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.
Will someone provide to me the context of how relatively offensive the phrase "bloody wanker" is in the UK? Equivalent to the USA "assohole?" More? Less? More offensive or less offensive that "twat" and "cunt?" Also, in the same vein, is it fighting words to tell someone from Wales that he "Welshed out on the deal?" Or telling someone that they're a cheapskate by calling them "Scotch?" How about the American slang for calling a police van a "'Paddy' wagon?" Serious and sincere cultural inquiry in light of the above conversation? And have I committed a sanctionable offense by using any of the above words in this context? Montanabw(talk)16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
US interpretation from lots of UK friends : Bloody used to be very vulgar (fucking) but just like fuck has become common to hear. Many people use the word "Welch" on a bet but not as many know that it means Welsh, but I would certainly not be surprised to hear a Welshmen get into a fight over it. Similar to Indian giver or better yet Gyp or Jew down (which I can't believe has survived as a redirect in this context!) I would think. Paddy wagon is not generally offensive, as its just as likely Paddy was driving the wagon (Long tradition of Irish policemen) (but it does sound very archaic)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm a Brit with English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish ancestry - and I'd say the offensiveness of those words is impossible to ascertain without the context. Whereas I believe that some individual words are proscribed in the USA and are dictated to be grossly offensive regardless of the intent of the speaker, the same is generally not true in the UK — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Reminds me of the saying, "you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose." Montanabw(talk)04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Wanker not recorded before 1950. Its origin unknown and certainly not in any local British dialect, argot or slang. Most likely it is British (probably Scots) public school slang dating from late Victorian times.
Really? I've read in several books that it was recorded by the late 40s, and that it originated as an onomatopoeia - among college students - of the buzzer used in the popular 40s radio show Truth or Consequences. Keri (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. Apparently Partridge has a 1938 entry (pre-dating OED) dating it from the 1870s and noting the spelling whank in Scottish dialect. Onanopoeiac all right - think bed springs. 207.207.24.121 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Our country estate, Eric. So obliged if you could find it somewhere deep in yourself to stay away. Of course we're huge admirers. Cheers. 207.207.24.121 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about 207.207.24.121. Could you or anyone else give me a clue? Have I ever visited your country estate 207.207.24.121? Is this a real-life threat or just more wiki-bollocks? EricCorbett14:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Eric. I was hoping you might be able to lend me a hand with some article improvement work. I'm thinking of trying to get Bonshō to FA status - it would be the first attempt I've made at FA, and I could use a bit of help from someone with experience in that area of the project. Really, I'm after ideas for improvement, a kind of informal peer-review, if you like - content creation isn't my forté, and so I'm sure I miss stuff that other editors would spot immediately. If you can spare the time to cast an eye over the article and let me know your opinion, I'd be greatly appreciative. No huge rush; I've got another GA nomination that I'm working on and a couple of other things in the pipeline, so I'm in no hurry. Cheers, Yunshui雲水08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Every six months (or it feels like it) I pop onto Eric's page and say "you know what, really must get Van der Graaf Generator through FAC one of these days". Anyway, did some spring cleaning and found this quote from Fish : "women in particular either think Peter Hammill is brilliant or they hate him." ([1]) Given the past week's events, one might say the same about Eric. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I hate commas Ealdgyth, it's just that I feel about them much like I do about meringues. I love meringues, but I wouldn't want to have to eat a whole packet of them. EricCorbett18:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought you'd come here to tell me that meringue was the second-most horrible sexist slur ever. Mind you, I'm not sure what I'd make of someone calling me a meringue, I'd have to think about that, lovingly and with kindness and consideration of course, in line with the recent dictat from our beloved leader. (I was thinking of meringue nests BTW, which there's an unopened packet of in one our kitchen cupboards.)EricCorbett23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
That's it, thanks. Round my way - ie: in my mother's kitchen - it is Queen's Pudding or Queens' Pudding. She never writes it down; I never throw it up ;) I might pop round and drop a hint later today because all this talk of puds is making me peckish. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, back to articles ... one of the problems I've got with Van der Graaf is that a lot of the sourcing is, while approved by the band themselves, technically self-published - not least "The Book", which provides substantial in-depth information. Now, it's a self-published book officially endorsed and praised by the band ([2]), but I have a nasty feeling that some people will disapprove of trying to pass anything even vaguely self-published that involves living people through FAC. What can you advise? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
GAN?
Eric, following my recent "success", I thought I would have another go. What do you think of this? Is it worth a go at GAN? If so would you be willing to apply your usual skills at ce, etc. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, I like that, well worth a shot at GAN. I might not have the the time for a proper read through until tomorrow though. EricCorbett13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this is good to go for GAN now. There are probably prose issues that a full review would sort out, but I can't think of any reason this would quick-fail at a GA review. Since the backlog can be measured in months these days, you might as well put it up now. You can use that delay to your advantage, by coming back the article a week later with a fresh pair of eyes and finding things to fix - all before any reviewer has touched it. As I hinted above, I've been looking at Barton Road Swing Bridge which was apparently the Dartford Crossing of its day, being part of a de facto Manchester bypass in the 1950s and a horrendous bottleneck. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much every article I look at needs improvement, so I wish you well in your garguantan task. For myself, I'll just keep plodding away in my own time and in my own way. EricCorbett16:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Its neck and upperparts are grass-green, and tail is grass-green with yellow borders as well as The throat and chest are pale green and belly is yellow - my inclination is not to have a "the" before "tail" and "belly", however is that me just being a bit too eager to drop articles and I've been pinged before on things like this...so add a couple of "the"s ..or not? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you've been overly aggressive in removing the definite articles there, resulting in the sentences looking rather odd. EricCorbett22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Its neck and upperparts are grass-green, and its tail is grass-green with yellow borders seems better to me.
