume, you still maintain your original point remains true. I am sad about that, but it does imply, I contend, that drama becomes much more likely because that (illogical) position is being maintained. I gently urge you to take time to consider the situation more, because unless you think it quite acceptable to maintain illogical and fallacious arguments and positions, then you clearly do not understand the point I am making, despite saying that you do. In which case, sorry, but we must agree to disagree, then. DDStretch (talk)05:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually...I caught that after I posted it (I Googled it), but thought...let's see if this editor is just parsing words to be argumentative or will just drop it. Well...there you go. Drama is much more likely because you can't shut the fuck up. LOL! Seriously though..."I contend, that drama becomes much more likely because that (illogical) position is being maintained" No...it is because you feel inclined to argue it. Have a happy Halloween.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
So, you deliberately set a trap, eh? You see, we can both play at that stupid game. The fact is we were arguing about logical issues, and you used to totally incorrect term. You say you knew that, but we don't know that, do we? If I assume good faith and accept what you say, you are still condemned by the setting trap argument. You say I cause drama by not "shutting the fuck up", well, sorry, but there are important issues to discuss, and you can't stop your continued illogical position being discussed by attacking me and wanting to end the discussion by threatening me with accusations of causing drama and "not shutting the fuck up", just because (I think you may suspect) you are losing! You see, you say I am causing the drama, but look at your own behaviour here as well. That is part of the entire problem. People do not think carefully or deeply about the issues. DDStretch (talk)04:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this on the main page and wanted to say congratulations; a fine piece of writing, and a fine choice for Halloween... -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting that a slight discrepancy about the date of the alleged witches' coven came to light due to the main page appearance. Can't really remember anything useful like that happening at TFA before. EricCorbett18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Both the encyclopedia and the community has a number of fundamental issues. We all know this. One of them played out over the past few days and that is traced back to the way that you handle people. It's a large recurring issue. Certain users would go on about block logs, causing offence and driving people away, whilst others would go on about baiting, admins who don't think and destruction of articles. Both sides have valid points and you're skewered with all the sharp ends. I want to see the cycle end. I hoped that the change in your username would push that to happen, that people would put the past behind them, but unfortunately it hasn't had that effect.
I've got at least one suggestions on how we can move forward, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. If you'd prefer to just ignore me all together, just say so, I'll understand. I'll even specifically state that should Eric's response be even horrifically uncivil, I do not want him blocked for it, I'm sure I'll more than deserve it.
The way I see it, we have a number of problems.
Many, but not all, of your comments are at people you have never encountered before.
Many, but not all, of your outbursts are the result of provocation.
Many, but not all, of your blocks were either excessive or not required at all.
I've seen very few people defend your comments, though many excuse them by pointing out the provocation or mitigate them by pointing out the hard work you do. Both are valid points of view, but there comes a point that the community must say enough is enough. I was both naive and arrogant to think that I could rally the community to a solution that I felt was workable (short term non-escalating blocks for you, along with equivalent or increasing blocks for the provoker). Sure, it would increase the size of your block log, but it stop the big arguments and stop the stupid long blocks for a single angry comment. That solution didn't gain traction, which is a shame as to your credit - whenever you've had something imposed upon you, you've stuck to it.
So, what else could work? I know from previous discussions that mentorship isn't something you'd be keen on, but what about getting together a group of editors you respect as advisers? People would be glad to help, I can guarantee it. This advisory group could come up with a plan for the future and take actions like quietly redacting comments that they feel are likely create a situation, recommending that you take the rest of the evening off or that you keep away from articles and take over that stewardship while you're gone. You would have to work out with those advisers what actions they would take and when. It would need to be recorded somewhere so that the community could get on board, and I'd recommend getting a few admins on board to add some weight to the idea. Do you think something like that would be possible?
I should mention that unless this or something else goes forward, storm clouds are gathering. You'll see above that there are murmurs of an RfC/U, an all together unpleasant experience. I don't want to see you leave the encyclopedia, either by choice or under duress, but at the same time, I don't see how we can carry on in the same manner. WormTT(talk) 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the problem really. Anyone who takes objection to being called an arsehole should simply stop behaving like one, and I'm certainly not interested in a group of advisers. Neither do I have any interest in a potential RFC/U, which of course I would not be taking part in anyway. This knee-jerk blocking has to stop, and that's the problem you ought to be addressing. EricCorbett13:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect you to participate in any RfC, though that doesn't stop it from being a horrible experience. I know I would be unable to keep from reading it, were one about me, just as I've read every word about me and my motives elsewhere. I don't participate at those places, but that doesn't stop it being noticed. Carrying on the metaphor with knee-jerks is that they're a reflex, one that doesn't go through the brain. Whatever the brain decides, if someone hits that small spot the knee will jerk. The only way to stop a knee-jerk is to not hit the spot in the first place and since you're the one with the hammer... you're the only one in the position to stop it. WormTT(talk) 13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You're not me, and I would find it very easy to entirely ignore the whole thing. It would just be the usual suspects calling for my head again anyway, not very illuminating really. I understand Fram's eagerness to get started though, as it's a precursor to another ArbCom case at which he could have a reasonable chance of finally getting me banned. EricCorbett13:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You also have the option to defuse the whole lot, by simply ceasing to abuse other editors. You can still think what you like of them, or of me, but if you just stop pressing those keys, the whole problem goes away. It's a very small sacrifice to make.
You will of course still be trolled and provoked by some. However there are also plenty of admins with block buttons who do support you and would stamp on that promptly, if only they aren't first beaten to it by your reaction and then admin reactions to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I'm not you and if you can ignore completely what people say about you, you are a bigger man than me. So, from my scratchpad -
Proposal to force Eric to take a short period off when he's provoked, along with the provoker
A group of advisers that Eric trusts work with him
Change the entire encyclopedia to work around Eric Poorly worded - Global change to allow Eric to carry on as he is.
Ignore the problem and hope it gets better
We lose Eric (blocked or quit)
Other
3 is not going to happen, 4 has gone on too long. My only hope is that option 6 is suggested by someone brighter than me, hence the RfC, otherwise, we're left with 5. Please, do consider the adviser idea. Have a chat with some people you trust and get some other opinions. Sleep on it. You know where I am if you ever want my thoughts. WormTT(talk) 13:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Worm, I am disappointed that, even after all that discussion, your Point 3 is phrased as "to work around Eric" and your scratch pad doesn't include broader options to address a global problem. It seems you perhaps really do believe it is All About and Only About Eric, or that he is the only valued editor we may lose because of uneven application of policy and admin cabals. I guess I was typing in vain to point out that it is not about Eric and not only Eric, and hoping to get some people to look at the bigger picture, of which Eric is just the most noticed example, precisely because he shines the light on the hypocrisy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I worded it that poorly. I meant "Global change to allow Eric to carry on as he is". The point remains the same, a global change isn't the solution here, the community takes so much convincing to change it's "policy". Look at how much work had to go into removing "Verifiability, not truth" or any other big change over the past few years. We don't have a well defined civility policy and we're not likely to get one. That means it's down to interpretation and Eric is the focal point of the divide. That means the we need to sort things for Eric, stop the focus there, then move on to the general case - that's even assuming the general case is fixable. WormTT(talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
well, I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that as long as folks are focused on Eric as The Problem, they will continue to miss the broader points, possible solutions, and the effect that has been visited not only upon Featured articles, but also at the GA level and DYK level and all content review processes ... that is, content and editors have been affected at every level because some abuse from some editors is tolerated and overlooked by their admin friends, and they can have a chilling effect on content review processes because they are allowed to be abusive depending on who their admin friends are. Perhaps your perspective on this would shift if you were to examine my fictitious block log and my current talk page. Why do your options not include the possibility of cracking down on abusive admins and recognition that many editors get away with worse than Eric, while others are blocked for ... nothing? Others see that admin actions are at the heart of the problem ... to wit, the civility arb remedies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Eric, I can understand that this is hard to believe, but I genuinely hope that an RfC/U, or any other attempt, will get this somehow resolved. The only thing I can say that may convince you is my history with Kiefer Wolfowitz. I blocked him repeatedly as well, the last time for a month. But after that, I tried to resolve the problems by suggesting a mutual interaction ban with some other editors, and I unblocked him when I felt that a block was undeserved (log reason "Severely provoked by someone who should really know better"). It eventually ended at ArbCom anyway, and he was banned there, but I have not instigated that ArbCom or did anyting there to get him blocked (I didn't participate at all apart from a statement in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds about my unblock). My aim is not to get people banned (if they have things to contribute, which in your or Kiefer's case has never been in doubt), my aim is to find a way to convince them to contribute while at the same time following basic policy. One of our policies is that even if people behave like arseholes in your opinion, you shouldn't call them arseholes on wikipedia. My methods may well be totally wrong, my priorities may be in the wrong order, but that doesn't mean that my motives are totally wrong as well, or that I am lying about them. Fram (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
We're never going to agree, as you're seeing a different problem to the one that I'm seeing, and your RFC/U won't solve that. EricCorbett14:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would it help in any way if I didn't involve myself with the RfC and it was started by editors you consider to be more neutral or positive or whatever? Fram (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said to WTT, I have no interest in any RFC/U, and wouldn't be taking part in it or even reading it. So it hardly matters really. EricCorbett14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"If you ladies pass FAC, if you survive criterion 1a, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of shit hot articles praying for reading. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human fucking beings. You are nothing but unorganized grab-asstic pieces of amphibian shit! Do you maggots understand that?"
