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.
Nice to find you again
Hi, glad to see you are still here. I sort of lost track of you after I thought you were off Wikipedia for good. Only found your new page here because I was reviewing the history of Last Exit on Brooklyn and noticed your edits from long ago. Did I ever thank you for them? Well, thank you in any case. I have no idea what your opinion might be on linking to Wikia articles, but there's a discussion at Talk:Last Exit on Brooklyn#External links regarding linking to a pretty robust and accurate article on Seattle Wikia. If you have an opinion, I'd like to hear it, even if it doesn't agree with mine. If not, no biggie. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) (formerly Yworo) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Question for all the stalkers
Has anyone here previously dealt with SMcCandlish? I'm about ready to throw in the towel at a rather obscure article titled Landrace. For one thing, would anyone here try to argue that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source? For another, would anyone here argue that the FAO is not an authoritative source on livestock animals? I think they are, but I could be in the wrong here, just wondering. Montanabw(talk)05:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
SMcC is one of the WP:MOS heavies from way back. The only person heavier was Noetica, whose retirement banner went up at the same time mine did. You might try posting the question at one of the MOS talk pages, or if it's strictly a MOS question, try Tony1--he's probably the top MOS person who's still left at this point. —Neotarf (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for 'splaining that to me Neotarf. That wasn't my question, but thanks for trying. I've only been here 8 years and have 40+GAs to my credit, some of which were reviewed by the illustrious Mr. Corbett. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My advice would be to not throw in the towel - that's how SMcC works, by wearing people with opposing views down via TLDR talk posts and reams of circular reasoning. If you're convinced you're right, keep going (and if you need some extra eyes try DRN). Black Kite (talk)07:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have come across SMcC before and my experience mirrors Neotarf and Black Kite (eg: Talk:Tommy (album)), and as Eric has suggested above, these sort of actions are far more toxic and poisonous to Wikipedia culture than telling somebody to fuck off. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have had an American argue with me over the use of British English and tell me that the OED "aims to be comprehensive rather than prescriptive" before now. [1]Richerman(talk)12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The OED is not so much a source as a compilation of sources that speaks for itself about the history of usage. SMcC's writing style used to be mentioned more than it is now; it has improved quite a bit, but he often comes across as being enthusiastic about a given topic. I can't figure out what the issue is though, can you explain what this has to do with Landrace? —Neotarf (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The few times I've seen SMcC in action have convinced me that he's one of the policy OWN types that are responsible for driving off more editors than Eric could ever manage even if he were inclined to do so. Intothatdarkness14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with the template move or it's discussion? I must be missing some subtext. If you just mean that wikiprojects have a tendency to act like independent, sovereign wiki-citystates, that want "their way" over Wikipedia's way, I would agree. (I say that a founder of several projects and a participant in dozens; we work with the tools we have, try to improve them, and try prevent their abuse, as in every aspect of life.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Neotarf: Our dispute is well documented on that article's talk page. Basically, it's me making some point of something, then being ignored and reverted, making the point more clearly and invoking WP:BRD, being ignored and reverted, formally disputing the reverts and reliably sourcing why and demanding proof from the opposing side, being ignored and reverted, etc., with Montanabw saying "tl;dr!" and refusing to address anything substantive. I'm wise to this WP:IDHT technique now - social-engineering the other party into re-explaining their position (i.e. adding more words) so one can later claim its just some text wall - so I'm henceforth going to pretty much verbatim repeat any unmet demands for sources and rationales until they're met, and just ignore the personalized, aspersion-casting handwaves, any time I get such handwaves in response to requests for evidence. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I keep an open mind, and open eyes. I've been trying to get past the personalities issues (it's not like I run to ANI all the time with complaints of being attacked), and just look at sources and policies. If people refuse to provide evidence and keep engaging in "vicious" "bullying" to turn someone's words back against them, I have no reason to entertain it and feed into the "fuck you!", "no fuck YOU!" cycle. The core policies trump that nonsense, and if people can't back up what they're trying to make articles tell our readers, then that's what we need to focus on. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: – Re: original post: That's an obvious and provable straw man. See my actual arguments (at Talk:Landrace#POV promotion of vague FAO and OED definitions, and with repeated demand for evidence from you at Talk:Landrace#"Controversy" novel synthesis removed): First, the OED, when it conflicts with multiple, reliable, peer-reviewed sources is trumped by them, especially on matters of biological science terminology, with the strong sources coming from that field. See WP:V and WP:RS. WP prefers secondary sources, not primary or tertiary ones. Dictionary are extremely simplified explanations for lay readers, far more so that WP itself is. Dictionaries are primarily useful as sources for usage history ("when did this term appear?") and etymology, and they frequently conflict with each other on both. Second, the FAO document in question is an internal glossary and guideline of how FAO approaches and defines landraces (a.k.a. landrace breeds) and standardized breeds, not a reliable source for how these terms are used generally. The FAO source says it is trying to ensure that landraces and formal breeds are conflated legally, so that genetic conservation measures are applied to them equally. A source that is intentionally blurring a distinction and says so cannot be used to prove there's no distinction. This has all already been explained to you at least four times, so you can't even claim "tl;dr" this time; I know you've see it at least once. You are blatantly mischaracterizing my position, and I'm having a hard time seeing how that could be happening in good faith. Perhaps you can explain why you're doing it? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
SMC, You have just proven here with your answer how toxic you truly are. I do not agree with your analysis, I've had it with your 'splaining everything, and it is an assessment, not an attack to state that you have a SERIOUS WP:IDHT problem. Your walls of text rarely contain anything new and I have already discovered several cases (too many to bother listing at the moment because I have a life) where the sources cited don't verify the material and where you add tons of SYNTH to the article that goes far beyond what the experts say. Your sourcing and analysis would never pass a GA or FA review, which is why I've come over here, where there are many experienced editors of excellent quality articles, to sort out what is content from what is personality. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, resorting to gender-based attacks now? Noted. Also noted: repeated claim of bad sourcing with no proof, exactly like those you're being asked to back up at Talk:Landrace. I'm not sure why you seem to think "You're lying!" "What's your evidence?" "I won't provide any. You're lying!" "Again, what's your evidence?" "I'm to busy to say, you asking for it is a text-wall. You're lying!" "Again, what's your evidence?" is going change any minds. I can think of other reasons you've come to a user talk page unconnected to me in any way, to engage in misrepresentation of me and my editing in personal aspersion-casting ways that "sort[ing] out what is content from what is personality". The very notion is at cross purposes with the action. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
'Splaining is used for any example of condescendingly explaining the obvious to people who know the topic better than the 'splainer. You also like t'splain to male editors, so like Eric's famous "c-gate" problem here, I meant it as a comment on behavior directed at both/all genders. As for the rest, again, you are basically taking everything I have asked of you or said to you and you are turning it around and saying that it is either what I have done or what you have asked of me. There is a word for this: ABUSE. You are abusive and toxic in your interactions with me. (And yes, I'm just waiting, you will say that I am abusing you within about 10 minutes of when you read this, I'm quite certain)
@Montanabw: Actually, I don't think I've ever claimed you were "abusing" me. I will note that you directly linked to Mansplaining, disproving your attempt to backpedal here. For the record, I had no idea what your gender was until recently, and assumed you were male due to your argumentation style. Since learning you're not, I've strongly shifted (out of an innate sense of chivalry, I guess) to a much more compromise and moderation-seeking approach, but it hasn't worked either. Basically, nothing short of total appeasement seems like it will result in anything but interminable opposition from you on virtually everything, even when we actually agree on the facts, and I'm really not sure what to do about that. Part of the problem here may be legal backgrounds (I'm not a lawyer, but [among other things] a professional policy analyst and legislative activist, and have worked with piles of lawyers since 1993.) This is generally a recipe for an adversarial approach, and it can be difficult for people with a litigatory temperament to set it aside sometimes. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, but I'm betting in the future, on another drama board you will be, because you generally take my arguments and anything else and then turn the same thinking to benefit you. And you can stuff your "innate sense of chivalry" because you don't have any and no, you have not shifted to a "more compromise and moderation-seeking approach" - you've just become equally demanding that I participate in compromise and DR. And yep, you clearly take anything anyone says about you and make it flip in your favor. Hmmm. When did I first tell you "nothing short of total appeasement seems like it will result in anything but interminable opposition from you on virtually everything," about your own edits? I'm also completely unimpressed with your claimed credentials; on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog, and frankly I'm amused that you have finally deigned to review my userboxes, because that's the only place I have ever mentioned that I have a law degree (and beyond my userboxes, the rest of my resume is, frankly, none of your damn business). Montanabw(talk)01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
From my perspective, you're doing exactly the same thing. I think any independent observer would surmise that half of our conflict is due to just being stubborn, critical people with similar debate styles and a tendency to prevail with them. I find this is often the case with protracted conflicts over fairly small matters (vs. WP:GREATWRONGS like all the Armenian/Azerbaijani/Turk/Kurd hatewars thrashing their way across a zillion articles; those are a different kind of issue entirely, more of a "Die, you and all your people!", "Not if we exterminate you first!" problem). Argumentative-editor "spats" as you call them are more often about approach, and just leaving them alone for a while tends to heal them. I never asked you anything personal, and I'm not claiming any credentials. I generally ignore people's user pages, both because they're unverifiable and because we're supposed to address edits not editors, content not personalities. But sometimes I'll go look, when an issue doesn't seem to want to go away, and see if something stated there indicates anything about what the nature of the issue might be. Not sure why you're assuming bad (or weird, or whatever) faith about any of that. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not discussing you anywhere, but your question would perhaps be better addressed to the ever so honourable and morally ambitious Jimbo Wales, who is discussing me on his own talk page, from which he has banned me. EricCorbett15:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you're not; just wondering why I'm being gossiped about in a canvassing and attacking kind of way, here. I'm unaware of your history with Jimbo. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Montanabw understood your point of view, but just wanted to a third opinion to try and get a consensus out of it. It's generally nice to get a different angle on things. I can only assume she assumed Eric or a qualified talk page stalker would be somebody who could do it. Incidentally, I've got my own dictionary problem on Faversham, where I've "cheated" and used Wiktionary's definition for the Latin Faber (where the town's name comes from), though I think I can get away with it under the pretext of a simple English translation not being "material challenged or likely to be challenged". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: While I agree in theory, this does not appear to be to have anything at all to do with the process outlined at WP:THIRDOPINION#How to list a dispute. Montanabw didn't ask Eric, she asked his talk page watchers. It's not lost on me (after looking into disputes about Eric) that he's criticized sometimes for things similar to those leveled at me, often by many of the same people, who watch this page. I also note that Montanabw has previously gone to WT:BIRDS to direct that entire project, many of whom are unhappy with me, to a WP:AN case involving me which had nothing to do with birds, and just today (or maybe yesterday), approached a WP:BIRDS-participant admin, no fan of mine, on his talk page about the Landrace dispute, and made a point of ensuring he knew I was involved. I think I can be pardoned for noting an escalating hostility pattern across more and more pages and a distinct lack of neutrality in these approaches.