Hi Eric. I addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fifth Element/archive1. Thanks for your comments. Don't feel obligated but I thought there would be no harm in asking if you could have a look at anything else that may need improving in order for you to support this nomination. I'm happy to exchange reviews quid pro quo; i'll review something of yours in exchange for you reviewing this nomination if you like, just let me know (i'm assuming that is allowed, this is my first FAC nomination so wasn't too sure what to expect). Anyway if you're not interested or too busy no worries, have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt I'll be nominating anything else at FAC for a while, so don't worry about that. I'll have a read through your article later. EricCorbett11:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, i'm just getting a little anxious about this nomination as whilst one person is supporting it, nobody has commented on it for 3 weeks now. Being my first nomination i'm not altogether sure how many people have to support if before it is approved. If you've got the time i'd appreciate it if you could follow up your comments and either support the nomination or tell me what else you'd like improved. I promise I won't pester you about it a third time, just thought one reminder wouldn't hurt :). If you're too busy I won't hold it against you. Freikorp (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Generally you need a minimum of three supports before an article is promoted. I think the article still needs some work though, so I've left a few more comments for you at the review. EricCorbett12:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sexism versus gender imbalance
I was struck by your observation that sexism is not the same thing as gender imbalance. As a word maven, do you know of a term for the class of things that are obvious if you just spend a few seconds thinking about them, but not so obvious to prevent many intelligent people getting it wrong? I've run across a few of these, and it would be nice if there were an aggregate term.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The term I use for the class of things that are obviously untrue if you just spend a few seconds thinking about them is contemporary legend. Not quite what you were asking for though perhaps. EricCorbett18:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A noun that covers such things pretty well is fallacy; plausible-seeming reasoning that falls apart on careful consideration can be described as specious.—Odysseus147918:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Fallacy seems a little more general than I was looking for, while Commonly conflated is more specific. I could have helped things along by identifying other examples, but none were at the ready, so I'll think see if others comes back to me. As Eric guessed contemporary legend didn't hit me as the "of course, that's it" but will work for now. --S Philbrick(Talk)00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Be careful, Richerman. Describing Miss Apprehension as "common" might bring you trouble in the current climate. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. There is also Miss-understanding. I think the fallacy you are thinking of when dealing with things that are commonly conflated is the adage "correlation does not mean causation." However, in contrast, I might also note a different adage, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." Here, Eric is not the problem, though at times he volunteers to be a symbol of the problem by calling people bad names (and needs to tone it down). But Eric gets pushback and blocks not because he is a bully - he's not, he's just rude - but because the bullies see him as an easy mark to attack. His treatment due to his individual characteristics is actually similar to the issues of bias and bullying that certain groups of people face due to their status as a member of that group (women, but also certain ethnic/racial minorities). Montanabw(talk)21:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
All the above aside, the reality is that there is significant gender imbalance on wiki, there is also some sexism, though not as extreme as the gender imbalance. Having a vague user name, I have rarely encountered sexism toward myself directly on wiki, but in a couple cases I had some annoying run-ins. (Most flak I get is just "teh usual drahmahz", sometimes self-inflicted due to snark) But watching work by others, I have seen some things that I sincerely hope everyone on this thread would disavow, like these sterling examples, which are actual personal attacks and bullying: [3], [4], [5]Montanabw(talk)21:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, how do the first two constitute actual personal attacks and bullying? Unless I'm misreading, in both cases, it looks like an editor talking to themselves. Not intelligently, nor coherently, but I don't see a personal attack.--S Philbrick(Talk)23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I presume someone pissed them off. Whoever it was, if the invective was directed at that individual, then case closed. And frankly, the one rant against internet users in general, combining all sorts of invective, could be viewed as close to a personal threat. I'm surprised that the above said nonsense wasn't revdeled years ago. Montanabw(talk)00:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I know for a fact there is a guidelines on doing "lists of notable alumni" and such things, that is, lists within articles. And I know that the guidelines says "we suggest you include only notable people/items/ferrets", and that "notable" is easily defined as "having a Wikipedia article". But I can't find that damn guideline anywhere, and I need to cite it. Oh, and that list also says "cut down on the detail and no more wikilinks please". Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If you find it, let's change it. I love red links. In List of composers by name, people with an article in any WP are accepted (after we had a discussion on the topic). In a list with alumni, I like to read what they mainly do later in life, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists- section on lists of people- A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. The person has not or will not be committing an offense, nor has intention of committing such an offense, nor is a member of or was previously a member of a group committing, having committed or intending to commit, or has intention of joining or supporting such a group for the purposes of an offense against, or causing a breach of, civility. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, that's for stand-alone lists though, rather than lists inside other articles. I would guess that the principle is the same, though. Black Kite (talk)12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I've watched a few videos of some of the presentations given at Wikimania 2014, and I've come to three conclusions:
Those of us who are still adding text to articles are inhabiting some kind of technological dark age in this new multimedia world. So why bother?
Jimmy Wales has determined that WP would be far better off without me, and I ought to be shown the door, as kindly and thoughtfully as possible of course.
WP wants to be a machine-readable data store rather than an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Given that and all the other nonsense of recent weeks, including the surprise introduction of a new "superprotect" user right, a fork of at least the English Wikipedia, and probably the German Wikipedia, is looking increasingly likely.
(edit conflict) Not by name, no; that would have been unkind, thoughtless and libellous. That recent use of the c-word would no doubt have been deemed blockable if I'd used it. Brownhairedgirl's recent block reminded me very much of the FBI's prosecution against Al Capone for tax evasion, because they couldn't pin being a mobster on him. EricCorbett14:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing surprises me anymore, when did I say that first? - How much more uncivil can you get than questioning a user's honour, all in sweet words? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What Jimmy continually fails to understand is that he himself is the font of the toxic environment he claims to so dislike, yet he enables it. EricCorbett15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I said in the case request (in other words) that enforced civility is no civility. I had my (unfair) share of enforcement recently ;) - Guess what, they suggested to block me four a month for cleaning up after an edit war. I forgot my restrictions for a moment - I would remember them better if they made sense to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It's come to a sad state of affairs when calling someone a toxic personality merits a standing ovation, but suggesting that they may not have been at the front of the queue when brains were handed out is met with a 72-hour block amid rapturous approval. And in fact rapture may not be a bad way to describe what's going on here. EricCorbett20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Did you ever read my Wikispeak article? It's been added to by many others quite substantially since, but it's as true today as it ever was. Having seen a complaint/question (at the Teahouse?) earlier, this definition of WP:AFC jumped out at me:
Articles for creation. A place where articles don't get created, but sit languishing in purgatory.