Eric, I get told to "fuck off" from time to time in support / retail roles, and I know elderly patients suffering from dementia in care homes tell the nurses to "go fuck themselves" with optional racial and sexist slurs thrown in. It's just the way some people are. So if you ever want to tell somebody to fuck off, just email me with abusive insults that make Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann from Full Metal Jacket look like a vicarage tea party and I'll file them away somewhere. Then go and write another brilliant article that passes FAC like a knife through butter. Simples. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, anything can pass FAC these days like a knife through butter. Partly because we no longer have Eric and other competents like him and Tony1 checking prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It comes down to saying what you think. At this very minute I'd love to call Bus stop on the Peter Sellers talk page something along Eric's lines but I know I'd probably be blocked for "incivility". I can't imagine it not crossing anybody's minds on a civility-obsessed website like wikipedia that they're likely going to be blocked for calling somebody a cunt or an asshole, even if it is probably the truth in a lot of cases. If I was blocked for everytime I thought it about people I encounter on this website almost daily, I'd be blocked almost daily.. Wikipedia is full of such people, but informing them of what they are doesn't really change the situation or make them any less likely to stop being like it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think people just misunderstand Eric on a number of levels. I've spent a great deal of time working with him on two GAs, and FA, plus many misc. articles and issues and under no circumstances can I say "I understand him". He isn't so simple to know. I've never bumped heads with him, even when we disagree, but then again, I don't spout off to people or act disrespectful when I disagree. I have learned a few things along the way, such as once you have pissed of Eric, you are better off if you just leave him alone and stop prodding him. I think Worm has the best of intentions and I applaud the effort and kindness that went into this (and I do NOT know the back story here but I doubt it matters), but you aren't going to get Eric to change. He is who he is. On the whole, I find the vast majority of who is to be entertaining, thoughtful, witty and extremely helpful. A small portion of who he is, well, is a pain in the ass. So am I, so is each of you. Eric is just a bit more colorful in his verbiage than some. And sometimes kind of funny, if we are honest with ourselves.
If Eric called me an asshole, my first reaction wouldn't be to judge Eric but to question my own actions. Maybe I said something wrong, or maybe I was really being an asshole. I've yet to see him throw around colorful language where it wasn't justified, even if it wasn't prudent. Besides, some people take comments like that entirely too personal. Good lord, we are just a website. If you have to block him, block him. If you have to drag him to ANI or ARB, then do it but be prepared for what follows. Asking him to change is a waste of time however, as it just isn't going to happen. We are NOT all equal here, no matter how much we try to treat everyone equal. "Fair" is not the same as "Equal". Each of our contributions are either worth the pain we cause the community, or they are not. That isn't in policy, that is just the unspoken reality. Besides, we aren't here to build a community, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and when Eric isn't preoccupied defending himself, he is pretty good at building an encyclopedia. So do what you must, but I suggest a light touch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem for me though Dennis isn't what Eric says, it's the way the admins/community respond to him and the time wasting which ensues after he says something, going around in circles, showing up the flaws of wiki governance and disagreement, and Eric still being the same guy through it all and most likely not being blocked for long. He is who he is, and no amount of blocking or discussing the issue is going to change the fact that he's more likely to say what he thinks than others on here. Making him the example of how important it is to stamp out incivility changes nothing on the website. If his comments are perceived as offensive any admin could silent remove them or warn him. I rarely see him warned, it's always a full block which usually seems excessive. What is the most damaging part of it for me is not what Eric says or does but how much time other decent editors waste here in discussing the blocking and defending him when they could be putting the time into writing articles. If the amount of kb of prose editors combined aired on the related discussions given here by editors went into writing decent prose we'd come on leaps and bounds. Stop reacting to what he says and move on, why does everything always have to blow into some pointless hyped drama? It's completely unnecessary and unproductive.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why everyone is twisting themselves in knots trying to preserve Eric's ability to be extremely rude to other editors, or to rationalize it in some way. For the vast majority of adults, it's really not that difficult to have a tiny bit of self-restraint, and put a small filter on the things you post on this site. It's really not difficult at all. It's a simple matter of will power. We all do it every day, both on Wikipedia and in the social encounters we have in "the real world". Perhaps what we should be discussing is why it seems to be so much more difficult for Eric than it is for the rest of us. Would Eric behave like this in "the real world"? Would he walk into a pub, order a beer, and if he didn't like the way the bartender poured the beer, would he tell him that he's a stupid fucking cunting wanking arse hole? If so, I would expect he'd have earned himself a few broken noses by this time. If he doesn't behave like this in "the real world", then why doesn't he? Is it the anonymity of the internet that makes him feel more comfortable with being rude, because the threat of immediate physical retaliatory consequences is diminished? Is that really a justification for being rude to complete strangers? ‑Scottywong| confess _20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what it is you think you're likely to achieve here. Well I do actually, but that's another story. EricCorbett20:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Snottywong - I find your comments here not helpful. While certainly not a personal attack, it's not a good choice for you to speculate on why someone else does anything differently than what you do. I suggest that you not insert yourself here ... it's not helpful and border-line baiting behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk21:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
But that's the point really, and Scottywong's purpose. I just don't get this "you wouldn't be brave enough to call some a fucking cunt to their face" stuff at all though, as I've done so many times if I think they are, and I've only had my nose broken once. It's not something I find myself having to do very often, but it's a weapon in the armoury. EricCorbett21:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
@Scottywong - yeah historically I recall hospitals where there were surgeons who were reknowned as being...erm...brusque, and not known for their people skills (i.e. capable of delivering some pretty blunt comments and interactions)...but they were skilled with their hands and saved lives. I suspect this occurs in mnay real-life organisations - i.e. The Thick of It having even a smidgen of basis in reality...etc. Yes we all have ideal scenarios, but have to live with what we have and make the most of things. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This emphasis on me is simply dishonest, and intended to distract attention from addressing WP's very deep problems, which I guess is the point really. But as I've said before, I'll leave when I'm ready to, not when Scottywong or Kww thinks I should. EricCorbett00:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Scotty, what you are saying is the problem. Some people have this fixed idea of what is and isn't acceptable here, and if someone can't walk that line, they should be banned. Not only is it an American-centric view, that I find offensive and I'm an American, it is also narrow minded and unrealistic. Either accept Eric as he is (and take reasonable action when appropriate) or go to WP:AN and get concensus to permablock him. I don't think it will happen, but that would be the appropriate way to handle it. And I don't make excuses for Eric. Sometimes he pisses me off, but so what. There have been a couple times when I could see a week block (I like you Eric, but that doesn't mean you don't sometimes cross the line), but everyone goes overboard with the blocks. He is who is he is, accept it, block for a few days or a week when you need to, but only when it really is necessary, and we can stop the debates. I'm so bored with this same debate. The fact is, he DOES generate a lot of quality content, and that is what he does 99% of the time. Policy and "escalating blocks" be damned, I'm more concerned about practical solutions than fancy words. If we are truly here to build an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, then this is more practical. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER03:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, it is ironic that your signature includes a link to WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. How much do you think editor retention is affected when experienced editors fly off the handle and make extremely rude comments? Eric is a talented editor, no doubt, but what if his behavior over the years has caused several other equally talented editors to either leave Wikipedia, or just not even start editing? If my first impression of Wikipedia was formed while some stranger was telling me I'm a moron, there's a great chance that I wouldn't be here right now. It's easy for you to tell me to just accept his behavior, grow a thicker skin, and get over it. And honestly, his behavior doesn't bother me personally. I use profanity all the time in my social life; someone calling me a cunt doesn't affect me in the least. But, I know it does affect many other people. Therefore, I try not to use profanity on WP, I don't call people names on WP, I try not to personally attack other people as much as possible, and I take issue when other people make a habit of doing those things. You should too, if editor retention is important to you. What we really need is for everyone to stop making excuses for Eric, and hold him accountable for his actions. Last time I checked, civility was one of the 5 pillars. Are any of the other pillars routinely ignored just because the person who is violating their principles is talented and/or prolific? Should we also allow Eric to upload copyrighted images? After all, he is prolific, we wouldn't want to lose him, maybe we can allow just a few copyrighted images, right? Civility isn't any less important than the other 5 pillars just because it's more difficult to define its boundaries. ‑Scottywong| yak _05:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Who has he chased away? I hear these claims but I don't ever see names. I know many new editors he has helped a great deal, and have seen it with no own eyes, so it isn't anecdotal. I don't make excuses for him, I said if you need to block him a few days, do it, or get consensus for longer blocks. I've asked, but no one has shown me an example of where Eric unloaded on someone that didn't ask for it first. I agree he can sometimes strike back with unnecessary zest, but I've never seen him go off on someone unprovoked. There is a difference between "taking it too far" (which is still a problem), and unprovoked attacking of others (which isn't happening). Civility is a pillar but it isn't absolute nor clearly defined, and isn't as important as the first pillar, or it would have been listed first, and would have used "must" instead of "should". By necessity, it is relative. We aren't a court of law, I've no interest in "justice", I'm only concerned with solutions. It would be a lot easier to lean on Eric for more cooperation if some were not always calling for his permaban. Those tactics push those of us in the center in his direction, often making it impossible to deal with the real issue at hand. Oh, and comparing this situation to intentional copyright infringement is wildly inappropriate. Hyperbolic comparisons like that distract from the issue at hand and are part of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The attempts to block and ban don't seem to work and so another process should be tried. How about a bleep censor using the revision deletion tool? This could be made global and mechanical as a bot or filter could be used to identify unparliamentary language and flag it for attention. An admin would then inspect the offending passage and delete it if it seemed too inflammatory. Simples. Warden (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Or perhaps a "cuss translator", which translates cuss words people find unacceptable to equivalents they find acceptable. The translator could be customised for individual tastes, so different users see different text. For example, it might be configured to translate "fuck you" to "have a nice day" (or conversly, translate "have a nice day" to "fuck you"). --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Scotty, we "twist ourselves in knots" over Eric because when it comes down to it, content is more important than civility. Somebody said recently that 98% of Eric's mainspace editing goes into constructive article writing and copyediting. How many of the ANI and forum regulars could you say that about? If you tot up what he's done over the years and may well write in the future should he somehow regain his enthusiasm at some point then we can't afford to lose such editors. I don't think many of us support him calling people cunts or assholes here because of the repercussions and time wasting over civility and blocking disputes, but I think a lot of us understand that he's a passionate guy who is intolerant of people who get in his way and if somebody is acting like a complete asshole, taunting him or really being a nuisance then he really should be able to say what he thinks in any situation. You never see Eric go around talk pages picking fights with people and swearing at people just for the sake of it and abusing people, it's always in direct response to something he perceives to be insufferable, he's usually provoked with somebody over an article, on forums or on his talk page. He's a grown man, probably old enough to be some of the child admins grandfather. If what he says is perceived as offensive to people, an admin should silently remove and just drop the civility stick. We know how we ought to behave on wikipedia, but wikipedia is an intense website which is frequently frustrating. Given that Eric is not the sort of chap you can change and most of us agree he is a great editor who we can't afford to lose, and blocks always result in us going around in circles and show up the flaws of site governance, the only way to deal with this is really for an admin to remove anything sweary he says at somebody, even if Eric should really be free to say what he says as anybody in the real world. It isn't polite or OK to call somebody a cunt, but it also isn't fine to waste days of valuable time going around in circles every time he's blocked. Something really needs to change...