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.
Sanction free zones in user space?
This might come across as flippant, but it isn't intended to be. As I think most of the editors here know, there has been a page created in the userspace of another editor which can only be edited who "qualify" by certain rather arbitrary self-selection requirements. I've argued elsewhere, particularly regarding WikiProject Editor Retention, that we maybe allow there to exist a few pages other than Jimbo's talk page which can be perhaps exempt from some policy or guideline requirements but actively overseen by a few generally trusted individuals who are by definition free to revert or revise anything they see fit to. Most user space pages by definition qualify as such. In fact, Doncram has more or less made such a proposal at the talk page of that project. I would be interested, considering that Eric here seems to be one of the primary objects of attention of some of those associated with at least one such wikipedia userspace page, whether he might be interested in being the host of another one, maybe called "Eric's pub" or something like that?
I realize that there would need to be some proposed changes to policy and/or guidelines to llow that, but would be willing to propose them if the idea was one that had some support. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"Eric's Pub" is such a foreign sounding name - being based in northern England it should have some sort of gritty name like "The King's Head" (which, being in historic Lancashire would have to have a picture of something like Henry VII) or the "Miners' Arms". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see a page in an individuals user space which has qualifications which the editor whose space it is in would not meet, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
With that sort of fast repartee, I may well ask you to be a founder member. Nothing worse than being surrounded with dull people and sycophants. Giano(talk)18:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Eric Corbett. Tracy Park, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this must be some kind of mistake. I don't improve articles, all I do is drive editors away, particularly female editors. EricCorbett
The others equally abused left, miss the photographer of this and this, - thanks for being more resilient. - I approved the above, - how could that be nominated without a pic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a very interesting article, and I have taken the liberty of doing some copy editing. If any Americanisms or my own errors have crept in, please feel free to revert. I won't mind. I noticed that a "Helena Augusta Davy" is mentioned, but then referred to later as "Helen". As the source is offline, it would be wonderful if someone with access to the paper source could resolve that discrepancy. Take care, Eric, and I hope that you will return to editing soon. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
research question
I'd like to know what method people here use for researching new articles or large expansions, specifically in the situation where there are 100's of sources containing potentially useful bits of info. It's easy enough (though time consuming) to read everything and note down stuff that looks relevant to the article as you read. The trouble is when something doesn't strike you as relevant until you notice it's appeared several times, and you didn't note it down the first few times, so now you have to find the other sources. When I've written stuff using just a few sources, it's been easier to just go through each source from beginning to end summarizing its points, and then write from the summaries, but that doesn't seem to work when there's 100 sources saying mostly the same things with little differences here and there. The article I'm trying to expand is Citizenfour, sourced mostly from online reviews and interviews that as you can imagine make points that overlap each other quite a bit. Even my offline notes file is now an overgrown mess that I can't easily navigate. I'm wondering how often this situation comes up and how you all deal with it. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I've had plenty of similar experiences with my own "notes" files, so I sympathise! My only advice is to be systematic in how you record the information from the beginning of the process (in terms of the format, the kind of detail and structure, any tags you might use for themes or people etc.) so you can search it easily and not have to repeat research processes, and then have a clear system for flagging up inconsistencies/different accounts etc. But, as I say, you're definitely not alone: it is why writing substantial articles, whether on or off the wiki, is such a major task! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A request that's totally not connected to females and their problems. Can you pop over to Kedleston Hall, and click on the thing that tells you how to pronounce it. I've always thought (and pronounced) it Kedleston to rhyme with kettle then 'stn' rather 'ston' with the emphasis on the 'e' as in kettle. However, that pronouncing thing makes a great deal of 'lest.' I suppose native speakers may know otherwise, and as you are from those wilds that are north of Watford, you may just happen to know. Giano(talk)17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's now sorted [2]. At least I know now that whatever my accent is, it's not Derbyshire. Talking of accents, I do have one (I'm told) although, I agree with you all, it's hard to believe - so it's good time to say this, English people have no idea how irritating it is to those of us phonetically challenged, when they keep saying "Sorry?" (and are clearly not) and looking at us as though we are half-wits. FFS say "what" or as my middle son's girlfriend says "Wassat" (hopefully, she won't last long) or "I have left my deaf-aid at home" or even: "speak properly or go back you foreign bastard." Whatever, just something I thought I'd mention at this opportune moment. Giano(talk)18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Keddùlstun. But how useful are these pronunciations? Who says "Dudley" like a… like a… like someone who comes from Dudley? Last time I heard some of 'em talking, I thought they were Swedish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I object strongly to foreigners trying to tell me how to speak the Queen's English. If you went to Gloucester or a hundred other places and tried to tell them how to pronounce their place of abode you would soon get short shrift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.216.137 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There was never an argument NE Ent, just a warring editor who thought it was ok to go round and adjust the tone of another users page in order to bait. I would have thought that my reverts would have been justified. Happy Tuesday!CassiantoTalk06:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Impressed