No, I didn't, made my day. We should start a list of other useful terms such as WP:Great Dismal Swamp and Ethics of Dissensus (and thank their creators), - my own contribution, all too useful, He was despised, ""He gave his back – to the smiters – ... and his cheeks – to them – that plucked off the hair. – He hid – not his face – from shame – and spitting." --incredibly toxic personality (thanks for the model to Iridescent) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
But not if it comes from the mouth of the god-king. He is, after all, above reproach and incapable of behavior that isn't full of love and civility. Intothatdarkness21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on, "god-king", that's silly. So, Eric, you are to be asked to leave in dignity? Would you like me to delete your talk page when you exit? Drmies (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
In the spirit of Eric's original, bearing in mind the seemingly quasi-religious cultism during the Wikimania speech, should that be "disciples and courtiers"? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The ones saying that "Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy." - where any normal editor would speak in the first person? --incredibly toxic personality --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Sitush. Consider the list amended to disciples, apostles, and courtiers...since there does seem to be a distinction between those who have arrived, those who are close to rapture, and those who wish to be considered worthy of the blessings and bounty. Intothatdarkness14:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave when I'm good and ready, not because some half-assed believer in the idea of rapture thinks I ought to. EricCorbett23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the unofficial transcript. Did he really only suggest that he was an idiot - that's playing to the gallery when on home ground, surely? And if he thinks that a YouGov poll that shows the British public trust WP more than news sources is a commendation then he's obviously missed the point, which is that the poll shows the British public don't really have a clue. On the other hand, and quietly as always, I've been spreading the love. Like you, I'll spread it as and when it seems appropriate. In my case, it usually turns out to be a triumph of hope over experience but surely is a sign of a person who isn't lacking in "honor". Although if a certain person in Washington DC were to get into trouble, I probably would just applaud from the sidelines. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What is it with ambitiousness anyway? Only an American would try to invent a noun from an adjective – ambitious – when there's already a perfectly good noun – ambition. EricCorbett21:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's weird but he did say that he didn't coin it, though there was no attribution. It was probably the monkey. Closer to home, what do you think about "ridiculousest"? - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales has taken leave of his senses and obviously can't see what he said was extremely toxic and as such the root of all civility issues here. So I take it the rule now is, you can be rude as you like so long as you do it politely and in a loving way. Hot air and righteous indignation do not write encyclopedias, content editors do. I came here to write not join a lovey-dovey cult. (checked for typos) J3Mrs (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After that last block attempt I decided that if they could figure out a way to stop and search Eric they would. Here [6] is what we'd be seeing. BTW, when reading a claim that seems hard to believe I tend to not believe anything that I have not seen with my own eyes, so I had my doubts about the claims that the admins are out to get Eric. That changed when Eric helped me to do my first DYK and it was purposely held up because the admin that was reviewing it decided to punish Eric for being right about a MOS issue. I no longer remembered the particulars, and in fact when I looked back for the incident a few days ago I found neither hide nor hair of it - she had deleted all mention of it from her talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I take it you guys have heard of the Best known for IP, who's a great example of making good faith edits while calling everyone a cunt if they act like one (and sometimes even if they don't). He's been blocked more times than Eric (maybe). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the case I was referring to, Ritchie. It's still on ANI, I'm sure--I'm not checking back in. Funny thing was, that IP editor (pot) brought up the thread against a registered kettle. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
For years the principal instigator of this clampdown serially demanded the punishment of editors who failed to pass her particular standards of civility. Now Jimmy Wales wants these editors, if they are also productive long term content builders, banned outright from Wikipedia. It appears we have a new quasi-religious regime with ritual trappings. It will ferret out "toxic personalities" and then excommunicate them in a spirit of love, righteousness and purification. And I thought the admin system has reached the limits of craziness. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I listened through Jimbo's talk, and I don't get the impression he wants to throw Eric out. Rather, he would prefer that Eric, say, takes his research and writing skills and goes after a commercial publisher who will pay him to write something like Manchester Ship Canal For Dummies, which Wikipedia can then use as a reliable source. Actually, Jimbo said Eric should do all that for free, but I'm more of a pragmatist - if your work is of the "professional standard" met by the FA criteria, you ought to receive "professional" levels of compensation. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
He offered to pay for the server and was certain that the fork would fail. - Sitush (talk)
Thanks so far, Eric. I made a few little tweaks to the article (and wrote up a superstubby stub for Rhino ferry)--if any of your visitors can dig through their archive goldmines to beef up that article, that would be wonderful. Edwin Hunt (waterman) helped move troops and material during the Normandy landings, and apparently he's still around: pretty amazing. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
England isn't just a rainy place Drmies, we also have more tornadoes than anywhere else on Earth. Some days the Sun even shines. Makes life a little more interesting when you can't wake up every morning thinking "Oh, it's going to be scorchio again today". EricCorbett21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? I mean, I'd be surprised if you got it wrong but that is a new one to me. Anywhere else on Earth? Wow. One that does always amuse me is the belief - popularly held in England - that Manchester is a particularly rainy city. It is a belief that is especially prevalent among "southerners" (Northern synonym: "twats", but just possibly an over-generalisation) That is misplaced. Well, I suppose anything can be fixed using stats but I do recall seeing a Met Office summary in the last year or so that said, quite specifically, that it is bollocks and that London etc have had and do get far more rain than Manchester. The same with the daft notion that the north of England is "cold": sure, I've slept in a tent at -18 C in the north, and worse in Scotland, but the snow/ice problems tend usually to be reported as most severe in Kent etc. Perhaps, though, that is just the southern bias in news reporting? Entirely anecdotally, the most persistently cold English place I've ever lived in was Cambridge, which for the geographically challenged is south-east England whereas Manchester is north-west. Still, whatever it may be, I prefer rainy to scorchio, in which circumstances my hearing aids fry-up due to sweat-induced short-circuiting. That has happened quite a lot in the last few weeks. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Eric, please would you consider applying your toxicity to William Beach Thomas? It has gone through GAN recently but I'll be taking it to FAC very soon - there really doesn't seem to be much more out there about the man, even offline. I'd be happier if you could give it the once-over and, in particular, nail any dodgy phrasing and grammar. Apparently, it contains a zeugma but I'm mystified about that. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