♦ Dr. Blofeld10:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree strongly with this, to the extent that, if an editor were "driven away" by something Eric wrote, then I believe Eric would probably have done WP a favour. People write such crap, and Eric is ace at clearing it up. Much more useful than a vandalism bot, most of Eric's time on WP is taken up with making sure what's there is worth reading – until this sort of time-wasting rears its ugly head. Just let him get on with it. Nortonius (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to make a contribution to this unseemly brouhaha. Until last Sunday I was an 'uninvolved editor' in what is obviouly a messy saga. On Sunday I saw that a number of edits had been made to an article I've done a fair amount of work on, Bristol Boxkite. The majority of these were a wholesale conversion of the reference format used in the article to the one he evidently prefers, the rest being tweaking punctuation. Many of these were difficult to 'see' because seemingly a whole para had been cut & pasted into a txt editor & then reinserted, so it was difficult to see where the added/ deleted comma or whatever was. I wholesale reverted & got on with stuff, & unwisely(in retrospect) & having considered the matter, left a messege on this page about the edits. I admit that the note was snippy, but having looked at his recent edits & noted an edit summary calling WP:CIVIL "hippy crap" I figured he could take it. I found the response both astonishing and disturbing: firstly the sarky claque, secondly the vituperative response from Eric. I could unpick it all further, but I have better things to do. Erics response to my post included returning to the Boxkite article to redo the cite format changes and make more 'minor copyedits' to the article, some plainly misinformed and others inexplicable. and most with unpleasant edit summaries. ("you've just got no bloody idea how to write a decent article"). I may not be Jonathan Swift and I freely admit my typing is rubbish, but I think my ability to write clear grammatical english is at least above average, and certainly does not warrant the level of condescension poured from an (attempted) great height. This provoked a reversion of the edits by another editor", & a request to take the matter to the article talk page. To which Eric contributed some abuse. And so it goes on. I'm losing the will to live anatomising the whole sorry story. Which makes the point: this man is jumping on editors with no real provocation. My note on his talk page may have been snippy but what I wanted was an answer: the response was clearly that of a man who wanted a fight. As his response de l'escalier clearly shows. (Sorry I'm too new to this to have worked out how to link to diffs.) This is the kind of behaviour that puts off editors, and the question is whether Eric alone is more valuable than a number of other editors. I doubt it. And it's an appalling waste of time and energy.TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
One thing I know is that when it comes to writing an encyclopedia, Eric knows his arse from his elbow. These little dramas are the result of other editors thinking they know their arse from their elbow but rarely do. The dramafest is the result of the watching vultures, admins, ips and others with axes to grind. I've been away but as far as I can work out Eric improved an article, someone objected, Eric was probably right but feathers were ruffled ad someone wanted something doing about it. Someone blocked then someone else blocked then an arb went over the top then somebody decided to request arbitration and now this. To the best of my knowledge Eric improves the encyclopedia, he does not bear grudges in the way many of the circling vultures do. Eric is at the centre of a lot of extremely vindictive axe-grinding brought about by editors who can't drop the stick or jealousy. He does not drive worthwhile editors away because the offended just join the civility vultures. Sticks and stones. J3Mrs (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
That looks like quite a fair apprasial, J3Mrs, in this case at last. But I think your analysis is a little overly simplistic. Some editors are very easily offended. Again, just human nature, alas. But what if some of these editors are as useful (or more importantly, potentially as useful) to the project as “good old Mally”? We all know that Eric can be as rude as Malleus – no surprise there. But does he know how to apologise? Before Eric gets blocked shouldn’t he at least be asked to apologise? Would you ever do that Eric? Or are you just too big and too valuable to have such a word hin your rich vocabulary? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to stand up and be counted as one of those who doesn't always know their arse from their elbow (and frankly, if I did, I'd do writing as a paid career), but at least is making a conscious attempt to find out which is which - and that's why I generally don't have any issue with Eric, and neither should you. As Dennis said above, I've yet to see hard evidence of Eric being a direct cause of the encyclopedia getting worse. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So WP:CIVIL only applies if editors can first show proof{{cn}} of damage being caused by its non-observance? Are any of our other policies so conveniently optional? Just how does one get hold of one of these "I'm Eric, the rules don't apply to me" badges?
We have a rule that states "Do no abuse other editors". Not "Only abuse other editors if they're wrong" or even "Only abuse editors who know less than you do". This is a good rule and as I don't see a call for its general withdrawal, I still fail to see why any one editor gets a free pass on it.
We're regularly told that "Eric is special". If he has the wisdom to make better edits than anyone else, then I would also expect him to have the wisdom to hold his tongue from abuse. As he clearly does not, I find myself questioning the real value of his special editing skills. If he's that good, I doubt very much he'd be unable to get through a day without hurling abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, pontificating about another user in the third person on his own talk page is itself perfectly civil. Right. MLauba(Talk)16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I like how some people presume that WP:CIVIL is some kind of religious text. If it were, then WP:ANI would probably be Saudi Arabia. Parrotof Doom17:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie, I assume you were responding to me and not to Sandy? So is that our goal here – for Wikipedia to "not get any worse"? I would have thought a better aspiration might be for it to improve. How would you gather the evidence if potential good editors just get frightened away? Does Eric check on an editor’s pedigree before he decides to insult them? I think he rather does it in the heat if the moment. Sandy, I’m sorry if you think I am just being provocative. That was not my intention and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I may be a "coward" here for some strange reason, but I’m not trying to poke anyone. I think Wikipedia would be better as a single community than as a series of bickering gangs. Eric, you keep saying that you have no future here, so I wonder why you stay. Wikipedia may need you, but sometimes it seems to be just as some kind of gangland trophy. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be rather hard of understanding, as well as being a coward. What I've said repeatedly is that I'll leave when I decide to, not you or any other of the low life here. EricCorbett18:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I do occasionally, but I'm more of a fan of Joni Mitchell. Not so keen on Kate's theatrical bits. Wilhelm Reich was quite simply crazy in my estimation. EricCorbett18:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, totally crazy, no doubt, at least the last few decades of his life. But the Bush video is from the young son's perspective, and shows love and respect. Wouldn't have figured you for a Joni Mitchell fan; I have a soft spot in my heart for Wild Things Run Fast, which I listened to at that formative time period. Neil Young mentions her quite a few times in his recent autobiography, which I just finished. SHIT! I just plucked a roly-poly from my neck--my neck! You should really take better care of this talk page, Eric. Too much varmin. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I was rather incensed when I was visiting Nevada, and a singer in a local restaurant where we were having dinner introduced his version of a Joni Mitchell song by saying "She's kinda hard to look at, but ...". He was no oil painting himself. EricCorbett18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
How you've not been blocked already is a complete mystery. Or it would be if I was foolish enough to believe that WP values honesty and integrity. EricCorbett23:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I did think so. I wish I could make it better, and writing articles could be as much fun as it once was. It's not for not having tried ... but, well, mean people seriously suck. Or suck green hairy donkey balls, as Moni woulda said. I wish I could say that meanies never win; they may not in real life, where there are social norms and such, but in here, they are in their element and have the advantage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course it was more fun then. It stopped being fun when social norms like WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA were thrown away. Because in any society, systematic abuse of fellow-citizens changes the way that people interact. -- 101.119.15.116 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So you violate 3RR and no penalty is issued. Do you have some kind inside connection that I'm missing here? Normally people get a block for this behavior. Meanwhile, the unqualified term "slut" remains in the article without necessary qualification. I guess this sort of underhanded sexism flies when you know the right people? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Bloodofox, what you appear to be missing is that your actions were wanting in this case - you should have taken your proposed edit to talk when it was reverted, rather than edit-warring (which you were doing, even if you did not technically breach 3RR). Given your lack of discussion and the problems with your report, there would have been no outcome in which Eric was blocked and you were not. Unfounded accusations of sexism are more likely to have the opposite effect, in fact. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Violation of 3RR is violation of 3RR, and this user could have engaged on the talk page at any time. He didn't even bother to put text in some of his revert summaries. If anyone is "edit warring", it's this guy. As for the semantics of "slut" and its use in an unqualified state, that's going to need to go to the talk page, and the article itself is going to need a neutrality tag in the mean time. I suggest that you find more noble targets to defend. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Slut is just a word and like any word, it's the context in which it's used that's important, not the word itself. And the context the article provides isn't pejorative. Parrotof Doom11:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Parrot, I guess you don't have any background sociolinguistics. Anyway, this is going to the talk rather than to attract the personal circle of this apparently unblock able user. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Blood, you seem to be missing the point: if Eric had been blocked, you would have been blocked too, by the same reasoning, as you edit warred. Now, if you really want to be blocked because you insisted on introducing quotes where they weren't needed ... that seems like a silly thing to be blocked over, but whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Sandy, don't worry, your pal seems to be well covered by users like you, whatever his actions may be. Unfortunately the project suffers from users and clusters of well-entrenched alliances of very active users like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm ... Bloodofox, I see a number of issues here. Firstly, the article in question, Malkin Tower, has been protected, which means the disruption to the encyclopedia has now stopped and there is no requirement to block anybody. Secondly, Eric helped get the article through FAC, which means if you want to make large scale changes to it, it's considered polite to go to the talk page first and discuss it, given it should have had a thorough community discussion over its content to pass. Thirdly, on top of just going through the FA process, it's also reasonably well known that Eric is a subject expert on the Salem Witch Trials and related subjects, and if you run ramshod into editing an article relating to that topic and not attempt to at least understand his point of view, it's pretty much a given that he's going to tell you to fuck off. With a bit of forethought, you really ought to have seen that one coming, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand that a user's talk page is generally just a good way to attract his Wiki-friends, but this demands some response. First, the user clearly has no background in linguistics, which is what we're discussing here. Second, you have no idea what his academic qualifications are; writing some Wikipedia articles hardly qualifies one as an "expert". Further, the FA process hardly results in vetting out all minor errors; they get fixed all the time the moment they hit the main page. In other words, none of those observations were helpful for this discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, and Paul Graham's "How to disagree" explains it well, is that "the user clearly has no background in linguistics" can be construed as just as much a personal attack as any amount of four letter words. The issue of contention here is simple - is "slut" an appropriate term to use. My answer would be, what words do The Pendle Witches (3rd ed.) express on the pages cited? If the word "slut" appears, it is properly cited within WP:WIAFA and can stay. If it doesn't, you can tag it as {{verification failed}} or put the correct word in from the source, annotating what you found. Or, even better, you could unearth another source that not only provides an alternative translation of the term "Malkin" but also provides further evidence of the 2011 excavation near Lower Black Moss reservoir being the potential site of the tower. I can assure you I'm not particularly wiki-friends with Eric at all, I'm just a pragmatic realist giving you some constructive advice of how to extract yourself from this situation. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You know I'm not a fan of civility blocks, plus I'm invoooolved as your good pal (which I'll take as a compliment if out of this particular context). Let it go (I'm trying to); perhaps he'll dig deep enough for a civility cop to throw an NPA warning or a block into that hole, though I don't have high hopes for it. Also, I'm sorry for disagreeing with you, of course, if I am. But I'd like to think I have a reason for my consideration, and before there is consensus I'm not going to go around adding needlessly to the history of an article that so many people have spent so much valuable time on. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Bloodofox is simply yet another of those ignorant PITAs who believe the civility policy only applies to others, not to themselves. EricCorbett18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary. If you continue on this path, it's been demonstrated that nothing will change, but it will make it harder for all of us to get any kind of reform to stop the abusive admins. Other people can deal with Bloodofox (and are), who seems to not be able to understand that he was spared a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I made a good point on the article's talk page, one which he's refusing to answer. Which makes me agree with you; he's an idiot. Parrotof Doom20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
How come you can call him an idiot, but I can't call the insufferable little prick an insufferable little prick? I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a dick on here, but of course that's OK, because there's an essay. I really would like someone to explain to me why there's no equivalent WP:CUNT essay. EricCorbett22:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Well you do appear to have a lot of "friends" around here, or so I'm led to believe. Perhaps that has something to do with it... Parrotof Doom23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk About It
Alright, Corbett, but if you want to actually talk about article issues, you can just use my talk page. It doesn't always have to be an aggressive exchange. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I really don't have anything to say to you. Shouldn't you be in bed by now anyway? Do your parents know you're still up? EricCorbett00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you implying that I am somewhere where it's dark? Or that I have parents anymore at all? You don't always have to be so aggressive. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, here's a prime example of an editor posting on Eric's talk page just to poke a stick at a bear. Let's see what, if anything, is done about this, shall we? Parrotof Doom00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
At least he got a stern talking to or blocked for uncivilly posting on your talk page after you requested that he not do that. 71.11.1.203 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I seem to have been unblocked, but the block on DrKiernan ought to have stuck IMO. He's exactly the kind of admin that chases editors away. Rather revealing to see an administrator with a block log like this. EricCorbett20:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Eric, you're unblocked, as I'm sure you noticed. I suppose I can understand why some admins would block for that little phrase (and of course I wish you hadn't said it), but I can only hope that those admins start seeing incivility for what it really is. Oh, wait, I'm Eric's "good pal" so I must be wrong. Ah well. I have to go and make Frito Pie and take a young woman to a swim meet and then eat hamburgers. Perhaps my desysop is already in the mail. DrKiernan, just one more thing: if I really believed in civility blocks, and this hadn't involved Eric but someone else, and I saw the edit-warring, the careless edits in a front-page-featured FA (one of which reinstating vandalism), the refusal to take matters up on a talk page, the denial that an article having gone through the GA and FA process means something for its quality, the baiting and passive-aggressive ad hominems on the editor's own talk page and on the article talk page long after they were kindly requested to refrain from such commentary, the constant and childish requests to ask just about everyone whether they're a friend of someone as if that invalidates their work--to repeat, if I saw such extraordinary uncivil and uninformed behavior and I believed in civility blocks, as you seem to do, then I would have blocked that editor, yes. But I don't, or maybe I don't have the balls to do it. I urge you to burn your little Checklist of Bad Words. Have a nice day everyone, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think everyone should push back from their screen for a few days, and wait to talk about this. I, for one, am exhausted from the insufferability, as I imagine everyone is. We are no more going to come up with rational solutions to these dilemmas in a hurry than we need to immediately solve one quotation mark in an article. I need you to copyedit, Eric, but I don't enjoy all this agida; the world is full of idiots and we've got to be able to live with them. Why can't everyone just leave this alone for a few days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll come back in a few days and see if sanity has prevailed. But I predict that it won't, and admins such as DrKiernan will still be running riot. EricCorbett01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not the only one who is living with an unjust block log. Buck up, and for gosh sakes, sit on your fingers for once when so many others are already trying to deal with the issue(s). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If Eric leaves there will be a huge void. There is no doubt about that. There are few editors that have the abilities he has...but this is a matter for him to decide and....looking at the entire current issue...there appears to be some common ground. But no one can actually tell Erich what to do....well maybe there are a few that he listens to more than others, but I know I am not one of them.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Bad theatre like this will repeat ad nauseam until the community acknowledges the obvious. The core problems have little to do with Eric/Malleus. He is merely the fashionable focus for baiters. The core problem is a comical admin structure which operates over a thousand loose cannon admins, many appointed for life years ago when school boys only had to ask. There is no centralised control, so there will always be the Frams, Scottywongs and DrKiernans waiting in the wings with fingers twitching on the block button, eager for their time in the sun. What is happening now will continue recycling endlessly as it shreds Wikipedia to pieces, unless we start operating a more responsible admin system. The discipline of productive content editors needs to be overseen by a centralised panel of admins especially appointed for that purpose. There is no need for run of the mill admins to have that particular block button. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure...but even in bad theatre there are leading roles and the chorus. Everyone can't be in a leading role and if you are in the chorus...just be happy to be a part of the production.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Well....then ignore it. I am sure you have the ability to ignore those you don't agree with or find "Useful". The statement is rather accurate in many ways. Eric is a leading role. Others are in the chorus but have no appreciation of even being in the "production". But...why worry about it...it wasn't meant for you to find use for anyway. It is simply my expression of these events. Besides...I don't see you in the "credits" ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Good work, Eric, just four more blocks and you can trade them in for a $25 gift card. Unfortunately, they will kill you on the exchange rate. You can always opt for the commemorative plaque.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eric hope all is well and your not letting recent events get you down. I wondered if I could ask a favour; could you take a look at my (hopefully) upcoming TFA nomination's blurb and check that it's ok? It can be found here should you be interested. Gerda has put the logged version away somewhere and I'm buggered if I can find it! I will cut and paste the updated version into the nomination once it goes live. Many thanks! --CassiantoTalk19:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you scrabbling about on the Inchcape rocks again. If island fever is troubling you I can recommend a splendid cure. Monro's Description could do with a copy edit by someone with a smattering of English and Scots prior to an attempt at FL - and if that doesn't cure you, nothing will. BenMacDui19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a lot of help of course, especially from the amazing, multi-lingual Akerbeltz. I like a good mystery and it was quite an exercise, beginning with the Auld version and various attempts by modern authors to interpret their own patch. It was only when I got hold of a copy R. W. Munro that it started to fall into place. Many thanks for your help. BenMacDui09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The Thatchers with the Reagans standing at the North Portico 1988
The image entitled, "The Thatchers with the Reagans standing at the North Portico of the White House before a state dinner, 16 November 1988" lacks a reference. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eric. Can't say I've done very much content work in terms of getting articles to GA (and never bothered trying to get one to FA yet), but I'd like to start with the one above. It's currently going through a GAN, but I wanted to ask if you had any suggestions for making it better. I've worked a lot on this one, but I think it has a long way to go. I, JethroBTdrop me a line03:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
You know, I really don't care about that cn tag. I was only doing it for the edit requester. But I do think that, after I stuck my head over the parapet for you over the not-a-wikipedian nonsense ([3], [4]), you might have tried to be gracious. You can have your uncited sentence by all means. I'll stick my head over other parapets, for sure; it's something I do. Just probably not for you. Ciao, --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Didn't you apply any logic or common sense to the requests for citation? Why should I be gracious when you consort with an anonymous editor to basically vandalise the article? EricCorbett17:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only did I apply those, I explained it there. Of course, if the only way you can find to prop up your posture of omniscient superiority is to issue glib put-downs that make not the slightest attempt to address what was said, then those with insights that differ from your own can't expect you to be gracious. <shrug> It's one way to grasp for ownership, I suppose. --Stfg (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As it happens I somewhat agree with what you've said about, for instance, observance in New Zealand, but you've banging this drum for far too long now. EricCorbett18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Concealed shoes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl(talk)00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed that you made this edit (and many others like it) with the sarcastic edit summary "ever read the MoS?" I was wondering if you could point me to where in the MoS it says that a fully specified date range (e.g. 1945–1965) is discouraged. I want to make sure I'm doing it right in the future. All the best, – Quadell(talk)20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your format fixes and legitimate contributions, but your rudeness and general incivility are unacceptable on Wikipedia. – Quadell(talk)20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eric, last night you asked a question. I don't know who is demiurge1000, but I know something about him. He's one of the nastiest users one could come across on Wikipedia, and he has something of a sadist in him. On Wikipedia his greatest interest is corporal punishment, and all other articles about school punishments. He's the second top contributor to corporal punishment. As a matter of fact Demiurge1000 used to have this user box at his user page. The user box was made by his special request. He also likes to mentor young boys-editors, and sometimes his "mentoring" is taking place off-Wiki and against the wishes of the parents.