I don't check in on wiki much, but whenever I do (it seems to have become only a handful of times per year), I always check to see if MF is still around. You, Mr. MF now EC have outlasted many a horrible, tool-happy power-hungry admin headcase, and I always smile when I see you still plugging along, editing things that you like, helping editors make things better in your own way, with your own style, take it or leave it. You're still one of my favorites, I'm glad you're still here (and I'm glad to see you age like a good porter) and I would still without question hand over my admin tools to you if I could (and only if you'd find them useful). It's shocking that I still have them; almost as shocking as having ever received them in the first place. Ah well. Enough from me - back into the woods I go. Be well good editor. Keeper | 7602:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In view of the recent finding on ANI that Coffee's blocks are unsound, heavy handed and often unjust, the time has come to unblock Eric for the reasons posted here. Coffee publicly eating humble pie is not helping Eric. Giano(talk)20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This is moot. It is an arbitration enforcement block so you need a consensus at AE if you want this reversed. Chillum21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Any unblock would be irrelevant now. For all practical purposes Coffee's block is effectively expired, as I don't edit on Mondays anyway. But Coffee's naivety has made it very clear to me that Wikipedia and I are fundamentally incompatible. Obviously I think I'm right and equally obviously so do those such as Coffee and those who support his actions. I see no middle ground, it's a bit like the police trying to force an innocent man to plead guilty for a lesser sentence. What's equally obvious to me is that the increasingly elastic ArbCom sanctions against me are stretched beyond any reasonable breaking point by a group of editors that the administrators are, for whatever reason, reluctant to deal with. I suppose it's much easier just to chuck blocks at the likes of Giano and me rather than address the underlying issues. So, regardless of any further blocks, or extension of this current block for speaking my mind, I won't be back on Tuesday as per normal. In fact, I won't be back at all unless and until I see some resolve to address these problems by, for instance, blocking the right people for once. EricCorbett16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is how it is, when one's under an Arb restriction. It's going on 3-years now for me, so I should know. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The suppression of free speech by these ArbCom sanctions is a complete anathema to me, as it ought to be to any right-thinking person. EricCorbett17:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You might as well hang on: It seems Coffee has deleted his pages and gone, LB said farewell to ANI and RO about to be blocked. You's better edit tomorrow before everyone changes their minds. Giano(talk)17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I was of a mind not to return today until a few editors had been properly dealt with – I don't think that Coffee running off is anything like good enough – until I saw this latest posting from Ironholds.[3] In a nutshell, anything that makes him unhappy makes me happy. EricCorbett12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Still, however inappropriate Coffee's blocks were, we wouldn't want him doing something to himself in RL if he's encountering issues as claimed in his edit page space.. I know I wouldn't want to be responsible for that sort of thing, and you never know with some people.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Coffee makes his own decisions, I'm not responsible for anything he does. If he's unable to make rational decisions for whatever reason then he ought not to be an administrator. EricCorbett13:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
12:59 am <Ironholds> if Eric and Giano didn't have gender discussions to compare to the Gestapo or offend or inflame, they'd find something else, because they are essentially self-centred trolls. 12:59 am <Ironholds> it's not about gender, to them. It's about why is nobody nice to them?
I wonder if that's the same IRC where a few years ago I was assured I was never mentioned? probably not. Apparently admins only use it for emergencies and matters of vital importance. Is that this User:Ironholds or is there another? I'd rather be criticised for what I say openly here than moaning and winging off-site behind people's backs on IRC and Wikipediocracy. Giano(talk)18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well not being as handsome as me, you've never had the cache and in that I've enjoyed, so you wouldn't know. However, thinking about it; have you ever compared gender gap to the Gestapo? I don't think I have. I have privately thought that, in some people's odd minds, denying or doubting Gender Gap seemed akin to denying some realty horrible other things; but I'm always very conscious of Godwin's law, or at least some people's love of applying it, so I tend to avoid Nazi analogies. Giano(talk)19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, someone will doubtless provide the diffs if one of us is "guilty" of such a crime. Perhaps it was me, without realising; I do have a tendency to break into other languages without being aware it. That can be misconstrued. Were you here when a poor old friend of mine was banned as a vivacious, dangerous sock because some half-witted Jimbo-sanctioned-mailing-list decided anyone who spoke German was a danger to the project (I exaggerate not)? He was actually one of greatest DYKers and politest Englishmen I have ever virtually met, and was personally devastated - he never returned. Giano(talk)20:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't no, but I have seen the ability to speak a foreign language used as behavioural evidence in sockpuppet investigations. EricCorbett20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Ive just had ten minutes wallowing in nostalgia for the dear old Wiki days, and came across this edit. It's obvious why an "approved" mailing list labeled him so vicious and dangerous. Dear old !! furiously stomped off years ago, with just indignation, but has anything changed since he made that edit? Giano(talk)20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He came back less than 24 hours later, or has he been "away" again? - I don't really follow him. At the time, I shut up because I was advised that he was troubled - perhaps he is - who knows? One thing I do know, is that if there was anyone at the top of the Wikipedia tree with a gram of social responsibility, when an editor announces those sort of problems, he should be receiving some help and advice especially regarding his admin responsibilities from the Arbcom/Foundation/whoever claims to be in charge. Such incidents can be neither good for him or the project. Anyway, I don't want his problems on my conscience, so I shall say no more. To answer your final question: With vast experience of these matters, I doubt an arbitration case would be beneficial to anyone. Giano(talk)18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I made this edit to tighten some of the language of your user page. Since you're now using the Eric Corbett account, the old language read kind of strangely to me. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my change, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect, it's not your place to start altering another user's page. I'm sure Eric is capable enough of tidying his own prose. CassiantoTalk20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. User pages are part of the wiki and they're intentionally openly editable. I think we can presume that Eric is capable of reverting on his own if he disagrees with the edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A user can have what he or she likes on his or her user page. There is nothing offensive about it and I fail to see what it has to with you. You appear to be warring now. I suggest you leave it until Eric comes back tomorrow and you can ask him then. CassiantoTalk20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cassianto. I broadly agree with you regarding user page content. I don't know what you mean by offensive or why you're mentioning it. Is there a specific problem with my edit? I made a helpful and constructive edit that you've now reverted several times without good reason. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(un-indent) J3Mrs: Baiting? By updating the text to reflect a username switch? What on earth are you talking about?