“[… H]e said, as he hastened to put out the cat, / The wine, his cigar, and the lamps: / Have some madeira, m’dear […] She lowered her standards by raising her glass, / Her courage, her eyes, and his hopes [… S]he made no reply, / Up her mind, and a dash for the door. […]“ (Flanders & Swann, At the Drop of a Hat) —Odysseus147903:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and, yes, I can see why those constructs might be considered awkward to understand even though grammatically correct. My possible slip into this territory is: "Public opinion at home may have been mollified, even uplifted, by the efforts of the correspondents but the troops were not, despite the demand among them for newspapers from home being high." The reviewer eventually decided that it was probably ok but that they would phrase it differently. Something to do with mollified having a slightly different meaning wrt public opinion and troops. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That grates a bit on my ear, too; opinion and troops are different enough to seem odd when placed in parallel. (Indulging in some more ‘jargon-dropping‘, one might say that there’s metonymy concerning the latter but not the former.) A match for the troops would be the public; if you want to keep opinion you need a closer counterpart in the second half, perhaps something like “… but morale was not, despite the demand among the troops for ….” To lay on the parallelism even thicker, you could say something like “morale in the trenches”, echoing “opinion at home“. For a minimal change, an apostrophe could serve to imply the appropriate comparison: “… but the troops’ [sc. opinion] was not, –” but that demands a little more of the reader’s attention-span and some gnome-wannabe will probably come along and delete it as an erroneous plural.—Odysseus147903:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Help please
I need a little help. Looking at the Ebola virus disease article I have written "Ebola virus disease (EVD) or Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) is a disease of humans and other primates caused by an ebolavirus". However, looking at the ebolavirus page I find that the word should not be used with an article. Does this mean that I should not use the "an"? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I expect to get disagreements if I change it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There will no doubt be many others who know far more about the correct way to refer to viruses than I do. My simple-minded interpretation is that if you use "an" then you're referring to the genus, which ought to be capitalised as in "an Ebolavirus", rather than to a specific virus, where the article should be omitted. EricCorbett18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It does indeed sound odd, but that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that your sentence ought to read "Ebola virus disease (EVD) or Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) is a disease of humans and other primates caused by an Ebolavirus". EricCorbett20:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I did figure it out. I think Ebolavirus would not be correct because one would not use the name of the genus when referring to the causative agent of a disease. The "don't use an article" refers to a specific virus, Ebola virus for example. I am referring to all of the species within the genus, so its proper to use an article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
On 20 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stoor worm, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the stoor worm, a sea monster of Orcadian mythology, could destroy humans with its putrid breath? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stoor worm. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey Eric, if you're not busy lately, can you copyedit the 'Live performances' section of ...And Justice for All? I'm planning an FA nomination, but that section seems the weakest facet of the article and a potential stumbling block at the review. I did some wording today, but help from you will be mostly welcomed. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look at that section and made a few changes, but I'm afraid it's obvious on even a quick scan through the rest of the article that some more work needs to be done if you're to meet the FA criteria. Here are just a couple of examples:
"...And Justice for All has a lyrical material featuring a conceptual uniformity around notions of political and legal injustice as seen through the prism of war, censored speech, and nuclear brinkmanship.". I just can't make sense of that: contains "lyrical material" or "has a lyrical quality" perhaps? I just don't know what you're trying to say.
"... the bass line was a medley of unused recordings Burton had performed prior to his death." It would have been far more interesting had he performed them after his death. EricCorbett12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that you and I are the top two editors on that article, which was mostly written by you. Another example proving what I said recently on Jimbo's page about the myth of crowdsourcing. EricCorbett13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The garden would appear to be the site of St John's, one of Manchester's lost churches according to Clare Hartwell, [7], it was drawn by JMW Turner, [8] and Edward Byrom who built it was the son of John Byrom with an "o" and could possibly probably warrant a stub. Owens was the founder of Owens College. J3Mrs (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious to me that with all the additions Sitush is making we really need two articles, one on the church and the other on the modern-day gardens. EricCorbett16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree but he's pretty fed up with me at the moment. Manchester has several "lost churches". At least Sitush used new material instead of cutting out chunks of MediaCityUK. J3Mrs (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember that battle we had over MediaCityUK. The trick was to force it to GA I think. But I'm sure Sitush isn't fed up with you, and even if he is, he'll soon get over it. EricCorbett17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I think he's got very enthusiastic about the BNA, as have I. I'm sure there's more than enough information in it to do articles on all the lost churches. I absolutely hate that MediaCity article, I know nothing is ever finished but regular maintenance is the only thing that stops it deteriorating into the mush we started with.