Faversham: I think it's likely someone would eventually challenge that, but dicdefs are easy to find via Dictionary.com, etc. I wish Wiktionary regularly cited sources rather than just appearances of usage. It would be 10x more useful. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Ritchie pretty much got it in one. This page has a lot of good editors watching it, and they are uninvolved. I basically "get" where SMC is coming from (even if I refuse to do more than skim his walls of text and have repeatedly noted they are "tl;dr") and I disagree with his views, but cannot seem to get any of my points across and he refuses to compromise with me. I figured that this is the place where people can tell the difference between intense debate and being all the evil things SMC accuses me of being. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Except I have a huge pile of diffs showing me attempting to compromise with you. Noting "evil", that's a good one. You may want to reconsider this idea. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for starters, the link in SMcC's first diff is not to the OED but to an online dictionary site. See here for clarification. The OED does not provide definitions; it shows the earliest documented usage of the word and can be useful in tracking changes in usage with time. If you have never seen it I would recommend going to a library that is large enough to carry a dead-tree version of the multi-volume set and leaf through a couple of the volumes. If you want access to the online version you will have to pay an impossibly steep fee, try your local library, many of them carry a subscription. @Montana, have no fear of SMcC's bona-fides. There are many fruits, nuts, and flakes attracted to that subject area, but SMcC is not one of them. If you can wade through his densely written prose, that has sometimes been known to encompass the entire editing history of a topic in just one post, you will find actual issues that may lead you in fruitful directions of research.
@Ritchie333, you may find this website of interest. Personally I would avoid making definitive statements about placenames unless you have a reliable source--better to say it "may" be related than to claim information to be certain when the true facts are lost in the mists of time. Folk etymologies are common, and inaccurate. —Neotarf (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have the CR-ROM edition of OED proper, vs. it's concise website, now't I think of it, and I live 5 blocks from a city library, too. Just been too busy with work to go on a sit-down-in-the-reference-room sourcing run. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for 'splaining that to all of us, Neotarf. I happen to have no interest in doing SMC's work for him; and I do know how to conduct research, how to formulate a cogent argument and so on. But I have never run into someone like this who basically bullies people with reams of incomprehensible gibberish until they all just give up and go away. My understanding is that SMC was the individual almost singlehandedly responsible for "Birdcon", which, indeed, ran off far more editors than Corbett ever has. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
How can one editor be "singlehandedly responsible" for a discussion with many editors, opened by someone else, in response to an RM that said editor didn't even participate in, and closed with a result, on the facts, sources and policy bases, that the closer didn't even prefer? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct there. It is ironic that when the usual suspects complain that Eric's occasional incivility drives off editors (with no evidence of these mythical people, of course), they don't bring up stuff like this, whereby SMcC and his cronies managed to convert all of Wikipedia's bird articles to titles that anyone who knows anything about the subject knows is wrong, and drive off a number of excellent editors while they were at it. Still, if that's what they enjoy doing ... I won't say what I think about them. Black Kite (talk)19:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that SMcC has driven anyone off, even with his superpowers, although it's true enough that the Bird Capitalization zealots always seem to show up when he's around. The bird RFC was definitive enough, in spite of the off-site canvassing, which was linked to during the RFC. It's unusual to see so much agreement about anything here--at this point the bird people should probably just leave it alone. —Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There were, and are, a number of regular editors that haven't edited - or have edited much less - since. And frankly, it doesn't really matter how many of SMcC and his jackbooted MOS zealots there were - they were still wrong, as anyone who actually knows anything about the subject could tell you. Let's face it, telling a Wikiproject that they don't actually know how to define articles in their own specialist subject is pretty fucking special. Black Kite (talk)20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: editors blaming me: Nearly every editor leaving for a while (or less often finding something else to do long-term) because they didn't get their way in a dispute, departs with a histrionic "I quit because of [insert alleged asshole's username here]" rant. Trying to chase off one editor because another editor says they were chased off by the former would rapidly result in no editors. I took a recent fairly extended wikibreak, directly because I felt badgered by Montanabw at Landrace (back in July, I think; time flies, little changes). See what I did there? I own my own emotions; I didn't take a break "because Montanabw badgered me off Wikipedia". Natureguy1980 and Sabine's Sunbird, who make the latter sort of claim about me, are both not taking responsibility for their own participation in disputes they actually renewed (I hadn't spoken up about bird capitalization in any notable way in over a year); meanwhile, both have returned repeatedly (usually as IP anons) not to do anything constructive, but just to more fights with me. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was not about "defining articles", it was about style conventions. Imagine every two-bit, podunk WikiProject with its own MOS, its own standards for commas and hyphens, or British versus American English (don't laugh, WikiVoyage does that), warring with the Wikproject next door over who has domain over what. Isn't one MOS enough? Be careful what you wish for. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled at the assertion that [t]he OED does not provide definitions. Is there some subtlety I'm missing? My copy is in my office, and I am not, but I'll look up to see if I've misremembered.
I accept that a technical dictionary may be a better source for a technical word; I'd take Blacks over the OED is we are discussing a legal term, but that doesn't mean the OED meaning should be discarded, as it may well be the better known meaning so it may well be part of an important discussion.
The statement [d]ictionaries are primarily useful as sources for usage history is curious, my bet would have been on sources of meaning. Is this not true? Plus, many dictionaries do not have usage histories. The fame of the OED rests on it comprehensive, roughly once per century usage history.
As Eric notes, it isn't very interesting to state that the OED is descriptive rather than prescriptive. How many dictionaries are prescriptive? Fowlers, of course, but one might even question whether that should be called a dictionary as opposed to a style guide.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you beat me to it - of course the OED provides definitions. I have my two volume copy of the Shorter OED in front of me and it gives the present day definition(s), the pronunciation and origin of the word and how it has developed over time, where applicable. Richerman(talk)18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Try going to http://www.oed.com/ and typing "landrace"; it just gave me one short entry, which was all about Danish pigs plus the option to look at draft entries definition, which was about "land races" of other species, before directing me to the sign-in page. Looks like it will only give one freebee, so if you can get that far, do a copy-paste, or screenshot, before leaving the page. —Neotarf (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC) This is a more typical dictionary definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landrace which would have lists of definitions rather than lists of quotations from sources as examples of the various types of usage, as OED or SOED would have. —Neotarf (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf, you mean well, but we are so far past that point over there. The problem is that SMC is doing this and this. By this standard, yes, all the snark Eric has ever unleashed in his entire on-wiki career makes him a lightweight. Montanabw(talk)19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's just terrible of me to demand that you back up your views with sources, and point out where you're refusing to do so. I forgot that WP is a social networking site, not an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Under Draft additions February 2005 it says "gen. A locally developed breed of livestock or variety of a cereal or other crop plant". plus a number of quotations. Richerman(talk)19:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone for your assessment of the issue. And I appreciate Eric's patience while I hijack his talk page. I have replied to a few comments above. I realize few people here are familiar with agriculture topics, but one does not have to be in order to assess the situation in terms of behavior. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So, Montana you come here asking for someone "who has previously dealt with SMcCandlish" but when I offer the benefit of my experience, I am suddenly "splaining"? If what you are really looking for is someone to kick his butt, look elsewhere. Addressing the issues he has raised would be an intellectual challenge, but if you could rise to it, in the spirit of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY the project would profit both from his expertise in style issues and yours in equestrian matters. —Neotarf (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)::
An expert is often someone who knows more and more about less and less. In the case of SMcC, the value of their expertise appears often to diminish disproportionately. MOS is a guideline with a ton of provisos, not a policy. There are times when pedants are a net loss. - 94.14.194.117 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a single, tiny item of discussion at Talk:Landrace has to do with WP:MOS. You're conflating your disagreement with me on one topic, for someone else's disagreement with me on another. Cf. fallacy ad hominem. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I've never claimed "expertise" about MOS. That's like saying you're an "expert" at Candy Crush Saga, or an "expert" and buying snacks. It's just a document on a website. The word doesn't really apply. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't raise a MOS question here, I raised if OED and FAO would be reliable sources. Someone else raised MOS, but you don't follow it, eitherMontanabw(talk)01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't talking to you; I was clearly addressing 94.14.194.117. Who's not following, again? Check your assumptions. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And, Neotarf, can you really be any more condescending? on other pages, I originally started out trying to engage with SMC on the issues only to be told basically, that the only "right" answer was to agree with him and to endure his WP:BAITing behavior. He is not being an intellectual, he's a bully who uses walls of text to attempt to impress others, and no, I am not impressed, so then he attacks. Further, I have already provided SMC multiple sources on various things across several different articles only to either be accused of misusing them or, as here with the OED, having them pooh-poohed. No, Neotarf, I am not impressed with the hollow intellectualism of SMC. Montanabw(talk)01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Meh. Not going to respond to this stuff. I like your "tired of arguing" post on my talk page; everything raised in it is completely mutual. Sounds like a reason to mutually back off. (Note that I'm crediting you here, not faulting you.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(a usual page stalker who missed a lot and is unwilling to spend the time reading all this): I am a restricted woman, restricted to no more than two comments in a given discussion, and I can tell you: that is a blessing! It should be passed more generously ;) - Did you know an answer to gender questions, found on the Main page: Mucho Macho Man? (see also) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to get ahead, make sure your shoulders are as broad as your bottom? Successful males get more sex in retirement? If you ain't in front at the eighth pole, give up?Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Clio. In Greek mythology, Clio is the muse of history, Clio, sometimes referred to as "the Proclaimer", is often represented with an open scroll of parchment scroll or a set of tablets.
All of the Muses were considered to be the best practitioners of their fields, and any mortal challenging them in their sphere was destined to be defeated. The most common number of the Muses is 9, but the number is not always consistent in earlier mythologies.
They were often associated with Apollo. The name is etymologically derived from the Greek root κλέω/κλείω (meaning "to recount," "to make famous or "to celebrate
'Clio' represents history in some coined words: cliometrics and cliodynamics.
CliodynamicS: Many historical processes are dynamic (a dynamic process is one that changes with time). Populations increase and decline, economies expand and contract, while states grow and collapse. A very common approach, which has proved its worth in innumerable applications (particularly, but not exclusively, in the natural sciences), consists of taking a holistic phenomenon and mentally splitting it up into separate parts that are assumed to interact with each other. This is the dynamical systems approach, because the whole phenomenon is represented as a system consisting of several interacting elements (or subsystems). In the dynamical systems approach, one must describe mathematically how different subsystems interact with each other. This mathematical description is the model of the system, and one can use a variety of methods to study the dynamics predicted by the model, as well as attempt to test the model by comparing its predictions with the observed dynamics. This is the approach that the cliodynamics suggests to apply to the study of historical dynamics.