Another example that could help one to understand who is Demiurge1000: a few months ago a plane crashed in San Francisco. It was a horrible disaster, with three teenaged girls killed, and dozens were badly hurt. What a normal person would say, when he/she is told about such disaster? Now let's see what Demiurge1000(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) says: http://wikipedialogs.com/logs/wikipedia-en2013-07-06.txt
Jul 06 15:07:57 <Slopabottomus> Asiana Airlines Boing 777 crashes while landing at San Fransisco Airport
Talking of rules, someone drew my attention to this amusing little grammar quiz and it made me think of you, I was disappointed to only score 84% - especially as I think its American and I wanted to be better at grammar than they are. Interestingly I came unstuck on the bit about apostrophes and year's/years' - I really never knew that before; did you? Giano 17:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
My other stumbling block which has always baffled me, is when to use 'that' and when to use 'which', can you put it onto simple language for me? Oh yeah and do commas go inside or outside speech marks? Giano 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You use which when you could drop the clause it introduces without changing the sense of the sentence. As in "My car, which needs servicing, is a Jaguar". As compared to "My car is the one that is red". I never put commas inside speech marks, but some people do if the comma itself ends the quotation. I think that's a silly notion though. EricCorbett19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit, @Giano: “which” in the first example above is what’s termed a non-defining relative pronoun, while “that” in the second is defining—compare with the indefinite and definite articles (“I drive a rattly car” / “I drive the red car”). Which is frequently used in the latter case as well; this is grammatically unexceptionable, but Fowler and others recommend avoiding it because of the potential ambiguity between defining and non-defining senses, which can sometimes only be distinguished by the absence or presence of a comma. OTOH it‘s never right to use that to head a non-defining clause.—Odysseus147903:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Eric, while we are on the subject of punctuation, which is your preferred way of writing the following..."In November 2013 Bloggs bought an Austin Healey 3000..." or "In November 2013, Bloggs bought an Austin Healey 3000...". It is a comma that has confused me for a long time. Some use it, others don't. Any thoughts? --CassiantoTalk19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The first, but I'm led to believe that American schoolkids are incorrectly taught the latter. Something to do with a silly rule that there should be a comma after every subordinate clause, a bit like the equally silly rule that sentences ought not to start with a conjunction. I've long thought that the American government ought to impose a tax on commas. EricCorbett20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
We like commas. Commas create clarity. Commas are safe. In the USA, a phrase like "the panda eats, shoots, and leaves" requires many, many commas lest we be accused of being soft on gun ownership by the NRA. ;-) But, I will freely begin a sentence with a conjunction, though I am frequently criticized for doing so. And yes, we are taught this from elementary school through college. UK and US English differences are not confined to the silly way YouPeople spell things with too many letters and the weird terms you have for things like the hood and the trunk of a car ... :-P Montanabw(talk)05:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
About those things we spell with too many letters, do you mean things like your "elevator" which is our "lift", or your "apartment" which is our "flat", and then there is the American couple I heard of who had a pet dog whose name they spelt "Phideau" (our "Fido"). Even your "trunk" has one more letter than our "boot". I think we're about equal, actually. DDStretch (talk)07:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I was always taught (admitedly by a Sicilian who pronounce 'th' as 'da', that one never puts a comma before 'and' is that correct. I always do now, but onlybecause so many other people do and I'm a flocking animal. Giano 08:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Like most priest he was wromg on a number of levels! However, if one were to say "they went into the garden and fornnicated" would one have a comma before the and or not? I would say not. Giano 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Depends. If they fornicated in the garden then no, but if they went into the garden and then fornicated potentially elsewhere, i.e, the two events are essentially unrelated, then yes. EricCorbett17:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Most confusing. I shall continue as I always do - write it and then sprinkle the odd bit of punctuation on the top. Giano 17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Without the comma you're saying that they went out and fornicated in the garden. With the comma, you're listing the things they did: they went out into the garden and they fornicated, not necessarily in the garden and not even necessarily in that order. EricCorbett19:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I see, so they might "have gone into the garden, admired the flowers, watered the lawn, and then went into the summer house, which was heated, and fornicated." Giano 22:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things
I admire those of you who continue to battle against the stupidity of "anyone can edit", but I'm afraid I'm no longer among you. I really do feel that now it's better to allow WP to sink under the weight of its own incompetent governance. EricCorbett21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
From someone no doubt participating in and contributing to the "stupidity", could you clarify if is this another retirement or something different? Since the "governance" seems irrelevant, I'm not sure why editors improving articles couldn't just carry on regardless. Or is it just that sometimes you want to tell people to fuck off without rebuke? Just an honest question or two.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That goes without question. I just wondered what this section was about, it seems startlingly similar to other "do as you please, I'll do as I please" sections. What's different? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I do care, but I have far more pressing matters in real life. I've tried to keep up with things but not everything, obviously. In any case, as you've said, you'll do as you wish regardless. I'll finally find some time in due course to catch up but it'll be too late, probably, for this episode. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eric, I wonder if I could impose on you to give me a note of the definition you found for 'policies' (house and policies) as used in Scotland? I seem to be stumbling on a number of instances when parkland, acreage etc. just doesn't feel right. Every other draft I'm working on at present seems to include it, so I could probably use a fairly standard note in them all. Maybe it's just because it's a term I'm familiar with but I hadn't realised it wasn't in common usage! SagaciousPhil - Chat15:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
But they (or estate agents anyway) seem to use it for large gardens surrounding not very large country or suburban houses also. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Wells Cathedral is currently undergoing a very helpful peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wells Cathedral/archive1 (prior to a possible FA nomination). The reviewer has questioned the use of "however" in the sentence "Theories explaining their construction at these secular cathedrals range from processional to aesthetic; none, however, are proven." (and also suggested the use of "proven" may be controversial). Could you (or any of your talk page stalkers) suggest a better wording to avoid these issues?— Rodtalk09:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I share the view of Karl Popper that theories can never be proven, only disproven, so I'd simply drop the last part of the sentence after the semicolon. The semicolon is incorrect anyway, as what follows ought to be a complete sentence. And to take an even more strictly Popperian stand I'd suggest that theory is questionable as theories have to make testable predictions, so I'd probably say these are ideas rather than theories. Which would leave us with something like "Explanations for their construction at these secular cathedrals range from processional to aesthetic". EricCorbett14:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I've used your suggested wording. Also thank for sorting the possessive apostrophe. Would you have any thoughts on the query about the volunary choir "spending the first two sentences in the singular and then becomes plural for the rest of the para" as spotted by the reviewer.— Rodtalk15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a trickier one. The Vicars Choral on the face of it looks it should be considered a plural, but that leads to the sort of nonsense seen in almost every article on a pop group, such as "The group continue to play live on a regular basis ...". In what universe is group a plural noun? Also, if Vicars Choral is considered a plural then so should Wells Cathedral Voluntary Choir, but "The Wells Cathedral Voluntary Choir are a mixed adult choir of thirty members" just looks ridiculous to me. On balance I'd rewrite wherever possible to avoid the singular/plural distinction, and where that's not possible go for a consistent singular. Which I've had a go at doing, so see what you think. EricCorbett19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I think all the edits you are doing are great. As you know my knowledge of grammar is limited and I'd willingly go with your changes. When looking again at the first paragraph of the Cathedral Choir section I did notice two occurrences of "since" very close together on the first line and "alternately" on the third - but I have no idea how to improve them.— Rodtalk20:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Many collective nouns can be construed as either singular or plural. From Fowler, under NUMBER: “Such words as army […] may stand either for a single entity or for the individuals who compose it, and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated as singular or plural at discretion—and sometimes, naturally, without discretion. The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree. That is a delicate distinction [… I]f the decision whether a noun of multitude is to be treated as a singular or as a plural is often a difficult business, and when ill made results at worst in a venial blemish, failure to abide by the choice when made, and plunging about between it and they, have and has, its and their, and the like, can only be called insults to the reader.“ Burchfield says, “In BrE it is in order to use either a plural verb or a singular verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit […] By contrast, in AmE the choice is much more restricted. For such words the following verb and any attendant pronouns are usually in the singular.“
The article says, “The Vicars Choral and the choristers generally perform together except on Wednesdays, when singing alone the Vicars Choral have the opportunity to present a different repertoire.” Here I would write “has” rather than “have“, as ISTM the Choral would be a single entity with respect to its repertoire—but I may be biased because plural collectives are nearly as rare in CanE as they are in AmE. More importantly, I note that this is a run-on sentence: the comma should be replaced by a colon, semicolon or full stop.—Odysseus147920:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
They can indeed, but that changes the meaning. For instance, a family may be considered either singular or plural depending on whether we're talking about the family itself or the members of the family. In this case of the choir though I think it's clear we're talking about the singular choir, not its members. I agree with you about have vs. has in this case, I just missed that. EricCorbett20:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me from their website that "Vicars" is a plural noun and "Choral" an adjective, rather than "Choral" being a noun (wouldn't it be Chorale?) and "Vicars" a descriptor of some sort (which would need an apostrophe perhaps). So it has to be "... singing alone the Vicars Choral have the opportunity ...". PamD23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