No, I'm not fed up with you, J3Mrs. It was just getting a bit confusing, that's all. I'm going to have a bite to eat so please feel free to reorganise/fork/whatever and I'll come back to it. This is one that I actually had in mind from way back when I was involved with the Perrins article but at that time it would have meant spending many hours in a library and now, with the BNA access, it doesn't. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually you've reminded me J3Mrs of an article I've long wanted to improve, Jerome Caminada, Manchester's Sherlock Holmes. I'd almost forgotten about it, but access to the BNA might well be a big help now. EricCorbett17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I got access to Findmypast too but am not sure how to use it as it's a primary source. I don't know why I got it really and I've no idea how to format the reference. There aren't many Caminadas so he's easy to find. J3Mrs (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A useful resource I may apply for myself. I think the restrictions on using primary sources such as birth and death certificates only apply to BLPs, which it's a good idea to steer clear of anyway. But if I'm wrong no doubt an admin will be along shortly to correct me. EricCorbett19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue generally is one of original research, even in non-BLPs. One of my sisters-in-law is literally the only person in this country to have borne her name and almost certainly the only person in the world, ever. This is because of an admin cock-up way back when her father came to this country before she was born. But pulling her birth certificate, even after death, would be regarding as WP:OR by the sticklers. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (signing very late - Erics 22:02 response is subsequent to this msg but I can't be bothered using {{signed}}
I think there's a lot of confusion around this "original research" issue. It's hardly OR to pull up a birth certificate for instance, that's just presenting the facts. OR is when you draw conclusions from those sources, rather than simply report them. The major restriction comes from the whacky BLP policy, which doesn't allow any mention of a subject's personal details such as date of birth. EricCorbett22:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but this is where the sticklers rule. As with that recent waterman issue at BLPN, how can we be sure that the person named is indeed the person for whom we have found a birth/death etc certificate? And, in fairness to them, I've occasionally had such issues when researching my own genealogy. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As with that recent waterman's issue there can usually be no doubt. It's ridiculous to rely on an anecdotal account published in a book when it defies what the subject says, what his birth certificate says, and common sense. The word "research" is abused in such cases. EricCorbett04:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: St John's Church, it appears commonly in the news sources as "St John's Church, Deansgate" even though, strictly speaking, it was not on Deansgate. Anyone got any thoughts regarding the most appropriate article title for the thing? I think we should use Deansgate per WP:COMMONNAME but am open to alternatives. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was only thinking that last week. I've recently been reading the various books about Manchester's criminal gangs etc and, after doing the usual Google search, it struck me that BNA might be more useful for his bio article. The danger might be sensationalist writing (Caminada seems not to have been shy about promoting himself either). - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I always love finding articles on buildings and structures which no longer exist and were prominent locally in the past. I was most impressed with Eric's article on a demolished bridge or something in the Manchester area, can't remember what it was called though. Its great browsing through some of the old photos of New York and Los Angeles and seeing some of the old firms and buildings which have been demolished. The more coverage we have of things like this the better I think, but part of the puzzle is starting articles and finding red links from various sources and building it. I'd split the full details on the church into a separate article though and condense it in the main to focus more on the gardens Sitush. I'll let you do it seems as you added the content!♦ Dr. Blofeld19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a GA I think I reviewed actually, was it a bridge or a canal, I can't remember! I know it no longer exists though.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Jerome Cammada, Chief Inspector of Detective Police (1891 Census)- the census invigilator actually did write Caminada, the electronic transcription is at error. Lived next door to Kate Paris, Professor of Languages. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
An invitation
I invite everyone to join me in a one week boycott of editing any WP articles, in protest against Jimbo Wales' new "moral ambitiousness" campaign and the completely incompetent WMF and its software developers. EricCorbett00:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
People would notice if enough participated but the scale - a full week - might put a lot off. I forget who it was but someone on Jumbo's page suggested a rolling system, starting with one day per week and escalating if the WMF didn't pay attention (which they won't, at first). One day a week for four weeks, two days a week for another four etc might actually ease withdrawal symptoms in some and thus cause a larger body of support. In the long run, even though some participants will try to catch up on their return, the WMF will find that they are exposed to an increased number of legal problems due to lack of article maintenance, especially with regard to BLP and copyright violations. Ultimately, they might be forced to use their new powers to lock-down editing completely on the off-days and that would be a significant blow to their charitable mission. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it would make much difference, as the masses would still edit. They plainly value quantity over quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right, and certainly right about the WMF. But what's the alternative? Those of us who don't buy into the personality cult of Jimbo Wales simply wait to be shunned? We get more and more poorly designed software thrust upon us by the WMF? Is that our future? EricCorbett17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The masses can continue to edit, yes. That's actually a part of my rationale above: it will create immense BLP/copyvio etc problems that will take a very long time for the relatively small number of experienced contributors to fix. Meanwhile, the legal hassles will grow for the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there are enough redundant parts to the machine (check the number of watchers on significant BLPs) that it would be difficult to have an effective strike. Outside publicity and embarrassment might move Jimbo, but I'm not sure how that might be accomplished.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Moral ambitiousness sounds like something dreamed up by the late Chairman Mao, and much as our esteemed leader and god king would love to have Mao's power and charisma - he doesn't. I really would just ignore it all - it will pass as all such things pass. He may believe that the 2,000 clapping seals at Wikimania are writing this project, but we know different. I suspect they had just wandered in off the street - had there been a sudden storm? Really he's just hoisted by his own petard; the kindest thing one can do is ignore it. On no account must it be indulged or encouraged. Giano(talk)21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse the further digression but, hm, Mao and Ayn Rand? That would "sort of" be empirical evidence of one of my pet theories, that there is little difference/there is much commonality between the fairly extreme lefts and rights of politics and philosophy. There is a big assumption in this but I am pretty sure that it was Rand who coined the phrase "moral ambition" or "moral ambitiousness". I do remember being recommended to read Atlas Shrugged by my GP shortly before he retired. He and the presumptive God alone knows why, but I did as I was told and I got bored with it, quickly. Give me William Cobbett or Rousseau any day: not necessarily aligned with my own thoughts but interesting and not cult-ish.