IMHO, that one is a WP:STICK problem. I suspect if there is minimal attention paid and (if I may mix my metaphors) no further pouring of fat on the fire, that pot will eventually simmer down. Montanabw(talk)19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting survey of the quality of WP's history articles
Thanks to Ritchie333 for digging this up. It includes an analysis of two FAs that I did significant work on, Peterloo Massacre and Donner party, both of which I remember as being hard work but a lot of fun. It must all be a mirage though, because according to our god king I'm congenitally incapable of collaborating with anyone on anything. He on the other hand is simply congenitally incapable. EricCorbett15:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting assignment. Interesting to see what the students think of our efforts (though it's very American-centric too, but oh well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Er ... not quite, took quite a bit of blood sweat and tears. It's an article on an obscure unimportant subject anyway, so completely without value. I must say though I can hardly believe what J3Mrs has put together in such short order. I'm mightily impressed! EricCorbett15:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice going J3mrs! At this rate it'll be a GA soon like the cathedral! We've got a new road article out of it too in Great Ancoats Street. That's collaboration and what wikipedia is all about. Amazed that there's still a lot of notable missing articles in the inner Manchester area. ♦ Dr. Blofeld20:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I spotted the request to do Ancoats Hall and did two sentences (the basic location and the demolition in 1827), and then got called a way, and when I came back, I thought, "aah, I'll do it tomorrow, maybe". No, J3mrs gets on with it and writing articles which is what we should all do really! Well done. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
What fun! I certainly won't be taking any part in that, the case ought never to have been accepted. Any bets on how long it'll be before it becomes another civility crucifixion? EricCorbett15:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What is interesting is that both you and CMDC agree on the point that it never should have been accepted. I agree, but I also have seem the disasterous boomerang that occurred during the infobox wars (wherein ArbCom blamed the whole thing on two people and nothing has changed other than some other good editors retiring or semi-retiring). So I am going to keep an eye on matters there. Montanabw(talk)19:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what it's supposed to be about. I think the best response would be silence, from everybody. What would Arbcom do then? J3Mrs (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Silence is a good response, the least waste of time. My experience: they don't look at facts, but the fact of former sanctions. Easy. If you defend someone who has been banned before (and now even twice), you need to be sanctioned also. Easy. I came to love my restriction ;) - Remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm up for another shitstorm to take my mind of the clusterf--K at the landrace article and the animal breed naming wars in general (See WP Agriculture if anyone cares...) I'm not going to say much until people start to post evidence, though I am with a small group inquiring as to the scope of the thing, given that even CMDC didn't want it opened. If it becomes a Corbett pile-on, I'll have something to say. In the meantime, popcorn... Montanabw(talk)05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, having accused me of chasing off thousands of editors, is asked by Giano to name a few of them [2] so that he can investigate the truth of the claim. In response DeCausa cites RickK, an admin who resigned from the project two years before I made my first edit and was subsequently desysopped for sockpuppetry. Jimbo himself of course, as is his wont when faced with an awkward question, has made himself scarce without replying. EricCorbett10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I unwatched the JW page, and perhaps you should do the same. You didn't chase me off, quite the contrary, there was a time when I stayed because of you (and a few other opponents). Use this statement by a woman if needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What I find ironic about Jimbo's ranting is that the WMF has probably already chased away more editors than any single editor could reasonably be expected to do, and has publicly stated that it's quite prepared to chase off many more in the course of its software "improvements". EricCorbett10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a theory that Jimbo doesn't really exist, but is a multi-shared joint account or committee, and every so often its members forget who they are logged in as, and that's why his age is so often a centre for bizarre opinion. Somewhat amusingly, it's now suggested that the thread, asking for names, be hatted because it's uncivil to Eric himself. If I didn't no better I may think that there were some double standards on that page. Whatever! I none the wiser about the vast army of unemancipated women, pre-school children and general upstanding Christians, Jews, Muslims and sensitive Americans who have been driven away by Eric. All I wanted was a couple of names, just to see if he had truly driven someone off. You see I've often been accused of the same thing, yet my detractors and antagonists seem to be like the poor and needy - always with us. Giano(talk)13:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
They've come up with two names so far, neither of which were driven off by me and one of whom had retired two years before I made my first edit. Gerda on the other hand has drawn attention to something that Jimbo is blind to, one of many things, which is the number of editors I've encouraged not to leave. Perhaps my real crime is in encouraging and helping other editors, as that delays the WMF's clear target of driving all editors away? EricCorbett13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo won't reply, I expect he's been hoping one of his acolytes could come up with the goods but as there's no evidence for his mantra that Eric drives editors away, he hasn't achieved the expected pile on. It's a divisive, disruptive, rabble-rousing diversion from what really is wrong with the encyclopedia, but delivered in a spirit of kindness and cheerfulness. J3Mrs (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't be so be uncivil an dismissive of Jimbo. I'm convinced that we will soon receive an answer that is both loving and compassionate. Giano(talk)18:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean those such as the egregious Milowent? Dragging up a vote from a six-year-old RfA to justify his hatred? Does WP have no statute of limitations? No wonder so many editors simply abandon their accounts and start again. EricCorbett19:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo's like speaking to a brick wall at times Giano, unlikely to a get a decent response, only the brick wall is more enthusiastic towards content and content contributors and has a better idea of how to build an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's OK, Dr B; I've done there now. After three full real life days (that's a century in Wikiwonderland) I have all the proof I need. The occupying rabble and royal attendants, but curiously not the silent Jimbo himself, have produced one editor who left two years before Eric arrived, and another editor who claims to have left in disgust, but still seems to be fearlessly posting here. I've drawn my conclusion; it would be presumptuous of me to tell others what conclusions to draw - I'm sure you are all quite intelligent enough to work out your own thoughts on this. Giano(talk)17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking the silence is the alleged sole founder's way to convey love, kindness, thoughtfulness and moral ambitiousness etc. Or he's communicating by hand gestures, like a Trappist. In which case I hereby reply with one of my own. Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You should, it's fantastic. Whenever I see the bland toothpasty groupthink of a certain demographic here, it makes me think of the film's ironic theme song "Everything Is Awesome". And these horrible attacks by the co-founder which it seems he isn't able or willing to provide evidence for, on one of our most prolific and productive writers, make him look a bit like President Business in the film. Let's hope the happy ending of the movie is emulated in real life, though I am not holding my breath. Have you seen it, Eric? --John (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's really an excellent film, one of the best children's films I've ever seen. Do you have any nephews or nieces you could watch it with? If you need an excuse to watch a children's film...--John (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ach Parrot (as we never say in Sicily), had you persisted, you would have received the same very comprehensive answer as me. No one can ever say that Jimbo's not garrulous, verbose and ever ready to step up to the mark. Giano(talk)20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There you are all gone - it never happened. Now that we can all see that Jimbo is all mouth and no trousers (or whatever the idiom is), lets' hope he will now stop making these ridiculous attacks on you and that you you won't be stalked and bated quite so much, and that others who repeat these false claime will realsie that they will have no back-uo from on high, if you decide to officially pursue for their allegations. Giano(talk)14:49, 5 October 2014 (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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
What a great article! A few years ago I found a woman's shoe concealed under the hearth footings of my 1880 house in northern England, and I didn't realise it was such a widespread thing. I put the shoe back in when I rebuilt it and put in a concrete floor, to respect whoever put it there in the first place. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a great little article! Eric, I saw your message regarding withdrawals every Monday, so if you'd like I'll complete the review tomorrow. Regards ☠Jaguar☠19:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you open to helping a fairly new editor navigate the GA process?
An editor going by the name of EastDimeBoxFrank is considering trying to take an article he's interested in through the GA process. He's been working on a couple different ones, so I'm not sure which he intends to try with, but if you're interested, he's a very teachable editor. LHMask me a question01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
With three recent AN/I reports against me, an open ArbCom case and abuse from Jimbo Wales I'm afraid that I'm not in the frame of mind to help anyone with anything. EricCorbett02:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's fascinating to me that there is little or no recognition on the damage the "behavioral dispute resolution venues" (which draw mud-throwers like night lights draw bugs) cause to motivation of content creators. On the potentiality for motivational drain. The mantra "behind keyboards are people" is tossed and the thought of labelling those threads "disruption" would be laughed at by the common wisdom here, yet what could be more disruptive than draining a prolific content creator cold (a person not a machine). Or when a Sitush reaches his limit and has emotional blowout and walks because the thought of contributing further is no longer digestible. This subject seems incapable of being discussed, so as result no conclusions can be drawn and nothing is learned. (Not excluding Editor Retention project, which is typically mum on anything seriously wrong, and hasn't much care or clue, as usual.) So the WP rinses & repeats! (Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What did you expect from a "libertarian paradise"? Humanity? You know what libertarians are doing right this moment in Silicon Valley? They are working on replacing everybody with machines. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That is something that I have been pondering on, even though I have largely been silent for quite a while because I can't often do much now when I am in China. A previous incident involving Eric was one reason I withdrew a few years ago, in protest, before deciding to return, and it is why I have been silent more recently. To summarize: some people go on and on about how many editors Eric and some others drive away by their so-called incivility, but I wonder how much the constant AN/I reports and the unequal treatment of those who bait and then cry foul also drives people away. Giano has discovered that not many can be found who have been driven away by incivility as defined by those who oppose Eric, but how about the number of those who have been silenced by the disruption caused by people who seem to do little other than become highly overly sensitive, specific, focused, and biased "civility police"? There could be disquiet if this was followed up, but what is sauce for the goose, must be sauce for the gander. However, given the inconsistencies and uneven handedness of the situation now, I wouldn't see much coming out of such an investigation. DDStretch (talk)09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame it's come to this. Eric, I'm sure the more people you helped out with GAs, the more people would get on your side, and the more likely that Arbcom cases would be thrown out. But as we all know, the workforce is voluntary and poking people with a stick to do stuff never works well. I'm particularly annoyed right now that Gender inequality in the United States has been awaiting a GA review for six months, and if one of the GGTF crew (who ought to have the right experience to check the "accurate and verifiable" and "broad in coverage" criteria) doesn't jump on it soon, I will. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The GGTF is all huff and puff, hot air. I've already helped literally hundreds of editors with GAs and FAs, and where has it got me? Being named public enemy number one, that's where. EricCorbett12:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Sitush, I stumbled on something yesterday (which I can't find now) where a user, who has now been user blocked, said that Sitush was an administrator and friend of Jimmy Wales who distributed child porn. It's not surprising he got fed up and left. Richerman(talk)12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Commenting here rather than the talk page so as not to derail the GAN:
"Although deposits have been found throughout the United States they are concentrated in New England, first colonised by immigrants from the East Anglia region of England." What significance does East Anglia have here? There's no mention anywhere else in the article of East Anglia being a hotbed of shoe-hiding, and the English who emigrated to New England had a famously dim view of anything with the slightest hint of witchcraft. East Anglians made up around half the colonists to New England in later years, but never formed a significant majority, and East Anglia certainly doesn't have a uniform culture—even in today's world of high-speed travel and mass communication, Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk have about as much shared cultural identity as Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow-in-Furness.