In that example the grammatical subject is “The body“. That said, while I agree with Pam’s analysis, I’m not sure it requires plural agreement, being something of a fossilized term. It could go either way, but my instinct is to follow the underlying sense in preference to the outward form.—Odysseus147900:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't work. To continue the quotation it says "The body of Vicars Choral has been in existence since the 1100s, singing the daily round of divine services in the Cathedral in place of the canons. Initially they lodged among the townsfolk rather than on Cathedral grounds. So the singular body has been in existence since the 1100s, but initially they lodged in the town? EricCorbett00:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That’s definitely a problem, then, what I quoted Fowler above calling “plunging about”. “The body” is itself a collective term that can be either singular or plural (in BrE at least, and according to sense), but certainly not both in the same passage. Since the first sentence concerns the group as an entity, but the second the comprised individuals, I would recommend changing the latter to read something like “Its members initially lodged …”, which would agree with the change in number.—Odysseus147900:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Today there are nine Vicars Choral and three Choral Scholars (their website) shows that the Vicars are individual people. PamD10:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
And the OED (ah the joys of UK public libraries' online services!) defines "vicar choral" under "Choral (adj)" as b. choral vicar, vicar choral: ‘one of the officers of a cathedral whose duty it is to sing that portion of the music of the services which can be performed by laymen or men in minor orders. In some of the old cathedrals they formed a corporation, often jointly with the priest vicars. In many cathedrals the vicars choral were formerly in priests' orders’., and also lists it under "Vicar" where it says The pl. occurs in various forms, as vicars choral, †vicars chorals, and, rarely, vicar chorals.. PamD10:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That raises the additional question in my mind whether Vicars Choral ought to be capitalised in the article. If it is, then clearly it's a collective singular noun like the name of a band, and if it isn't it's referring to the members of the choir rather than the choir itself. EricCorbett14:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Posting this here as alot of people who lurk here (a) write and copyedit content about (b) towns and cities, and (c) may have some interest in Scotland. Rather than get in an edit war, I hope people will offer opinions at Talk:Edinburgh#RfC:_Content_of_the_Lead...and I don't mind/care/give a toss if people tell me I'm pissing up the wrong tree....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
We certainly need one. I've been arguing for a "Don't be a cunt" essay to match the "Don't be a dick" one currently linked to from WP:CIVILITY. But of course there's no chance of that, even though there are far more cunts here than there are dicks. EricCorbett18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Eric, there's time we both go beyond the pale. Personally? At this point in life I couldn't care less. Free knowledge is great, and I love the project - but the crap that's coming into it? .... Fuck that. You are an amazing writer, and even if you get hammered with the "be nice" shit - it doesn't diminish what you've done. Don't hate the kids that are trying ... we were young and bold years ago too. Thank you for what you have given. I personally do greatly appreciate it. — ChedZILLA18:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I do go beyond the pale, but clearly some others do. Those sensitive flowers would do well do avoid to avoid knocking on my door. There's this meme that people on the Internet say things they wouldn't say to your face, but that's never been been my view. Although to be honest I haven't called anyone in real life a dishonest lying cunt in over four weeks now, so maybe I'm getting a bit soft in my dotage. EricCorbett19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In the USA, we often are allowed to just pull out our favorite semi-automatic weaponry; we who resist and control the urge to open fire usually find that a useful side effect is we also learn to minimize our use of four letter obscenities. (Except in film and television, where we store them!) I generally only say shit, fuck and damn on your page, Mr. Corbett! (LOL) :-P Well, damn might appear elsewhere... and, with a Yankee fondness for indirect speech and clever euphemism, I am free with acronyms such as WTF, BOHICA or [[SNAFU] ! Montanabw(talk)03:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't keep up with all these complaints about what I say, far too many of them. But I think those complaining ought to spend a little time listening to their to their consciensces, if they have one. EricCorbett02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What I understand is that Brad's link could well be seen as a threat from an arbcom member. That is what I took from the exchange. The only thing is, Brad uses humor a great deal to defuse situations. Thank god (or the deity of your choice) I understand that or I would swear Brad just threatened your life. But I don't actually think that, just that others might. We should be far more careful how we attempt to use humor. Some won't find it as funny.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, for the record, I was not threatening anyone's life. I don't think anyone could reasonably have inferred that I was, but I apologize if I am wrong about that. (Editing Wikipedia brings something new every day; I am fairly sure this is the first time the concepts of "Newyorkbrad" and "threatened someone's life" have been conjoined on-wiki.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course you weren't. I said as much Brad...but that sort of humor is easily mistaken, that is the point. Don't you think you crossed some sort of line here. I do, but it is short of anything to worry about. You were just using humor to point out that copy editor's lives were threatened. Perhaps you will think about that the next time you use the Oniion in this fashion. My guess is you were more insulted by my comments than you were concerned about your own actions. But then humor is such a subjective thing...isn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to take up any more of Eric's talkpage with what was meant as a silly throwaway comment, but I'd be interested in whether anyone else shares your concern about this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would call it being over-sensitive, because a little thought and work would discover exactly what The Onion was like. Objecting to this would be much like people who object to the use of certain words under any
circumstances (like "fuck off") when they are merely used a colourful way of saying "buzz off". The automatic use of a list of word to block someone means that us admins are not doing our jobs carefully enough, since we could be simply replaced with robots if that is the kind of way we operate in this case. Think "Turing Test". DDStretch (talk)04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(e/c*2) I have read the comments on the relevant talk page. But for the fact that he or she has already stopped, I would have thought a short block for making threats about reporting you and blocks from your complainant, Eric, could have been in order. I think you need to know things like this. DDStretch (talk)04:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll just say that you (Brad) were clearly using humor (again, as I have stated). However, you should know that others are stalking Eric's page.. You made no indication that you meant this as humor. What you did was state that: " We need to be careful for fear of what that sort of comment may lead to." and linked to an article that stated as the headline: "4 Copy Editors Killed In Ongoing AP Style, Chicago Manual Gang Violence". That seems to have crossed a line Brad, whether you think it is a throw away comment or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
But the important part is that Eric saw it as a throw away comment. If he feels that way there is little more to discuss. But I would still suggest far more caution when linking the Onion with articles about dead editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) You are probably correct in my opinion, even if it would just be a case of removing the chance of drama from over-sensitive editors and admins waiting for a chance... (However, we must be careful not to be driven into a position where everything has to be wrapped in cotton wool and done in such a way that 18th century drama-queens have never any reason to swoon or reach for their smelling salts.) DDStretch (talk)04:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we could just ask arb com members to refrain from using humor articles about killing copy editors in this manner, but I would probably be called names for that as well...--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
But Brad isn't up for re-election, and I haven't taken offence at his humorous posting. What the Hell is going on here? EricCorbett05:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just me complaining about what I saw as rather insensitive, but you get the humor and that is really all that matters. (I actually like Brad and was just taken aback from what I thought crossed a line, but crossing such a line is in the eye of the beholder).--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad and I haven't always seen eye to eye, or even ever seen eye to eye, but I've always thought of him as trying to be fair. EricCorbett05:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, which is why it seemed a little out of place, but then when one stops and thinks clearly, it isn't that far a cry from his official response to one of those arbcom cases that made me fall of my chair with laughter. I believe it was the Fuck off with the strike through. I get it...most of the time. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)renrenttly
There are far bigger fish to fry, such as the anonymous priest calling me a git. Not something I'd be expecting any priest to do, but apparently it's OK here. EricCorbett06:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently it's OK for me to be called a git, not at all uncivil. But if I call someone an idiot, or even sycophantic, I get blocked. EricCorbett14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to restore the default "if you are not willing to [have your edit be edited] then do not submit it language in the editing frame. Why did that ever get tossed, anyway? Montanabw(talk)21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The content dispute seems to be resolved as far as I can tell per what appears to me to be a strong consensus on the article's talk page (and in discussion elsewhere including the edit war noticeboard page). Perhaps one of the kind admins here can remove the page protection so editors can resume work on the article? As it's being worked up for FA it seems there is a timing issue and some frustrations have been expressed regarding the protection issue. I think leaving a page protected for an extended time over this type of dispute can in fact be a kind of disruption and in this case there doesn't seem to me to be much of a remaining dispute? Numerous editors have weighed in. I wouldn't think more would be needed but I suppose an RFC could be conducted it the outcome isn't abundantly clear already? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't ever move when I know I'm right. I'm that well-known immovable object, which even the irresistible force can't move. EricCorbett21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of Wells Cathedral has made it very clear to me that one needs to develop strategies for survival as an editor here on Wikipedia. Some choose to go down the "meek as a mouse" route (not really my style), trying never to upset anyone. Others form gangs on IRC in an effort to have their enemies blocked. Yet others create multiple sockpuppets to create the illusion that a particular editor is widely despised and should be ejected from the mythical community.