It is also interesting also that another vocal-but-cleverly-vague opponent of Eric, myself and others is an avowed Rand/Libertarian fan. Eric will know who I mean. I really do not understand how this libertarian concept - small government, freedom of the individual etc - aligns with "let's stuff those whom we think are uncivil". But that's where the left/right similarities come in, I guess: totalitarianism appears at both ends of the spectrum and, yes, is the ultimate commonality. But, like I said, I am digressing. I am, though, reminded of (paraphrase) "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it". Voltaire, allegedly, although some sources say the attribution is a myth of sorts. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” (Orwell, Animal Farm)—Odysseus147900:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh. I still like something akin to black armbands. Particularly in edit summaries or on user pages, something akin to the cabal stamp, only the opposite. Montanabw(talk)06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've decided that Wednesday will be my day of silence for the foreseeable future, and in line with Sitush's suggestion I will not be attempting to address any BLP issues that may have arisen during my absence. If nobody joins me then fine, but don't get sucked into the cult. EricCorbett22:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Eric for your interest and edit. I just wanted to see how this image would show up on WikiWand. After all, there's a lot of hype about improved images. Have now found and substituted their own logo. It seems to take about 10 minutes before things show up on their site. As it comes out very small on the standard Wikipedia interface, it will be interesting to see how it looks on their own interface. Thanks for questioning the cover images on Facebook.--Ipigott (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiWand is a promising start, but it's only a start. Their choice of cover/lead images is quite simply bizarre for instance. EricCorbett20:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, they need to accept the lead image of the article, and if it's in an infobox, (as are nearly al the science articles) to make use of the data there as well as the image. Montanabw(talk)20:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I use WikiWand all the time for browsing now. If I go back to browsing with standard it's like I've gone back ten years to the Internet dark ages! I like the way you can click edit and it'll open a new tab on wikipedia though. It's not perfect, especially with image selection (also with the habit of adding a bloated image on top of an infobox in the lede), but it's certainly the closest design to perfection that I've seen and far superior to standard. Hopefully we can encourage them to revise their image coding as Montana and Ipigott have suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikimania 2014
I've just watched a couple of videos of presentations given at Wikimania 2014 and two things stand out for me. The first is that those of us who contribute words to this encyclopedia project need to be replaced as soon as possible by social-media aware children, preferably female, with multimedia expertise. The second is that Brandon Harris is a completely self-centred nutcase. EricCorbett23:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sign-language takes many forms, but "what a load of bollocks" can be easily conveyed visually
I looked at the schedule a few days ago and thought "what a load of bollocks". However, all these hyper-aware types have missed a trick: probably they do have a sign-language interpreter somewhere on stage but they've not provided a subtitling facility nor, to the best of my knowledge, a transcript. And sign-language is far from being standardised, with particularly large differences betwen US one-hand and everyone else's two-hand. So deaf people like me will become the new marginal group. Well, not me because I'm a bloke also and so do not count ;) - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a sign-language interpreter on the Brandon Harris video; appeared to be using US one-hand, as they were just moving their right hand up and down with the thumb and index finger forming a ring. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Surprisingly few if any of the presentations have on-stage interpreters. If you are interested, though, there is an Etherpad for each presentation - crowd-sourced and so incoherent in places, but better than nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The entire idea of etherpads is new to me but I, too, could find nothing. Given that I usually work on Indian articles, any incoherence would just have been an extension of my day-to-day experience here. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that court reporters have been able to generate coherent written transcript in real time for at least two decades, I'm surprised they are having such difficulties generating captions or transcripts. This isn't exactly bleeding edge technology. Montanabw(talk)00:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
(Jimbo:)
As of course I do not worry that some content must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of civility offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances though content they may write —
Say all sort of naughty words, and who just may who knows be tight
But at peer review do dominate, though saying words like "twat"—
And get articles through FAC, and little things like that —
But in spite of all of this, to say “fuck” they do insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
(Chorus of WMF sycophants:)
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.
(Jimbo:)
And although I don't write content, and could sink without a trace,
At least this is the gist — Put Eric on the list!
He's of course a bit annoying, and can get some in your face,
He never would be missed — he never would be missed!
In my speech I've just applauded, with enthusiastic tone,
How the 'pedia is trusted, in every country, and my own;
Though it oddly has escaped me, to ask the question "Why,
Is it that they trust articles, and rate them rather high?";
It's that singular anomaly, the content specialist! —
Somehow he won't be missed — I'm sure he'd not be missed!
(Chorus:)
He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And I don't think he'll be missed — I'm sure he'll not be missed!
(Jimbo:)
To get articles deleted, like the one about my wife,
I try and do insist — I've got that on the list!
All funny fellows, content men, who have a little strife —
I've got them on the list — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And although I make a living with "God-King" speeches to the folk,
I won't let others earn a farthing, for unpaid must be the Volk.
Wikipedia is trusted, though sometimes when I feel blue —
I realise that others say, "It's not because of you!"
So I think it doesn't matter who you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — no one knows that they exist!
(Chorus:)
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — for none of them exist!