"First colonised by immigrants from East Anglia" is also pushing it a bit—the first English colonists in New England are probably the best-documented colonisers in history, and had no connection to East Anglia.
"An analysis of the Concealed Shoe Index maintained by Northampton Museum, conducted by June Swann and published in 1996…"—is this an analysis of their entire records, or only those in England? I suspect the latter, as the mention of "country houses, workhouses, and public houses" are all British Isles-specific concepts.
I know it may be impossible to source, but is there any record of what the Church had to say about the practice? If this really was a fertility rite or a mechanism to ward off ghosts, the religious authorities can't have been overjoyed at the mass practice of a pagan ritual. ("I don't have faith in our Lord to protect me, so instead I'll use this magic boot.") If you want a piece of WP:OR, this was the golden age of Biblical literalism and I wouldn't be surprised if the custom originated from a strict interpretation of Ruth 4:7 regarding the use of shoes as a token of property ownership. – iridescent09:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Northamptonshire is the home of English shoemaking and that's close to East Anglia (not sure what areas the industry extended to), so does that have anything to do with it? Neatsfoot (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: The source actually says the "northeastern United States" was first colonised by immigrants from East Anglia, not New England. What East Anglia and New England have in common though is that they both experienced intense periods of witch panics, which I've added a note to explain. As for the Church's attitude to concealed shoes, the most likely explanation is that with the sanctification of John Schorne it was attempting to convert an old folk belief into a Christian rite. Swann must have been using the entire index, as there's mention of a Benedictine monastery in Germany. EricCorbett18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thought I would drop in here rather than make a new section, hope all is well, I added link to Europe because Wales is in Europe though I suppose to most it will need to be added to Britain as the wider world would think Wales part of Britain first. Well done on GA. Edmund Patrick – confer05:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Some more allegedly good content Eric, what are you thinking about? I can't really understand why that one took two nominations. Ancoats Hall made the main page dyk!?! I didn't nominate it, I didn't even know about it and the hook was wrong!?! Whoever nominated it didn't appear to have read it. Your article is so much better. J3Mrs (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on the GA! Can somebody expand Albion Mills? Not sure on exact location and whether its now an office or residential building. One source says southeastern corner of Blackfriars Bridge but looking on google maps today Ancoats street doesn't run as far as that. The commons have images of an Albion Mills but they're much further southeast near Stockport. Would be good if somebody could locate it/correct if necessary and find more.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The only Albion Mill in Manchester recorded by Williams and Farnie, in their definitive study "Cotton Mills in Greater Manchester", was indeed in the vicinity of Blackfriars Bridge and the Rochdale Canal but I think the one Dr. Blofeld is referring to was at Bankside in London. J3Mrs (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that was my concern, it is complicated the fact that there's also a mill of that name a bit further southeast!! Feel free to alter it or split into a different article. The Joah Bates article mentions he funded the Albion Mills. More likely to be London than Manchester isn't it? There were probably at least half a dozen mills of the same name dotted about which makes it tough to know which one is what. I think the article is mostly referring to the London one.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I've deciphered which one is which, but this I'm really not sure if it was Blackfriars Bridge in London or Manchester which will decide which building Watt contributed to. Can anybody here figure it out? It would seem the Blackfriars is the London one, see this.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
How strange! I've been told repeatedly that there's nothing left to write about, the project is all but complete, just needs a few admins and vandal hunters to guard its contents. EricCorbett17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boobrie 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 Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyedit
Eric, long time no see. Hope you're fine. I'd like to ask you a favor, if you don't mind. Could you take a look at Juan Manuel de Rosas and improve the quality of the text? You're good at that. I thought it would be a good idea. If you can't, I'll understand. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Huge thanks for helping improve Bonshō to FA status, for the comments and for the many helpful tweaks - couldn't have done it without you. Yunshui雲水09:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes. Just one small thing, I always though HM was The Queen, with both the T and Q uppercase or is that showing a sign of how long ago I learnt my English? Giano(talk)13:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one. Spokane, Washington is at FAC (nice to see some core-ish geography articles). I find that once I read through and copyedit a few times I start to miss things as well (so something to be said for buffing as much as possible before FAC...) Anyway, would be intrigued to see what other folks find that I've missed (a bit of self-analysis to check blind spots). cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Something's wrong with the crime table- it seems from the FBI report that there were 13 murders in Spokane in 2012- this is shown as 13 murders per 100,000 population in the table. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I did learn (after looking it up) that "Werd [sic] word" is the proper format for inserting a sic in a quote, not after the quote. Then real life got in the way and I haven't looked at the rest. Dennis2¢16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors vs. the WMF
I saw a posting on another site earlier today which for me perfectly sums up the relationship between the WMF and WP's editors. Quite simply, our priorities are completely different. To justify its ballooning bureaucracy and developer fiefdoms it needs to produce software that readers want to use, not too bothered about editors, as the VE/MV/Flow debacles demonstrate. But they're faced with an increasing number of sites such as Wikiwand that format WP's content in a far more attractive way, so they're in grave danger of becoming irrelevant as a software organisation. Which is what they mainly see themselves as these days despite their appalling incompetence.
I understand that the WMF's salaries are at stake, but does any editor really care whether their article is viewed via WP or some other front end? I certainly don't. EricCorbett20:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, a big divide as I was saying recently on Jimbo's talk page. I feel completely alienated from the main foundation. The foundation really need to show more support to the core editors as they're the future of the website, not Jimbo. If they don't start listening to the ideas and suggestions of editors at some point more attractive projects are going to come along which use current content and find ways to outdo us and lure in more people. Perhaps then they'll wake up and realise how much they're stalling growth.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
There's also the issue of the misleading fund-raising banners of course. The truth of the WMF's budget is that it's spent largely on paying the salaries of a bunch of incompetents, very little to do with Wikipedia. EricCorbett21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what salary any of them are on, I'd imagine they are certainly overpaid for what they actually do, but I do find it incredible that nothing of over 20 million dollars goes back into actual content production. They've completely got their priorities wrong. A sizable percentage of the money should be going into the actual promotion of content and bringing in the experts and people we need to make it many times better as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I find it helpful in dealing with people to try to put oneself in their place and view the world as they do. Organizations like WMF run on quantifiable metrics that can be shown to donors and other constituencies. Number of readers and number of editors are examples of such metrics. "Article quality" is squishy and non-quantifiable. So none of what we have seen comes as a surprise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
But article quality is quantifiable--it just takes more work than writing code to quantify page views and working to solicit donors. It requires bringing actual recognized experts in various fields into the equation, to measure the quality of articles in a given area. It requires giving those experts broad latitude in organizing the content in their field, and paying them well to do so. But that doesn't happen, because it would require that WMF let go of some middle- and upper-management types that currently suck up the money donated to the project. LHMask me a question18:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
At the heart of Wikipedia, we are a giant database, stuffed by contributions by you, me, Doc Blofeld and thousands more like us. The reason we do it is for the readers. There is no reason why we can't have multiple ways of viewing and editing: it all gets stuffed into the same tables. There is no excuse for shoving software down our throats if they can give us a choice. As an example: I keep a virtual machine on my computer because I want to use software from the 90s. It isn't that can't learn new software, or can't afford it, it is simply because I already know it and my concern is on the end product, not the prettiness of the interface, and "old ways" tend to be more stripped and faster and I only care about the fastest way to get a good end product. The same holds true here. I don't want WYSIWYG. Offer it for others, that's grand, but don't force it on me. And you are correct that the Foundation is NOT a great software company. What made Wikipedia so revolutionary wasn't the software, it was a kludge of fixes from the start. It was the very idea that you could crowd source an encyclopedia, it was the IDEA that was revolutionary, not the software. What makes Wikipedia remarkable isn't what we can do for a dollar, it is what we can do for free. Dennis2¢22:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, WYSIWYG doesn't work for this sort of thing. You have to be able to tweak (and avoid mangling) very detailed bits of code. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If the Foundation gets involved in how the community is run, do we get to vote on which brand of servers they use? I had previously thought these things were exclusive domains, but I guess I was wrong. Dennis2¢21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me"
Jimbo Wales' latest stupidity today actually made me laugh:
That Eric Corbett is still allowed to edit Wikipedia is a clear governance failure.
The clear "governance failure" is that Wales hasn't been shown the door, given his mad fantasies that he never delivers on and his conveniently poor memory. If the great leader makes one more disparaging comment about me on his talk page, from which I am banned, then I will be taking his sorry arse to AN/I. EricCorbett19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, you may have heard a scrambled version of the time he blocked me and I took him to RFAR over it. Long time ago (2009), but he was out of touch with community norms even then. He's worse now. BTW, he has been warned by John against "repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked". John described it as "definitely worthy of a block". [4]Bishonen | talk19:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC).