For myself, I'm considering only working on articles I've substantially created myself, or those I'm asked to help out with by those I trust. The others can go hang. EricCorbett16:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, and that was editing in the house of God too, which is supposed to sacred. Please don't blame Rod (who asked you) it's not his fault; the problem, as I know to my cost is when you start to edit a big, famous building, every tourist who has ever used its public loos think they are an expert on it. Giano 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't blame Rodw, but there's a limit to the number of times one can be insulted (patronising git from a self-proclamed priest comes to mind) and still be interested in contributing. EricCorbett18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that I may return to FAC reviewing, as it seems to be pretty much the only way you can get editors to listen to reason. EricCorbett18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
My dear, dear son, may I invite you to pray with me? I do hope you're not suggesting that their may be bogus priests on Wikipedia. Oh pray, do perish the thought. Let's have a cup of tea and then pop along to Benediction together and pray for the salvation of your poor, overtaxed soul. Rev Dr Augustus Deepthought (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And then there is that pathetic colonial female, User:Amandajm, one of the major contributors to the article, who, having thanked you for some previous edits, is now complaining of your bullying manner over a matter of preferred expression. Do we go with your minimal word "most" or her preferred "the majority of"?
Does it require sockpuppetry to deal with your bullying? Is that the usual method? Bill Paterson.
What a confusing username. Which is it, Amandajm or Bill Patterson? In reality I think that the faux priest Anglicanus ought to be investigated as being a sockpuppet of the ex-administrator Rodhullandemu, but that's separate story. EricCorbett01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Punctuation question
"The newspaper asked "why should the law in this species of offence inflict a severer punishment upon a woman, than upon a man"." - the quoted material doesn't use a question mark, but the sentence, as I've constructed it, seems to demand one. So would you replace the full stop with a question mark, or leave it as is? Parrotof Doom23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the punctuation of the quotation, but you could alter your sentence slightly to put the punctuation outside the quote, as in "The newspaper asked "why should the law in this species of offence inflict a severer punishment upon a woman, than upon a man"? EricCorbett01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have, in any of your sources on witches, anything I could use to put to bed the suggestion that many witches were burnt at the stake? AFAIK the reality is that this only happened in Scotland, and rarely. Parrotof Doom16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Any reputable history of heresy trials will include this fact as an aside—try the Historical Dictionary of Stuart England if you just want a quick-fix citation. The matter is complicated by the fact that a number of witches were burned after execution (to prevent resurrection and necromancy; in places where the vampire tradition is stronger, this tradition survived until very recently and possibly to the present day), and thus reports can legitimately say "she was sentenced to be burned and the sentence was carried out" or "500 suspected witches were burned" without actually meaning execution by burning.
The National Museum of Scotland has an excellent and dispassionate section on Scottish witch-trials, and could probably point you in the right direction to sources on the Scottish aspect. Given the crowd-pleasing status the subject currently has, I imagine they'd be delighted to help with something that would increase knowledge that the NMoS is more than Bonnie Prince Charlie's snuff-box and the handwritten lyrics to the Proclaimers' Scotland's Story.* – iridescent 217:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
*Before someone accuses me of stereotyping, both these items are on prominent permanent display.
(edit conflict) Where are we talking about? Even in Scotland the victims were invariably either hanged or garrotted before their corpses were burned, although I suppose there might have been a few cases where they weren't, or weren't quite dead when they were thrown on the fire, as in the case of one of the Paisley witches. EricCorbett17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Just England right now (limiting the scope of this discussion to Britain). I've found instances of women in England being burnt alive before 1656 (excepting one accidental burning alive after then). But it appears that in Scotland, witches were burnt alive well into the 18th century. It's just that I've read here and there that the burning of witches in England is a common misconception, and I wanted to find out if there was any truth to that and if so, if it deserved mention. Parrotof Doom17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There were relatively few witches executed in England compared to other parts of the world, fewer than 500 between the early 15th and early 18th centuries, and I don't know of any that were burned alive; the penalty in England was hanging, as it wasn't witchcraft itself that was the crime but causing harm by witchcraft, very often murder or attempted murder, so the sentence was the same as for a murderer. How about this for a source:
In England the legal method of executing a witch was by hanging; after death the body was burnt and the ashes scattered. In Scotland, as a rule, the witch was strangled at the stake and the body burned.
Murray, Margaret Alice, Witch Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology, 2003, Kessinger Publishing, 9780766144552, p. 17.
Thanks for that. My understanding is that women were burnt only for treason (high and petty), presumably then witchcraft was never treasonous? Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong angle; perhaps the burning of witches in England is an urban myth that should be paid no attention? Parrotof Doom18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Causing harm by witchcraft was a crime like any other, not treasonous. Except I suppose if it could be "proved" that the king had been in some way harmed by witchcraft. But even the North Berwick witches, who were accused of raising storms against the fleet accompanying King James VI back from Denmark to Scotland with his new wife, were strangled before being burned. England actually had a relatively relaxed attitude towards so-called witches, except for temporary aberrations such as Matthew Hopkins, and unlike Scotland even forbade them to be interrogated under torture. EricCorbett18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If you've got reliable sources claiming that witches were burned in England then it might be good to debunk that in your article. I'm only thinking about the inevitable talk page discussions on "why haven't you included the burning of witches?" EricCorbett19:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It's one of those subjects like Resurrectionism, where I'm having to effectively create a new article using multiple sources that each discuss different facets. There's no single book that covers the whole issue. Most sources are concerned with punishment in general, and owing to the much greater incidence of executed men, what material I can find on women is somewhat scant. The best sources I have, Gatrell and Devereaux, are an exception, but I admit I've only just started and there are probably more detailed books out there. Writing about the abolition of burning is easy, but writing about when burning started, how it developed (particularly through Mary's reign) and what exactly went on when women were burned, is much more difficult. I shall soldier on. Parrotof Doom19:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Reminds me of another common misconception, that all witches were women. But men were also charged with causing harm by witchcraft, and in fact two of the Pendle witches were male. EricCorbett19:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on this conversation, I've made this change. A reminder, if anything, of how much rubbish there is on this site, and how important it is to patrol the decent articles. Parrotof Doom20:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to look very far to find rubbish on here. It would indeed have been a sad state of affairs if everyone accused of witchcraft was burned at the stake. In reality, at least in England, most people accused were acquitted. EricCorbett23:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a great article, thought I, as I searched to find the main contributor so as I could ask him for help with this. Is there anything you haven't edited on here? Parrotof Doom14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you remember that old football song? "He's here, he's there, he's every fucking where [insert name of player here]". EricCorbett15:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I also remember "The referee's a... The referee's a...", which given recent events is probably more appropriate :) Oddly enough I'm filming in Sheffield tomorrow for Soccer AM, so will be shooting at least one football chant. Parrotof Doom15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
One of my favourites. Football chants are rather interesting I think. I wonder if WP has the usual tedious stub on them? EricCorbett22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Many referees certainly would benefit from a visit to Specsavers an optician (no promo allowed). Of course WP has a piss-poor chants article. Such things are in close competition with completely unverifiable stuff but at least there is some hope. I'd be astonished if there have not been academics who have made pronouncements regarding football chants and might see what I can turn up on JSTOR. I know that sociology is often derided as an academic discipline but, if nothing else, there'll be some history in there. And on the subject of history, what do you think of my overblown phrasing at William Beach Thomas? I've had a facsimile of all issues of the Wipers Times gathering dust on my bookshelf for several years and have finally got round to reading it - those guys were funny! - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me if you think the first paragraph makes sense? Essentially, treason wasn't legally defined back then, and people apparently weren't too keen on the idea that crimes could be committed against the state (king) rather than against one's lord. It seems that there was some effort to make high treason much worse than petty treason, at first, there being little distinction between the two. I'm just trying to set the reader up to understand how these laws came into existence. It's especially difficult because while many sources say that the 1351 act defined what was high and petty treason, my understanding is that the law only says what you can't do against the king - petty treason (not mentioned until 1421, some 70 years after the earlier act) seems to have developed separately. It's incredibly complicated and I may be going into too much detail. Parrotof Doom13:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Dunno what lunacy is going on above me. I'll point out https://www.google.co.uk/#q=hanged+site:legislation.gov.uk in the hope it provokes an outbreak of stunned silence for the numpty brigade above. Hanged refers to execution, hung refers to hanging up clothes in the eyes of British legislation.