Jimbo Wales, following his closing speech to Wikimania 2014
Wales was actually even more dismissive than that in his speech. What he said while the slide was up was allegedly good content. So as he's drawing up battlelines he can hardly be surprised if others with a different viewpoint also decide to draw up their own battle lines. My initial alternative suggestion would be that WP could very easily do without Wales and the army of civility warriors hanging on his coat tails, so why doesn't he create a fork to a new CivilWikipedia? As for Brandon Harris, words fail me completely. EricCorbett16:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Whenever Jimbo starts spouting off about his knowledge of what it takes to write Wikipedia articles, this should never be forgotten. Looking in on Wikipedia from the semi-detached vantage point of the Island of Suppressive Persons, the more I come to believe that the only thing that can save Wikipedia now is Jimmy Wales being shown the door. It's increasingly coming to look like a religious cult in which any off-the-cuff remark of Jimbo's is treated as holy writ by some and as a declaration of war by others—this was always the case to some extent, but the shrinking and hyperspecialization of the user base has made the die-hard pros and antis for more powerful than they ever used to be. – iridescent 216:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that "allegedly". You know, Corbett, FAs on these fucking little esoteric topics, it ain't shit. I was looking for that speech by Brandon Harris (whom I don't know, although he seems to know a lot more about what I'm looking at--the interface--than I ever will) but couldn't find it on that "live" website: too complicated and too many colorful buttons for a text-oriented yokel like me. Sorry, like I. Iridescent, I am probably old-fashioned then. I have great respect for what Jimbo set in motion, but I don't take his word as gospel. I don't want him to be an admin, but I'm not going to vilify him either. If that talk page of his gets scrapped it would save everyone a lot of drama. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Brandon Harris video is here. I recommend frequently jabbing the right arrow button to skip forward. Summing up the content is beyond me—perhaps all we need is hope? The Lila Tretikov video has a clearer theme—"If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse" attributed to Henry Ford. I guess that quote means that all top-down edicts are golden, and workers who point out flaws need re-education. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been a while since Wikimania. I hope Eric won't mind me dropping a couple of observations here. I've been meaning for some time to follow up with some of the people I met there, but haven't found the time yet. It was great meeting some people in person that I'd known online for ages but never met. I had no idea that you (Eric) were there. It would have been good to meet you, but maybe another time. Anyway, to pick up on what Sitush said about sign-language interpreters, I don't think there were any, though if someone had asked they might have been provided. I know there were subtitles on the Wikipedia Zero film, as that meant I actually managed to understand what was being said (which was somewhat of relief). I did also manage to get close enough to the front at the talks I went to (even in the main auditorium) to lipread the speakers, but comparing Wikimania to the Worldcon event (Loncon 3 - the World Science Fiction Convention) held the following weekend was interesting (I went to that as well). I'm not sure where Wikimania rates in terms of accessibility, but at Worldcon, they have long had 'access' badges for people to wear, and generally do a very good job in making the event moderately accessible to those with a wide range of disability and impairments. Still not perfect though - perfection for me would be subtitles for all the films and real-time Google Glass-type subtitling (there was a fascinating BBC article about that somewhere that should be Google-able). The other thing was the size and the number of people from around the world coming together. Though Wikimania had around 2000 people attending (I think), the numbers at WorldCon were higher (around 8000 I think), but the same theme is there of people from around the world coming together. I was reminded of that (and of Iridescent's comments about religious cults) when I was passing by Twickenham Stadium today, where an annual religious convention was being held (Jehovah's Witnesses, I think). That was around 55,000 people from around the world, so I think Wikipedia/Wikimedia has a way to go yet to match that (though that might cue a debate about size versus influence on today's world...). Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiWand anyone?
I've just become aware of a new more modern interface for reading WP articles, WikiWand. Here is what our kelpie article looks like for instance. Why wouldn't anyone only interested in reading WP rather than editing it – the overwhelming majority of people – not prefer to use an interface like that? EricCorbett13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
... and if you do want to edit you can just click on the "edit" option from the main menu, which takes you straight to WP's wikitext editor. EricCorbett13:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that really is great actually. I've never seen that before. Let's just lobby the foundation to adopt it or something similar. I'm sure we wouldn't hit any snags. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate13:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Eric all your page stalkers will be stopping writing and looking at "their" articles on WikiWand, and very nice they look too. As you know I am completely bamboozled by anything technical so I think it is very clever of them to create something that looks more like a page in a book. (I do like books) Only thing I could object to at the minute is that the organisation gives money to Wikipedia, what a waste. It shows just what is possible without all the posturing. I usually don't like change, it's an age thing. Once I've learned how to do something I don't want to have to relearn because somebody's "improved" it, but I like this because I don't have to do anything and it's easy to look at. I'm quite enthusiastic today, but not about Wikipedia. J3Mrs (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did :) Suddenly I'm glad I like making sure the castle articles I work on have a half decent lead image as it becomes a nice looking backdrop. I mean look at this. I almost wouldn't care what the rest of the page says. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Taking a wild stab in the dark, but I wonder if it's because the lead image for Little Moreton Hall is more square than say the one for Althorp. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The dark gray with white text on the left I also think has the effect of making the text in the body stand out more and gives it a more spacious feeling.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the obvious enhancement of having the contents list always available. Why didn't Brandon think of that? EricCorbett21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Gropecunt and Peterloo have the big image but the image selection is strange and they're maps which don't look as good as images. Must be as Nev suggested to do with shape.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks really good doesn't it? The design makes the screen look much more airy and easier to read. The reader function on the safari browser is also worth check out. There really ought to be a "read" mode option for wikipedia I think rather like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the appearance and utiliy. Also welcome is the occasional comic addition (at least in Safari), e.g. at the head of the Creation Museum article, above the infobox, a photograph of Bill Maher captioned "Creation Museum". Writegeist (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Assuming Brandon Harris gets his way, in the near future, every Wikipedia page is going to look like this, which might be a good compromise between readability and editability. I think the world could happily do without the "snowflakes" nonsense, mind. 2.96.213.173 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly the developers seem to overlook aesthetics in favour of what they think is more user friendly, but what they don't seem to realise is that reader attention is grabbed much better with something bolder like that prominent image header with a white text and that graphics and layout play an important part in making reading more pleasurable. For some reason a lot of people on here seem to think whiter and blander/simple is better, hell I've even seen proposals for main page redesign as like google's search engine!