Ah, yes. I was conflating the two: his block of you with the later Arbcom regarding him. What does he really contribute to improving the project at this point? LHMask me a question19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There's so much dishonesty here it was hardly a surprise. But if Jimbo continues in the same vein on his talk page I'll take him to AN/I as many times as it takes for him to lose all his precious founder bits. EricCorbett20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, he has given you "permission" now to post on his talk (not that you'd want to). Apparently, initiating an ANI discussion resets the rule of being banned from a user's talk page. Cassiantotalk21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand Wikipedia any more. I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia, but obviously I was wrong. WP exists simply to remind me every day, again and again, of what a shit I am. EricCorbett21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Network, no. Regular cable, no. "Premium" cable (HBO, Showtime, etc.) yes. It was a big deal the first time they said "shit" on network TV, and not something you see often or early. South Park had a special episode celebrating it (parodying it), where they said shit 100 times or so, including a counter. It is shown late at night, and in every episode before and after, they bleep the word: Only that episode went unbleeped. Some TV shows have made reference to the word. In an episode of Family Guy, Quagmire had an RV with something like "Cross country tour" on it, and Peter asked "Isn't "country" supposed to have an O in it?", and Quagmire said "nope" (or something to that effect). That is pushing it as far as it can be pushed on network TV. There have been some slip ups with the word (I won't labor them here), but it is considered even worse than a nip slip, which the media would have you believe, most Americans lose their mind over. It is about the biggest trigger word short of the "N" word. A product of my upbringing, it is a word that I personally find distasteful and even disturbing to hear used against anyone, as in the US it is often used as a weapon particularly against women, not an off the cuff remark. I don't force this view onto others as I understand not everyone uses words the same way. While I wouldn't ever recommend banning or getting trigger happy with the block button over it, I would honestly prefer some other word be used. It really is a big deal with most of the 330 million people on this side of the pond. Dennis2¢23:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
All I can say is that it's a word I have never seen or heard used against women. I can understand why you don't like it though. As a teenager I was quite shocked when I heard my grandfather use the word "bugger". EricCorbett23:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I completely understand that shock, and it isn't a word I would use here because I understand that it is unnecessarily offensive to some people, even if the word is basically meaningless in the USA. I remember hearing it, then looking it up. It sounds more innocent than it is, at least to a yankee's ear. I hate telling someone "you can't say this or that", but there is a right time and place for everything. Sometimes, Wikipedia just isn't the right place, simply because it is so global, so multicultural. I would prefer it be a matter of choice than of demand. Dennis2¢00:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's too general. It's quite obvious to me there has to a be a separate American WP, to allow the rest of us to get on with building a proper fucking encyclopedia. EricCorbett00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hehehe, no friend, we must word together. We are two countries divided by a common language. We just both have to compromise a tiny bit. We don't have to agree, or even understand, just find the middle, which means not using some words/phrases + not going overboard if it slips out. At least that is what I'm living by. Like it or not, we all need each other. Dennis2¢00:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Do we really? Apparently the "Manchester mafia" are bad, bad people. WP is sick, and I don't see any way to fix it other than to eject Jimbo Wales. EricCorbett00:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
And in that time you and your god will add nothing of any value to this encyclopedia. How do you square that circle? EricCorbett23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You had to know that was coming, and you have to admit Chillum was rather reserved in his application of the block. I like you Eric, I really do, and I love working with you on articles, but you literally asked to be blocked here. Dennis2¢23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Still, this spectacle of Chillum, one of the life-appointed early legacy "admins" and least prolific content contributors on Wikipedia, blocking one of the most valuable contributors encapsulates everything that is wrong and unjust with this site. As does Jimbo Wales's constant attacks on Eric and other high profile content builders, and his unseemly campaign to rouse a rabble to provoke able contributors. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, for chrissake, why is calling Jimbo a cunt any different from calling anyone else a cunt? And the block "request" should taken with a grain of wet sand (usually called mud).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Eric. It was hand crafted by you to happen. It is frustration, and I understand that. I haven't walked in your shoes, but I'm not blind. Anyway, I need tea, you need time, Wikipedia needs articles. And no one should be blaming Chillum, this is much more complicated than it looks, and had Chillum not blocked for 48 hours, someone would have come by with a silly indef block, so I can only say to be grateful that the punishment fits the "crime", which is as fair as it gets. Dennis2¢00:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Eric, for fuck's sakes — just zip it. Lightbreather started this whole thing on Jimbotalk TO TRY TO BRING YOU DOWN. It is a provocation from start to finish. You have never once been able to avoid these traps, transparently obvious though they may be. You dive right in, fists flying, and they've got you. What are you even doing watching Jimbotalk, let alone posting there? Hello, there's an ArbCom case against you — it would seem like a better use of your time documenting the bilateral nature of the Gender Gap Task Force stupidity rather than giving the shrill dramamongers more ammo to work with. Take a break. Have a beer. Relax. Come back calmer and more politically astute about what is going on. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
......And a 48 hour block is a favor to you, not something to be scorned. Others would have indeffed you. You owe Chillum a thank you... Carrite (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is. Had I seen it first, I would likely have done exactly the same thing Chillum did, for a personal attack (rather than civility), to prevent someone from overreacting and indef'ing. Wait a day or two, then decide if it was a favor or not. Dennis2¢00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why the hell not? What is the point to your behaviour? What benefit does it achieve? You have the support of half the community, just behave as well as one might expect a small child to and you can defuse the other half too. It is surely not beyond you to rein in your language. I know you think we're all idiots, you're allowed to think that, just bite your tongue and stop saying it out loud. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Google might buy out Wikipedia. The sun might explode. I might have won the lottery. Who knows? I don't even know what I'm having for lunch tomorrow, or whether I'll have Earl Grey or Darjeerling with it. I will worry about it then. I suggest doing the same. Dennis2¢00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Eric, as much as you are a good editor, you did ask to be blocked. Maybe it's time to stop calling other editors by the synonyms of vaginas. Take a break. Relax. Go to the beach or something.... – Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I know you don't care. I never asked you to care. I just made a suggestion. FTR, I knew you'd respond with something like this. So maybe you could not care less... – Epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Epicgenius, why play "mommy"? (Can't you see how your comments patronize?!) I've rarely seen a post by Eric that wasn't dead-on and survived scrutiny/analysis. Besides writing talent Eric possesses exceptional intelligence. A more responsible reaction to his posts is to think better/deeper/more. (In fact if you notice, many of them literally prod to do so by ending w/ "?".) If you take that as clue you might discover something quite new and amazing. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Eric, my name is James Cullen Heaphy III. I was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 28, 1952. You were right to abandon anonymity, as I have also done. You helped me with a Good Article, Harry Yount a while back, which I appreciate very much. Would you please consider restraining your insults, which, in my opinion, accomplish nothing except divisiveness? I would like to collaborate with you on other articles, but am deeply reluctant to even ask for your help, because of your past propensity for insulting people. If you gave that up, I believe that Wikipedia would be a better place, and you would thereby set an excellent example for editors who respect your wonderful content contributions here. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This is going no-where so I will end it with a question, I just want to ask why you are taking someone's edit status and using it as an attack against them? I can see kids on 4chan doing that not editors here on Wikipedia who are supposed to be working together. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Compare the mainspace% of those who support Eric (and Eric himself) with the mainspace% of those who fiddle around at Wales' talkpage and ANI the most, then get back to me. LHMask me a question03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Lithistman, while there is no policy requiring a certain percentage of edits to the mainspace there are other policies that can result in a block as has happened here today. If you look at my block log you will see that the community has never seen any of my behavior as something warranting a block.
My contributions in the mainspace are mostly rewording bad grammar and such as well as contributing a few dozen images, one of which is a featured picture.
Much of my work is taken up stopping and reversing vandals, chasing sock puppets, discussing things with disruptive users. If not for this work I doubt even the best editor would get far.
Really all of that means nothing in this context as a greater contribution history by me would not make the block more fair and no amount of contributions by Eric would make it any less fair.
No. Jimbo made clear his expectations. And you did his bidding. And I find that unsurprising, since you have only used about 5% of your edits to help build the actual encyclopedia this year. Perhaps if you did more of that, and less blocking of editors like Eric, your perspective on things would change. LHMask me a question03:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually I was talking about the community consensus at WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA when it is demonstrated that the community does not want people engaging in name calling on what is supposed to be a collaborative project. What Jimbo thought on the matter was not really on my mind. Chillum04:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not personal to you Chillum, and I agree your contributions generally are helpful. The issue is the crazed system you operate under, which should not allow you to block highly able content builders. Why should over one thousand legacy admins, appointed for life many years ago when standards for becoming an admin were basically non-existent and who have no real experience building content, be allowed to jerk around serious content builders, blocking them, even blocking them indefinitely and demanding that they crawl before them, even escallating to the point where they block their talk page access if they get upset. And no change is possible because the legacy admins, many of them appointed as school children, control the terms of their own appointment. As the years roll by, these life-appointed admins become ever more powerful. The vulgar lunacy of this system is way overdue for reform, and does not give a fair go either to the better admins or to the content builders. I hoped once that Jimbo could see what was happening and would intervene. But it clear now that Jimbo is not up to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this, users even established users should not be held above everyone else here, if Eric is acting like a jerk and has a disruptive behavior past which he does it should be no get out of jail free card here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Read the whole thing, I am talking about this: "The issue is the crazed system you operate under, which should not allow you to block highly able content builders" the rest was about an admin conspiracy theory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's thoroughly naive. There's no "conspiracy theory", just the demonstrable reality of how the system is maintained. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to with admin conspiracy, or admin standards or even admin tenure. There have been probably more than a dozen proposals that great content contributors be allowed to engage in personal attacks without being blocked. Every time the community gave a resounding no way to that idea. The community wants these rules enforced and as an admin I enforce those rules.
It has nothing to do with admin conspiracies, commands from the powers that be or anything like that. It is merely admins doing what admins are supposed to be doing, which is enforcing the community expectations that gain consensus.
While there is a fringe group of editors who think that content contributors should get a free pass with civility this group has not even came close to gaining consensus for the idea. Perhaps one day the community may be swayed by these ideas and they will gain consensus. When this day comes are best editors can be as nasty as they want, and I will go contribute to another project. Chillum04:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I also have contributed several bots to free up the time of our human workers.
I am very proud of my contributions here and you cannot belittle them in my mind with your words.