Anyway, I was wondering if I could get you to give Brabham BT46 a quick read through and if possible, the quickest of quick copy edits to the intro, which sounds a bit clunky, I'm only asking as I can't figure out the best way to rewrite. Cheers, Nick (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It's just ignorant numpties trying to take the piss in an effort to get me blocked again. The Brabham though looks interesting. Tomorrow. EricCorbett01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Complaint
I don't think I have ever complained before, but I really couldn't see any reason not to. [5] I not sure how to format this so as to link the section directly. It is No 34 on the current list
Good God, Eric Corbett! You call yourself Malleus Factuorum. I ask you if you would be politer if I had a male name, and so very, very,VERY OBVIOUSLY assume one, linking it directly to my own page. And you Malleus Corbett etc, find it "freaky" that a male is using a female name?Amandajm (talk) 02:07 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If you follow the link you'll see that the user name is actually Amandajm, so not much doubt about the assumed female persona I don't think. There's no user:Amandjm registered. EricCorbett12:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? I personally thought it was spot on. Especially for someone who has no other edits - it appears they don't have a grasp of basic grammar. Ealdgyth - Talk18:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and timely response. I will try my best to take it into full consideration in my future editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you been in touch with your fellow idiot yet, the one who believes that hung is the correct verb to describe an execution by hanging? EricCorbett19:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The source cited in the edit summary says that since the hanging in this context is only a prelude to the more lethal parts of the procedure, it should be conjugated as the ordinary verb, not as the means of execution. A silly claim IMO, and a distinction I’ve never seen being made elsewhere, but the editor may be more ill-advised than ignorant. (I take the fixed expression from sentences of execution, “hanged by the neck until dead”, to imply that the scope of hanged is not so narrow.) OTOH—abandoning my A of GF—it might just be a case of someone seizing on an excuse to troll.—Odysseus147923:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The explanation given in that link is completely incorrect, since the sentence was used many times over a period of centuries and during that time, not all traitors were cut down before they were strangled. Also, not everyone who was hanged ended up dead - some survived. Parrotof Doom23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly that editor is no stranger to Wikipedia, and questions should therefore be asked. Eric, with all the fuss you may have missed my question above, but if you haven't I apologise and I'll leave you to it. Parrotof Doom22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The idiot has the answer, and thanks for that BarrelProof, I don't expect to have my editing mocked in such a manner when it actually correct. My point is correct for modern English, but the phrase using 'Hanged' is most likely Ye Olde English; many old phrases are incorrect for modern linguistics. This isn't of course any help to a modern scholar seeking the correct English and finding not whiff of an explanation as to why this isn't the case. I would therefore suggest that this is added to the article but I fear the overlord may edit it out and name me Sir, a fool. Just because you have been editing Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time doesn't mean you are always right. The modern English term 'Hung, drawn and quartered', the term that I have known since childhood, being as I was, born in Merry Olde England gives a specific referral to that fact that you would have been hung up, as opposed to hanged, which in modern English means you are hung by the neck WITHOUT support and therefore killed by this singular process. The hanging up of a person is NOT the point of the sentence. It's really not as fun to cut of someone's entrails and burn them in front of them if the are already dead. The Ye Olde English would be intended to mean the same but does not clearly differentiate, hence I would assume, the change. I also corrected some basic spelling errors, did you also change those back when you undid my edit? I hope you were thorough, Sir. Psyzzlewazzle (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If the person is left hanging, the neck gradually stretches until the feet reach the ground. I think this may be an explanation for the name of Robin a'Tiptoe Hill in Leicestershire. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
IP, no he is not horrible, he was right, accept the lesson and move on. Xanthomelanoussprog, according to Cross Country: English Buildings and Landscape From Countryside to Coast the guy was so tall that he stayed on his tippytoes till his mates came and cut him down, not cos he was there so long his neck stretched. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage makes the comment "If you make a point of observing the distinction in your writing, you will not thereby become a better writer, but you will spare yourself the annoyance of being corrected for having done something that is not wrong." --Boson (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The OED also says "though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England" immediately afterwards, and quotes (among others) Shelley as having written "These men were..at last brought to the scaffold and hung". The point being made is that an edit summary such as "hanged is also correct and more usual" would have served just as well. The insult was unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't say that in the edition I was looking at. Pictures are hung, people are hanged, and in this particular instance the relevant article is about the legal sentence invariably known as hanged, drawn and quartered. So it's not a case of what's "more usual", it's a case of what's correct. EricCorbett17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If you come along to a featured article, make changes without discussion and suggest that the title is grammatically incorrect with an edit summary that says you are "shocked this was once a featured article" then you can expect a less than polite response. A simple Google search of "hung or hanged" would have shown that the interpretation at trackerpress was a minority opinion. Richerman(talk)17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Did any of you actually read what I wrote and are any of you actually English?? Everyone I have asked today here in England, including English teachers, say it is hung. The sentence is NOT for a person to be hanged. Sentencing a person to be hanged is a death sentence by hanging, whether the person dies or not in this process is irrelevant, that is the intention. Take a look at the picture at the top of the article. The man is not hanging, he is hung up, like a coat on a hook. He has not been hanged, he is hung. The intention is not to kill the man by hanging. The intention is that the man is hung up so that the gruesome sentence is undertaken whilst he is still alive and in the displaying of the body by being hung up, (a coat is hung up NOT hanged up) the crowd can witness the sentence. http://www.trackerpress.com/reference/hanged-or-hung.php This link gives the correct English in modern day English; the meaning is the same as the antiquated 'hang-ed' (as was the pronunciation at the time), it is NOT the same as the modern use of the word hanged in every context. Well, I suppose you won't take my word for it, but I doubt a pub near Tower Bridge is going to be wrong.. http://hung-drawn-and-quartered.co.uk/Psyzzlewazzle (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Where have you got "The sentence is NOT for a person to be hanged" from? The exact wording of the sentence was "You are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged, but not till you are dead; for, while still living, your body is to be taken down, your bowels torn out and burnt before your face; your head is then cut off and your body divided into four quarters". Trackerpress is a one-woman self-publishing outfit, not a reliable source by any conceivable definition of the term. – iridescent23:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Loving the idea that we're expected to think "a pub near Tower Bridge" is a better authority than the OED and Brewer's, though.
Why don't you consult a proper authority Psyzzlewazzle, instead wasting your time in a pub near Tower Bridge? You might start with Fielding's 1994 The Hangman's Record, in which "hanged" occurs 80 times, referring to the method of execution. "Hung" occurs only once, in the sentence beginning "Both men were still hung over from a weekend of drinking". EricCorbett09:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem might be that Psyzzlewazzle is not in fact anywhere near a pub in that area, but is instead thousands of miles away. Were he to visit England and venture into a pub near Tower Bridge, he might find that the regulars' approach to such questions would be to consult Wikipedia's article Hanged, drawn and quartered, to which Google would quickly lead them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but in that case he or she is lying; "Everyone I have asked today here in England, including English teachers, say it is hung."EricCorbett22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Eric was quite right to revert the incorrect change, which was also made with a somewhat inappropriate edit summary. As a matter of linguistic interest, though, I believe the phrase "hung, drawn and quartered" is quite common (compared with "hanged, drawn and quartered", of course), particularly (but not exclusively) in colloquial English. This may be because "hanged drawn and quartered" is either difficult to say or hardly distinguishable from "hang, drawn and quartered". I don't think many people would say "He should be hanged drawn and quartered for that edit summary!" This Google Ngram viewer output, showing US and UK usage is quite interesting, though there are a number of caveats.--Boson (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong for an entirely unrelated reason. A legitimate argument is that usage is evolving towards the obsolescence of "hanged". A usage argument is invalid with "I could care less". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Which reliable sources are making this claim? The OED, for instance, doesn't flag "hanged" as being obsolete. Let's remember that this is an article about the legal sentence, which was undoubtedly "hanged, drawn and quartered". EricCorbett20:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I never made the argument that it was correct—notice how I called it "wrong for an entirely unrelated reason"? I was pointing out the flaw in saying it was "equally" wrong as "I could care less", which is not just unaccepted by the OED—it's just plain wrong wrong wrong. I would never myself let another editor get away with "hung" for "hanged". Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you consider looking at this article and reviewing it for grammar, prose, etc.? I am trying to take it to FA, and while I can get the material together, I'm afraid that prose is not my strong point. That, and a number of people have told me that you are the best one for reviewing potential FA articles. Thanks, GregJackPBoomer!20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It is nice for you to say so, but it won't hurt it to wait a few days to resubmit, plus there are a couple who are going to make sure that I caught all of the right legal points (not that the media ever f's that up in its reporting). Again, thank you for looking at it for me. GregJackPBoomer!22:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If you aren't too busy, could you give me a quick idea how much work needs doing on the prose for this article, and how far away you think it is? I supported it earlier, and did some tweaking, so I feel slightly responsible for missing anything. I'm quite happy to give it another going over for prose, depending on how much you think needs doing. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still a little unhappy with certain aspects of the prose, such as "Mulder is a believer in the abnormal". Well, we're all believers in the abnormal, so what does this really mean? Paranormal? EricCorbett21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've had another look through, and tidied what I can. If you get another chance to look, I'd be grateful, but I think I've done all I can for the article now and had better leave it to the nominator. I promise not to keep coming back, as I'm not too sure how I got involved in the first place! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Who is the best person to ask for advice on MOS number issues? On Talk:Wells Cathedral#Some further comments there is a comment about "Some inconsistencies in number formatting, you use numbers for measurements and centuries but "four hundred" and "twenty-four" you use words, but you are at least consistent with this other than the measurements and centuries." and I'm not sure what to do. Any other help with the comments would be appreciated but recognise that editing Wells Cathedral has been confrontational in the past and I don't want to make that worse.— Rodtalk11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems the MOS guidelines permit this, my point was that numbers were used for the centuries but not the other. Usually if I see somebody write the numbers in words I see centuries written as words too.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