♦ Dr. Blofeld21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It's very pretty, you can download a Chrome extension here. The trouble is, while browsing the normal Wikipedia my pages scroll up and down perfectly - but in Wikiwand, there's that slight lag when I roll the wheel. That kind of thing always irritates me and I end up turning everything off. Parrotof Doom21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you noticed the hover function too over the article links, with a nice summary and image and a read full article option. It's technically as close to perfection as I've seen for a design. Why can't the foundation hire somebody like whoever did that with a clear talent for design! It would completely change my perception of the website and reading on here to have something like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The WMF claim to have the interests of the reader at heart – they clearly couldn't give a toss about the interests of the editors anyway – but if they walked the talk they'd have developed something like WikiWand themselves, rather than yet another Brandon Harris fantasy. EricCorbett21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that and to be honest, it annoyed me. But I'm the kind of guy who prefers simple, utilitarian layouts. I can't stand it when little popups appear under my mouse, and annoyingly most websites seem to think I'm interested in every tiny aspect of every element on every webpage. Personally I quite like the current standard Wikipedia layout, I find it very easy on the eyes. The Wikiwand thing is very pretty though. Parrotof Doom23:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
When the hover function appeared several (but not all) of the user and page section links on my watchlist ceased to function. (E.g. this page.) Anyone else getting that? Disabling the hover makes no difference. Writegeist (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Article here about it. And read what the designer says about our current design here. "“It didn't make sense to us that the 5th most popular website in the world, used by half a billion people, has an interface that hasn't been updated in over a decade.” Exactly..♦ Dr. Blofeld22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting it was all done with $600,000. How many millions of dollars has the WMF wasted on VisualEditor, and the looming disaster of Flow? Or is still wasting on Brandon Harris's Winter interface? EricCorbett22:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Groan, read the comment by nihiltres at the bottom of the first link. Makes me wonder if he is actually Brandon himself. It's that sort of outlook which has held wikipedia back for so long!♦ Dr. Blofeld22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But he proudly tattoos everything that is important to him on his arm(s). Surely, he must therefore always be right? As with all those men who had their lifelong loves tattooed - "John <heart> Marge" etc. I'd trust him, honestly ... with not a lot. Sitush (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's a reply I got recently from WikiWand, but it's rather vague, and having tried out a few things with the lead image in Little Moreton Hall I don't believe it. Either that or their algorithms for image selection are faulty. EricCorbett19:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, all the usual suspects will now once again be clamouring for my expulsion given the free for all at the ArbCom pages. The problem with appealing anything here on WP is that you must first admit to having done something wrong, even if you don't accept that you have. Which is why I've never appealed against anything, and never will. The arbitrators by and large don't really care too much about the evidence, they only look at how many times an editor appears in the dock before them; once that number passes some arbitrary threshold it's pretty much an automatic ban. EricCorbett20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I pushed you into some sort of mess. Just seemed from the discussion there that it wasn't going to result in anything useful either way and the answer ought to be either "yes, so and so can run their talk page how they see fit" or "no, topic bans are immutable." Neither answer ought to require an admission of guilt ("ought to" always being a loaded phrase in both cases, unfortunately). Seemed like the path of least bikeshedding, as it were. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My experience with requests for clarification has not been an encouraging one, they're inclined to reopen old wounds. EricCorbett20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Dolebury Warren
Would you (or your talk page stalkers) be kind enough to take a look at Dolebury Warren. I'm hoping to get it to GA standard before long and have recently been accused (at another GA nom) of writing "choppy prose". Any edits appreciated. The pics will be improve soon when I upload some more as part of Septembers Wiki Loves Monuments UK competition.— Rodtalk09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you reckon Mendip Lodge itself is notable enough for an article? I don't know what's left of it now, there was one wall standing and a wine cellar back in the 1970s (and the usual story about a demented woman locked up in a room). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Eric, your edit here might just cause problems with our BNA deal. IIRC, we were asked to use a certain format so that metrics of some sort could be processed, and continuation of the deal depends on the metrics. Being an idiot when it comes to knowing how people generate statistics etc here, I'm not sure if that can still be done with your style. I'll @Sadads: for input. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd better change them at the Beach Thomas thing, then. I must admit to having doubts about using the publisher field but I had enough arguments going on without challenging that one also. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Using the "via" parameter should be okay as far as stats go (and speaking unofficially, that's the format I would prefer). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In general, whichever format is fine: most of our metrics are based on urls. We prefer the via = or similar attribution for the publishing database. The original citatation had that information in " |publisher = " because I had overlooked the guidelines. Either should suffice, but I think, for long term computer-friendliness the "via =" works better. Sadads (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
St John's Church, Manchester
St John's Church, Manchester has really come on amazingly well. At quick glance aside from the lead needing expansion and some minor prose work needed it is already well on its way to GA level in my opinion. Perhaps @Peter I. Vardy: and @Bencherlite: could also look at it, seems as they are our resident church experts, sorry Amanda :-) I'm highly impressed Sitush and J3Mrs, especially considering it was demolished so long ago and you found all that for it!♦ Dr. Blofeld18:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush:, there's a colour painting here. Can you trace the author/date? Probably uploadable. It would be good to get the two images abut a quarter the way down here but unlike US pre 1923 means nothing.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've always considered them to mean exactly the same think, a faux distinction similar to that between feck and fuck. So I can't really get too excited about the discussion on that talk page, as I don't think it matters a damn. EricCorbett16:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's been about 2 years since I retired and I decided to check out this place to see what's going on... looks like the same old (but with a different name)... quite comical. We could just about cut and past you page from 2 years ago here and nobody would notice (including the threats to leave or boycott WP.) Not making any judgments, just found it quite amusing... I needed it. The user formerly known as balloonman76.31.130.126 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you still have your sources for this article? I'm still working on User:Parrot of Doom/Baby farming. The poor laws and their reformation in 1834, particularly the Bastardy Clause, seem to be what started this practice, by making mothers of illegitimate children solely responsible for their care. Fathers could legally clear off and pay nothing. And all this because it was presumed that the level of state care was encouraging licentiousness (an argument that's relevant today).
No dusty old books, they all went back to the library yonks ago. But what I do have is a Kindle version of Peter Higginbotham's The Workhouse Encyclopedia. He's got quite a bit about that bastardy clause, so where would you like me to dump what I've got? EricCorbett21:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