I don't feel like getting is a pissing contest where we compare whose contribs are longer, or bigger or thicker or whatever. Suffice it to stay I have contributed plenty to the project and continue to. Frankly you should look a little harder in someones contribution history before trying ad hominem attacks. Chillum05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Chillum, you remind me of admin Kafziel, badgering Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his Talk triumphantly after blocking him. (An admin s/b unheard of on the blockee's Talk, unless questions. What a fucking unprofessional disgrace you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Protected
I've protected this talk page until the end of Eric's current block. Technically the talk page access should be removed if the talk page is being used inappropriately but Eric is not the only guilty party in that regard and I really don't wish to see any other blocks resulting from the discussion here. Those of you wanting to continue throwing insults back and forth, please stop. Those wishing to express sympathy, my apologies for the inconvenience. Admins wishing to continue commenting or unprotect, please consider carefully whether doing so will reduce drama and promote "encyclopedia building". ~Adjwilley (talk)06:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel sorry for you actually, lashing out at so many editors. In the end this is a website, we all have our real world crap to deal with, what I don't understand is why you would need the extra drama to deal with as a result of your outbursts? Why cant you just treat other editors with basic respect here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
For all those talk page stalkers who earlier contributed to a question I posed, about which folk tale my oldest daughter should pick for a school presentation, let it be known that she chose "The Twelve Dancing Princesses", retelling the tale from the POV of one of the nameless daughters, dressed in her "Queen Elizabeth" costume. She got an A, so she did something right. Thank God there was no forced seduction in that story, or I'd have to give her proper training in feminism at age 8 already. Thanks again to all of you for your comments. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"A" or "An" before univalate
This one is stuck at 4:20
Can I pick your brains again (or those of your talk page stalkers). In the sentence "A univallateIron Agehillfort which has been investigated three times" should it be "A" or "An" to begin? I've been having discussions about which English grammar rules apply eg "An umbrella" or "A university" & whether it is the sound of the "u" or the whole word which makes the difference?— Rodtalk19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to say that it depends on whether the following word starts with either a consonant or a vowel. If the former, then "A" would be correct; the latter "An" would be the one to use. In this instance, I would suggest "An" is correct. Cassiantotalk20:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"He got an F on his report card. It took an hour for him to explain it. He told his teacher that a unicorn ate his homework." That is a nice rule, but there are so many exceptions, I would have come here and asked as well. My guess is "a", but that is only a guess, based on the unicorn rule. Dennis2¢21:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely an A as the u is pronounced like a y - i.e. 'yoonivalate'. As Dennis and Gerda say, it's the same as university (or unicellular, unicycle, uniform etc.). Richerman(talk)22:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I ended up with a copy of this issue of Time. It was useful for waving in front of the faces of pedants when they insisted that "a historic decision" should be "an historic decision", as stress is on the second syllable of "historic". Both are grammatically correct, as they are equally understandable. From my staunchly anti-prescriptivist but pro-good grammar perspective, "correct grammar" means "clear and understandable". Which is why I'm a stickler for good spelling and punctuation. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
See this that says that form is a historical leftover. Of course if you drop your aitches it makes more sense anyway:
Its "a univalate...", and "a historic..." because neither adjective starts with a vowel sound in modern English. I remember once having a reasonable discussion about "herb"; most Americans do not pronounce the "h" and so say (correctly in their dialect) "an herb". Even after living in the States for 5 years, this looks bloody ridiculous to me. Worse than "gotten" which is at least kind of cute. But yes, we go by the sound. --John (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm at the job, and fixing to get to work. I'll let you Brits roll that one around a bit and poke holes in this old Texan's grammar.... Dennis2¢15:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you all for your contributions. I will leave it as "A univallate..." and if anyone challenges it point them to this conversation. Why does English have to be so complicated?— Rodtalk17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's so complicated; we don't have to decline definite articles like they do in German for instance, or worry about what the gender of a young girl is (neuter in German if you really want to know). I think much of the problem is that we're taught rules in primary school that are basically wrong, but the teachers were taught the same nonsense themselves, therefore know no better. Just think of the ridiculous "'i' before 'e' except after 'c' for instance". Weird, just weird. EricCorbett18:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I couldn't read that beyond the first line Sitush, as it's full of profanity. Larkin may have been a great poet, but there's no excuse for that kind of industrial language. Or at least there isn't if you live in downtown Smallville, USA. EricCorbett18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The George Hotel, Crawley
I was thinking about taking The George Hotel, Crawley to FAC at some point. Any chance you could take a look at it? Hassocks reckons he can find more on it but it's already pretty comprehensive on what exists about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks pretty good, but there's some inconsistency in the use of the definite article for the name of the inn. For instance, "... and The George—as the town's largest and best-equipped hotel ..." vs "... a major local attraction from which the George benefited". These are by no means the only examples. "The northern section are believed to have been a two-bay open hall-house with a parlour wing". Should that be "sections"? There also a {{citation needed}} tag that needs to be dealt with, and the Nairn/Pevsner book listed in the bibliography doesn't appear to be being used as a source. EricCorbett19:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stoor worm 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 Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Gough Whitlam at TFAR
Hi Eric, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, BencherliteTalk08:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Calling the Dream Team again
Are you interested in Louie Dingwall - she was the final member of Florence Nagle's gang - a well worthy of a page here. I've just started the page with a few holdng words (ignore the "in use" banner - that's to stop some twit deleting it), but I'm not going to be around much today, but she might be quite interesting to do. I'm posting this here because this is the page most of the content interested editors watch. Giano(talk)07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I now recognise that I've made a seriously bad mistake
It's quite apparent to me that the nasty vicious atmosphere here on WP is entirely attributable to Jimbo Wales and his disciples, nobody else. After all, the fish rots from the head. But what I hadn't fully appreciated until it was pointed out to me earlier today by Dr. Blofeld is that I sometimes give Jimbo and his mates just enough ammunition to allow them to divert attention from their own nefarious activities, as evidenced by the unregulated nonsense on Jimbo's talk page today. No more. EricCorbett01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon really seems to have it out for you. It's like you peed in his Cheerios. What did you say to him? He acts like a district attorney indicting ham sandwiches. I know Arbcom is not supposed to be a court, but it certainly was treated as such years ago. Calling editors at Arbcom "defendants" and speaking of their guilt, the language now may be different, but the song remains the same. I don't know if you saw the prankster on Wales' page yesterday, but he fiddled with some template to replace the cheeta picture with a CC licensed picture of a vagina from a feminist site called Courageous Cunts. I doubt few saw the irony. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon05:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, got to be said that there is a certain element here who seem to enjoy blaming you for all of the site's incivility problems. It's as if you being banned would suddenly make wikipedia this wonderfully happy place. If they were really were that concerned about you they'd have found a way to ban you long ago. It's sort of become trendy to attack you and the best way to earn a pat on the back from Jimbo by slagging you off on his talk page. Funny really, as yesterday evening was one of the most toxic situations I've ever encountered on here, on his very talk page by gate crashers complaining, That you're still here says it all and that you're more valued than they let on. Rise above it I say, don't give them fuel and continue to show them up with your content contributions and criticism of the way the site is run.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish it were just Jimbo and his fan-club. But I'd encourage you to stay off his page if at all possible. He isn't worth it. (And welcome back and please stay around, despite our disagreements.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo has banned me from his talk page anyway, which is why I take exception to his hosting this witch hunt against me. A strange notion of civility. EricCorbett13:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Quite. As I say, I wish it were just him and his fanclub. In case he's watching, I'll remind him of the e-mail I sent him a few weeks ago. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Not to put a too fine point on it, but I gather as long as he talks about you there, you can respond if you wish per his message at ANI. However be the bigger man and just ignore him.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon18:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've said everything I want to to Jimbo. That he continues to host these personal attacks on his talk page says far more about him than it does about me. EricCorbett18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well the last time I checked, Jimbo doesn't POV push-revert on articles, add vast swathes of unsourced fancruft, engage in subtle vandalism, or ride roughshod over hundreds of articles with AWB without even stopping to think what he's doing. So I'd say we've got far more severe problems than what he's up to. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
More and more I realize how much shit arises from that page, stick around eric we need you here and the fish may rot from the head but it will sure piss em off more if they can't run you away or make you the scapegoat. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eric, I agree with you that that conversation is disgusting and that Wales is behaving disgracefully by encouraging it, but I strongly recommend you stop posting there. It will only fan the flames. I'm sure there a great many articles that would benefit more from you attention than that silly discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a limit to what anyone should reasonably be expected to put with: Jimbo's hate campaign, an open ArbCom case, and continual lies about me being a misogynist and disrupting GGTF. EricCorbett18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course. But how much do any of those things contribute to the encyclopaedia? If people want to spend their time bickering in the projectspace, let them; at least it keeps them from causing problems in the mainspace. Don't let them provoke you—every time you respond to that idiocy, you play right into their hands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It occurred to me how similar a lot of the civility police are on here to HAL 9000. They may not issue sweary personal attacks and might speak calmly, but are grossly uncivil to the people they're supposed to be serving!! At this minute there's an editor on the Paris talk page who is definitely deserving of a c word attack but I know if I say exactly what I think I'd be blocked even if it would give me great pleasure to say exactly what I think. If somebody is acting insufferably like one, then we should really reserve the right to say so. The problem though is that wikipedia is full of annoying meddlesome little turds so the frequency of saying something is likely to be high. I'm not saying that everybody Eric gets into a tiff with deserves it, but all I know is if they're acting anything like some of the assholes I have to deal with then I understand perfectly well and would do the same thing if I didn't want to avoid the bullshit that comes with blocking. ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
This kind of thing also happens in quite normal academic debate. It isn't treated as a way of bundling people out of the room or conference, or of banning them from any kind of academic debate. Instead, people just usually ignore it it, or quietly "tut tut" to themselves and soon, everyone forgets it and the debate just continues. I think if wikipedia wants to stop pretending to be a learned organ, and actually become one, it needs to encourage a real and mature approach to civility, rather than be like a room full of toddlers who have tantrums all the time and run to Mummy saying that someone said a naughty word. (Yes, I know, people will say I am being abusive, but in contrast to a systematic labelling of some as being toxic, this is small fry) DDStretch (talk)13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(As an addendum): I think one major point is that many of the people who act as "civility police" really don't have anything to get on with: they don't contribute content; they often just hang around being titilated by all the drama, with which they indulge themselves at the same time as saying "Ooo, Isn't it awful, dears!" and some such. DDStretch (talk)14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. What really, really gets on my tits is being treated like a naughty child. EricCorbett14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"If you don't want to be treated like a naughty child, then don't act like one." ;) But on a more serious note, don't underestimate the sincerity and endurance of those that make it their mission to make Wikipedia a more "civil" place. I do think they have a utopian vision of the place, that if they just banned Eric and his ilk, and got rid of the abusive admin (you know, like me), then we could all sit around holding hands, singing Kumbaya around the campfire. I'm not sure exactly how that will build an encyclopedia, however. But yes, this IS their contribution and they are dedicated to it, just as dedicated as you are to creating FA and GA grade articles, so again, don't underestimate their determination. You are focused on the articles, they are focused on the social aspects of the place. "Think of the children" and all that. I will leave it to each of us to determine which has lasting value to the reader. Dennis2¢15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
There may be an inkling of truth in that, as on the whole I've found women more willing and better suited to communication on average, thus somewhat less reliant on spicy language. I'm sure that someone will probably find something sexist in that remark, but then they would be missing the entire point. Mrs. Brown seldom swore til she met me, and is still more selective than I am. I've been a bad influence on her, but fortunately she has been a very good influence on me. Dennis2¢16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know why this idea that swearing is a sign of a restricted vocabulary has caught on. The purpose of swearing is to act as a linguistic intensifier, which is why it's so ridiculous to hear those who swear every other word in a sentence. It's actually those who never swear who restrict the scope and range of their language. EricCorbett16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Dennis what you said about wp:Don't be a dick being a meta page is no longer true as it is now been changed to wp:Don't be a jerk. Funny thing is the derivation of of jerk according to this may owe something to 'jerk-off', so you could say calling someone a jerk is similar to calling them a wanker. There's filth everywhere you look isn't there? :-) Richerman(talk)17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ. I've really been trying to work on articles, and keep getting sucked into all the busy body crap, but this is the kind of crap that makes me want to drop my bit off and find something fun to do instead. Dennis2¢17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course they do. Mrs. Brown used a few choice words when I showed her some of what is going on here. As an independent woman, she was offended by some of the ideas floating around, that women are such delicate flowers that we can't just have a level playing field, we have to bend the rules in their favor so they can compete. Those ideas only serve to give the impression that women aren't every bit as capable as men, when they clearly are. That whole, tired 1970s version of feminism is quite offensive to a lot of women who just want equal opportunity, and have no interest in constantly playing the victim; the damsel in distress. She's been on the receiving end of real discrimination, so she actually has something to compare to. Dennis2¢13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Mrs Brown sounds like a very sensible person. Meanwhile, I've been wondering what the civility brigade might make of Agnes Brown, who has gone down a storm in the UK. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking along these lines too. The women I know aren't easily cowed and subdued. Least of all Mrs G, who has been arrested for threatening behavior to a 200lb Palermo traffic cop. I don't think women are getting the credit they deserve here. Giano(talk)13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That's kind of funny. Mrs. Brown has a habit of showing up at Gay Pride rallies and Animal Rights protests. She isn't one to use a lot of words (unlike me), but she makes each one count. I've seen her get bumped out when she was the #3 salesperson (she would say salesman) for a large company, instead of the men that did half her sales, to make room for a golf buddy. So yes, she's seen real discrimination. She didn't pout or sit down and cry, she literally said "fuck you", and we opened up a shop with her name on the front, and she ran it. We sold it successfully 6 years later. Again, she didn't need coddling or adjusted standards, just a level playing field. When I told her about the "it takes two men to revert a woman" proposal, she was genuinely offended. The world is full of inequity for women, but Wikipedia is more gender neutral than most Fortune 500 companies. There is no glass ceiling here, demonstrated by the leaders of the Foundation, Arbs, etc. Dennis2¢14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Completly off topic, this is the funniest thing I've read this year[7]. Pinging our legal resident Newyorkbrad as I suspect he will enjoy it as well. Assuming he is a lawyer who likes a good lawyer joke and won't take this personally. I hate having to put caveats like this, but if you don't someone will take offense.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon16:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Boobrie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boobrie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice job, Eric Corbett, on a most fascinating mythological creature. I think there's a bit of room for possible further expansion in the future, but a very nice WP:GA. Hope you and yours are doing well, — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I know! The only thing I can think to do now to restore my credibility is to harass and roundly abuse both you and Sagaciousphil using the most vile and gender-specific language I can muster. ;-) EricCorbett14:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
When you have time take a look back through your own archives; I recently found a long, long ANI thread about me being blocked years ago (in a nustshell: IRC trooped out and voted for an unknown to be admin here; she then started editing and was a serial plagiarist and didn't know what she was doing wrong, and I was v cross) Looking at that thread today, cold and with wisdom and hindsight, what's most noticeable is that many of those commenting and wanting my block extended have either been banned or are now senior WMF employees. I just wondered if your records show similar things? Amusingly and nostalgically, do you remember User:TreasuryTag who you used to hate me so? Giano(talk)12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Think he'll answer? I'm genuinely interested to know more about this "delete 10 Users" idea. I can't imagine that alone having the effect that's being alluded to, but I haven't been on this site for as long as the key people involved. --SChotrod - Just your averagebanjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
He never answers, just makes general promises that he hopes will be forgotten when he fails to deliver. Again. What "doubling down" has the WMF done on the perceived gender gap for instance? None? As I said on his talk page though, if he includes himself in one of the ten, then the idea might have legs. EricCorbett23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The question may well be why the hell we of the alleged "Manchester Mafia", and those who do not have a problem with its alleged members and fellow-travellers worldwide, bother contributing? I mean, I know I plough on in pretty onerous circumstances (I've just dumped William Stone Building from an offline creation) but my desire to sing Kumbaya, spread the love and be a member of a cult is practically non-existent. Knowledge is what matters and was at the core of this thing but right now we who want to promote that are being sidetracked by a circus of people who, judging by their contribution histories, in many cases seem not to give a shit about it. Freeloaders, hangers-on, irrelevant agenda-pushers, Pooters and the like.
I really do not have an answer but some things are for sure: Jimbo needs to stop casting aspersions and making allusions, stop making unsupported statements and hoping others will do his dirty work, stop abusing his public persona for personal hippy-trip gain and learn that the thing that he will most likely be obituarised for (with others) happened many years ago and he has long since become a gaudy, noisy, embarrassing sideshow that is retained for reasons of historical communal attachment rather than utility. Some admins, ArbCom and perhaps even WMF are going to have to grow some balls if he continues in his current vein. I predict that someone will block him before much longer; of course, the block will not stick but the PR aspect of it might resonate, like a needle in a balloon. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo needs to go, and maybe concentrate on his mobile phone business. I'd be quite happy to leave if he also agreed to leave – I'd consider it a public service. EricCorbett00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If Apple could fire Steve Jobs until he grow up and stopped acting like (less of) a petulant brat, de-throning Jimbo should be a piece of cake. Montanabw(talk)02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, per Talk:Nipo T. Strongheart/GA1 you've been suggested as an editor both with copy edit skills and an interest in quirky articles. This article has a number of issues to balance in a number of ways - he was a man who stood between cultures, so sometimes outside and sometimes being something for one towards the other but also sometimes with a negative side affect. Yet he fairly convincingly rose above the challenge of dualities across several careers and opposition in various quarters from both sides yet still playing a role inside each situation. The complexities tend to make we want to write too complicatedly apparently. But I and others think it really can be shaped up into a "good article". I'd appreciate your help. --Smkolins (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I expect that it could indeed be shaped into a good article, but I'm afraid I think that the work needed is too much to be done during the span of a GA review. EricCorbett00:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Humbling but thanks for your input. I csn see I tend to use subclauses and conditionals perhaps too much but didn't know my writing was so, er, not good. If you can think of another editor that might like the challenge I'd appreciate a referral. --Smkolins (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I doubt that the work can be done within the span of a GA hold period. I tell you what I'll do though, I'll go through one section and you can see the sort of work I think needs to be done, and we can take it from there. EricCorbett11:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Though I don't want to commit to working on the whole article to help get it up to GA standard, I was intending to do a bit of copy-editing work on the article (e.g. 'roll' -> 'role'). Do you know which section(s) you will be working on (so I know which section to avoid)? --Boson (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you'll chip in then I will as well, and maybe we can do it. I'll pick one tomorrow, then you can pick another. How's that? Or you can pick one first, I'm easy. EricCorbett19:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been having a closer look at the section "Lyceum and Chautauqua", so I'll start working on that tonight, if that's OK. I think it needs to be condensed a bit (I don't think it really needs to list his complete itinerary) but perhaps some could be moved to footnotes. --Boson (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You make it look like it's been written in English and I'll be right behind you. EricCorbett
I've had a first go at one section and am now taking a break till tomorrow. Let me know if I need to fix anything I've messed up. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah - k - I see a synergy developing. I've done a few minor changes but see much more in the offing. I'll try to be of assistance perhaps most by standing aside…. But maybe I can help here and there.--Smkolins (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me, for either of us. You're a new editor and I'm fairly demanding, so as soon as I upset you by saying something you consider to be unnecessarily harsh that will be used by those claiming that I scare off new editors. So sorry, I can't help. EricCorbett13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the information given on Amanda's userpage. She appears to be using her real name and gives her DOB which shows she is 14 years old. Could a passing admin give her some advice about this? Richerman(talk)20:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, poor maths :) However, it's never a good idea to give your date of birth on the internet and, at your age, not a good idea to say which state you live in or give other personal information. Richerman(talk)20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking about removing the information and revdeleting the history. Haven't yet reached a conclusion, since (according to what is written on the userpage) she's older than 13. → Call meHahc2120:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable about Amanda Smalls. I don't believe that she's who she claims to be and I suspect that she's part of some kind of sting operation. EricCorbett22:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe she is who she claims she is and that it is no big deal. Eric if you are worried of her I would contact the WMF, I agree with you here that her posting too much personal information could make her a target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I not say clearly enough that I do not believe there is any such person as Amanda Smalls, and that this whole thing is a sting? EricCorbett22:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Its a big conclusion to make though that if true would need to be addressed in the right place with evidence. If you wish to steer clear though then that would be wise as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly? I thought this very same thing. I taught for over 10 years, and the tone taken here is almost too on-the-nose. I'd say run-don't-walk the other way. LHMask me a question22:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
After doing some digging I found out that Amanda had the old username User:MirrorFreak which seems to support the theory that she chose to use her real name one day, it could have been inspired on how you were going on saying that you use your real name because you have nothing to hide, idk for sure though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Younger teens and kids are naïve, I put forward a theory here is all. You could be right though too which if is the case then it would need to be addressed don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that a great many admin watch this page and if they feel like something needs action, they will take it. Sometimes "quietly observe" is the best action. Dennis - 2¢23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Amanda Smalls, the vocabulary and syntax don't gell with a 15 year old. Neither does not knowing what the word "cunt" is. At all. I must say I agree with Eric here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didnt want to say a word, but I thought exactly the same thing as Eric: I don't believe that she's who she claims to be. My gut tells me that something is not right. → Call meHahc2123:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Something like this is also of concern. Lately we have had a number of individuals with similar issues all over various wikiprojects and drama boards. Unfortunately most of the online information about sexual reassignment comes from the surgery industry, so there is not much information available about individuals like Nathan Verhelst / Nancy Verhelst or Walt Heyer. There is an article about Dr. Paul McHugh, but oddly enough for a medical professional who has been so high profile in this topic, and apparently so influential in changing public policy on the issue, the article only has one brief link about his work in this area. You would think the information here [8][9][10] would be of interest to anyone working in transgender topics, but there doesn't even seem to be a Wikiproject that deals with the subject. —Neotarf (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - something is all wrong here. wikipedia is not the place for a 15 year old to be deliberating about it in public...or portions are untrue and we are being played. either way is bad. I have opened a discussion at AN/I. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You're mistaking, wikipedia is just the right place for users like Amanda, and of course this fact makes Wikipedia a wrong place for many others. 207.91.10.234 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, WP:NOTTHERAPY, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and all that, but these situations are getting out of control, they seem to be getting more and more frequent, and these people are either pretending to wander around Wikipedia looking for answers, or are actually wandering around Wikipedia looking for answers. They must think this is the place to find the "sum total of human knowledge". Surely there must be some way to make a blanket response. —Neotarf (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there is, but it's not here. Not unless you want to have the benefit of my views on modern psychiatric practice that is. A disclaimer is probably in order here though, I was brought up as a psychologist. EricCorbett01:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the study of the healthy mind rather than the unhealthy mind. Psychiatrists are obviously needed to deal with nutcases, but before you can understand the malfunctioning of the unhealthy mind you have to understand the functioning of the healthy mind so to speak. EricCorbett04:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Psychiatrists (and clinical psychologists) don't have to understand anything, all that's needed is their signature to unlock the narcotics cabinet. The useful advances in *understanding* have bubbled up from communities that are struggling with a common problem. For instance, look at AA and all the 12-step program derivatives. AA still has the highest success rate with alcoholism, maybe as high as 30%, so people just copied it without knowing why it worked, incorporated it into hospital treatment settings, law enforcement. Then with the Adult Children of Alcoholics movement (and what a pitiful article that is), more understanding happened. Various academics like Jael Greenleaf, Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse, Janet G. Woititz, and others started talking about roles that can be taken on as a response to living in an alcoholic household, for example "rescuer" or "scapegoat", that may prove to be dysfunctional outside that household. By the 90's, this pamphlet was being passed out free as part of the ACOA program, and concepts like "codependent", "enabling", "dysfunctional", and "self-esteem" had become part of the vernacular, as well as a subject for serious research. The chemical unbalances of the "unhealthy mind" still have to be treated, by tweaking dopamine and serotonin levels, and there is still much that is not understood, for example the role of hereditary in alcoholism, which has been noted in studies of twins separated at birth, but the current emphasis is on developing productive responses, which, unfortunately for the psych business, can be done by amateurs in groups without anyone collecting a fee. —Neotarf (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
File:MirrorFreak Dudes Lodge.JPG was uploaded to Commons only a week after I deleted an image of this same person uploaded by MirrorFreak/Amanda, who speedy tagged it with the rationale "I don't really feel comfortable with having a picture of me on Commons (or anywhere else)". INeverCry04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The Amanda Smalls account is now blocked. Eric mentions it may have been prep for a sting. I was unsure until a couple days ago whether this was "harmless" or something sinister. I switched to sinister when I saw one of their first article edits was to a Bollywood movie. This may be the latest tack of a group causing significant RL disruption on some Indic articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
From his dealings with this editor above, Eric clearly knows this, but as a piece of advice to other men of a certain age (grumpy or not), if 15-year-old girls with with saccharin pink signatures start to seek your wisdom and heap you with praise be on your guard. Surprising as this may be to some, young girls do not find older men interesting. They generally prefer spotty youths with odd haircuts and extremely limited, monosyllabic conversation. Therefore, engaging with such girls as buck this trend can be a little naive. Giano(talk)08:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What would be the motivation for this sort of thing? I've noticed that some of them seem to be associated with porn, particularly paraphilias. —Neotarf (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf - if you see an account that is purportedly authored by a girl/young woman with an interest in porn and/or over-the-top sexual suggestiveness, you could assume with a fair degree of certainty that it is an adult male making socks. If you see any others, it is worth checking early history. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I had thought for a while she was just somebody looking for some attention and guidance. I'm pretty sure @Anna Frodesiak: thought the same, she seemed to be producing some decent content. I wasn't suspicious actually until she said "Pretty, Pretty please with a cherry on top?" thing yesterday. Amanda is supposed to be 15 not 4. No 15 year old girl I ever knew would even dream of saying that. And then I saw a comment by her on Jimbo's talk page in which she used wikipedia admin jargon which seemed to indicate somebody much older than her years. You can't pretend to be a child one minute and then use that "grown up" language. Now I think about it she played pretty dumb over the Jimbo convention thing too when some of her vocabulary on Jimbo's page in looking back suggests quite the opposite. Also it seemed suspicious that she knew who that (pretty obscure for Americans) German singer was. A shame I think as she didn't seem one of the more obvious ones initially, unlike Patrol forty... ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
BTW there is actually an Amanda Johnson from Valrico, Florida, [12] but she was a local basketball star and likely now early 20s. She signed as an ip on my talk page the other day and she was at least telling the truth when she said she was from Valrico, correct me if I'm mistaken Risker but her ip is registered there I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Just woke up (feeling lazy today) and saw that "A man, duh" has been blocked, with thanks to Risker for taking the baton for the final mile. It looks like several of us have been watching Amanduh for a week, as something just wasn't right, knowing some kind of fraud has been going on. The real pisser is that I hate to see someone use gender or sexual identification as a means to troll. It is insensitive and cruel. As for Patrol forty....that is another problem. Dennis - 2¢13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Patrol forty is, in my opinion, just as obvious of a bird that quacks as Amanda Smalls was. But since he's agreeing with Jimbo's bullshit, no one will checkuser him to figure out who he might actually be. Instead they're linking to that "3 steps" crap that is used to explain away "noobies" who "find" the dramah boardz very quickly. LHMask me a question13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It took me 30 edits to find my first Arbcom case. The only one who complained was someone who didn't agree with me. —Neotarf (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It took me 1500+ edits and 8 months with the first account I used. It is very unusual for "new" editors to find the drama boards (particularly Jimbo's page, which is where Patrol forty is frequenting) quickly in their WP "career." LHMask me a question22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Look! If someone tried to "protect" me in such a fashion, under a header of a length I forgive only Floquenbeam, asking questions - not without threatening a bit - he could have answered himself, but not listening to my and your answers, - how could I escape protection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Cookies (known as biscuits in the UK) are small baked treats that come in a wide array of flavors, shapes, and sizes. No idea why I should give you those, just because. Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed nice. Just a pity that I don't feel either calm or meditative. "Beseiged" might better describe my current state of mind. EricCorbett19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We try an other one .. just look at them and say - after 33 or 333 years all this will be of no importance - say that like 33 times ... promise? Hafspajen (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll very likely be dead in 33 years time, so what anyone might think then is of little consequence to me. But I thank you for the thought nevertheless. EricCorbett20:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You are not the only one feeling besieged, Eric, although I think you're being attacked the most. You handled P40 and Amanda S well, so if I were you I'd carry on in the same vein. Nil carborundum etc, and perhaps an early pre-Christmas pint with me in town sometime - it must be two years or more since we last met up. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It must be getting on for two years, February last year was it? Perhaps Richerman might be up for an early Christmas pint as well? EricCorbett20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not? - now I'm an OAP and semi-retired I have a bit more time. I've been worried about Sitush and wondering if I should ask if he'd like to meet up for a chat sometime. Maybe J3Mrs could be persuaded to come along and make sure we don't get into trouble :-) Richerman(talk)21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
A bit more time to find your chair? I think it was the double-chocolate stout that did for me and Boing! last time. I was reminded of it a couple of days ago when I sampled some Treason stout from Bootleg Brewery in Chorlton.
I'll email you tomorrow. For obvious reasons, I don't want to announce on-wiki where I might be at a particular time on a particular day. I'll have a word with J3Mrs also if Eric is ok with that. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks possible that this thread might end up as evidence in the current ArbCom proceedings. Expect to be added as a party, Richerman ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Not really but, contradictorily, I'm pretty sure that its purpose has been usurped. I can't take today off because there is a lot of flak flying around relating to the India matter and I've got to get my ducks in a row before something happens tomorrow or thereabouts. The stress of all this recent crap, much of which is taking place off-wiki, is doing me no good at all; the ArbCom case is an unnecessary addition to it.
Abbot Ale, eh, Richerman? Very nice stuff in moderation. You should try that brewery's St Edmund's Ale, if they still make it. I don't think they ever did it on draught but the bottles used to be widely available even at the Other Place. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Manchester details
Eric, I've been working on the Ellen Wilkinson biography – not your cup of tea I imagine, but she was born, brought up, educated and based in Manchester for more than half her life. I've been bawled out on other articles by editors with local knowledge for getting image details wrong, so if you have time, could you check out the two Manchester images in the article, and let me know if you think they are accurate – or, at least, not obviously wrong? I'd be much obliged. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
...but actually, on reflection, the university's main building with the quadrangle is on Oxford Road, not College Street, so far as I'm aware. EricCorbett10:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'd agree entirely: that's the former Owens building on Oxford Road. I don't think College Street is a real thing, unless it is some later confection of pedestrianization and campus - er - ification. A Uni internal map might show it but to be honest it's hardly worth the candle when 99% of dogs would just say "Oxford Road" and have done with it. And now I will shut up. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Google Maps confirm that this building is in Oxford Road. There appears to be no "College Street" in Manchester; there is a College Road, but in a totally different area of the city. I have corrected the caption. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually the Owens building is behind the photographer. It isn't a big deal as it's not mentioned in the caption but the building shown is the Whitworth building. Richerman(talk)20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that you've said pretty much the same thing but this newspaper report from 2006, by Seth Finkelstein (now seemingly inactive), struck me today:
Although he preaches that Wikipedia is built on trust and love, he can be notably unloving to those untrusting of his pronouncements ... It's not that Wikipedia participants are expected to transcend humanity. Rather, it's that looking beyond the rosy marketing picture reveals little but bureaucracy implemented poorly - including fiefdoms, cliques and sycophancy to the charismatic leader.
For all Jimmy Wales's self-promotion regarding his supposed ability to build good communities, it's apparent his skill is instead in knowing how to sell a dysfunctional community effectively. One subtext of the Wikipedia hype is that businesses can harvest an eager pool of free labour, disposable volunteers who will donate effort for the sheer joy of it. The fantasy is somewhat akin to Santa's workshop, where little elves work happily away for wages of a glass of milk and a cookie. Whereas the reality is closer to an exploitative cult running on sweatshop labour.
That may be because you have both trouser legs where they most usually are. Perhaps if one were rolled up and you tickled your oppo's palm with the middle finger when shaking hands, you'd understand. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delisting
Have you ever come across a situation where an article has been promoted to GA but it is immediately obvious that it should not have been? Is there a quick process for speedy delisting? I'm thinking of Sri Aurobindo here, which is one that I had done a lot of work on but would never have dreamt of GAN'ing because the sections that I'd not worked on were full of problems, including copyvio, lack of sourcing etc. I've made a load of corrections and taggings in the last few hours but, really, it should never have passed and I doubt it passes even after what I've done. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have. Given that in this case though a proper GA review was done I don't think there's any speedy delisting option available, so the best alternative is to nominate the article for reassessment at WP:GAR. EricCorbett16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to deal with it on the talk page at the moment but even now the reviewer has erred, adding a citation for an entire paragraph when the source seems only to support the last sentence. Being a glutton for punishment on- and off-wiki at the moment, I've also just sent William Beach Thomas to FAC - I've been sitting on that for too long. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that earlier. If I were you though I'd spice up the nomination statement a bit, to draw in reviewers. As for the GAR, if you need any help with that just give me a shout. EricCorbett20:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I just did what the FAC template said. I can't remember what I did when I put James Tod up there. I'm not good at promotion but will have a think. I might well have to go find some inspiration down the Eagle. That's my excuse for tonight, anyway ;) I'll take a look at the GAR process tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