Yes baiting, an action calculated to cause a reaction. You got what you wanted but not from who you expected. Now play the innocent, I think that's what you're supposed to do next. J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Right... I improved some user page text and left a note explaining my edit. Guilty as charged! Just for the record, which part are you playing? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
MZMcBride, I agree that leaving a note was commendable, but I'm not sure your changes to Eric's page were in any way necessary. In general, we don't edit the user pages of others unless we're reverting vandalism or teasing someone we know very well — neither seems to be case here. I don't think you acted in bad faith, but neither do I think you should pursue this any further. ---Sluzzelintalk21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sluzzelin. Thanks for the kind and thoughtful reply. We edit user pages for all kinds of reasons, in my experience. Typo fixing, links updating (category, disambiguation, file), gallery expansion, sometimes discussion, etc. In my opinion, one of Wikipedia's great strengths and beauties is open editing, including user pages, which is unlike Facebook or Google Plus or similar. I replied a bit more below. I agree that this situation is likely unfixable. I'm shaking my head at edits like this, though. Sheeeesh. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And perhaps Cassianto can explain how the page has "bugger all" to do with him or her. Has Cassianto been appointed Protector of User Pages? I'm baffled. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of who is right, both of you have been around long enough not to edit war over another user's user page no less. Please stop. Thanks. GoPhightins!21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
MZMcB's version of the wording comes over as much more aggressive than Eric's original, and it seems totally inappropriate to make a change like that to another user's page. If you think the wording needs a change, leave a note on the talk page to suggest that change. Don't mess with another user's user page unless it's clearly an attack page, copyvio, etc. PamD22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Why on a Monday?
MZMcBride, you may edit my userpage. But was it pure accident that you edited Eric's userpage on a Monday, the day he himself doesn't edit, per the top of this page? Bishonen | talk22:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
Cool, thanks. I might take you up on that. It seems there's lots of editing to do, even outside the article namespace.
Honestly, I didn't realize Malleus had quit Mondays. I did notice the auto-generated user talk page notice about it. I'm still not sure I understand the underlying philosophy, but I have no issue with any user self-imposing blocks or bans, temporary or otherwise. It didn't factor into my day.
I ended up here, for what it's worth, from some ancient Raleigh meetup page, which led me to Coffee's user and user talk pages. I then read up on Coffee and I admonished him a bit. Then I headed over here and re-skimmed Malleus' user page, noticing it read as though he was still editing as Malleus. I did a bit of research and then made what I still think was a pretty good edit. I shouldn't have reverted, but the experience felt pretty off-putting and felt kind of patronizing. Leaving a talk page note about user page edits is something I learned to do as sometimes people miss the edits, largely due to the way MediaWiki notifies the user (talk page edits --> orange notification; user page edits --> maybe a watchlist notification).
I think it's best to leave the person a talk message suggesting they update the user page at their convenience, instead of making the edit yourself unless it's for some reason urgent. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. I add infoboxes to hundreds of articles without even a question. How many "fights" did you notice in 2015? I saw none. Arguments on six, including a very strange "closing", on Chopin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hugh Bardulf would be the one I'd go for first I think, a stronger lede and overall balance in the main body than some of the others, although Josce de Dinan probably looks the most like a featured article without reading them!♦ Dr. Blofeld14:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Enthiran
Hi, any chance you could give this a copyedit and check for MoS issues? I gave it a considerable edit yesterday but really needs an expert copyeditor to give a thorough edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That may be more work than I'm looking for in the current "let's see how we can twist anything Eric says so as to justify another AE report and maybe get him blocked for a month next time" environment. EricCorbett19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't. But I'm still not looking for major work, even though I suspect that this nomination may well fail without my help. What's in it for me? EricCorbett23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I will say one thing though. If I can't help enough during the current FAC, I'll certainly help before the article is nominated again. Can't say fairer than that. EricCorbett04:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair, I've advised Sven to withdraw, largely because I don't think it'll pass this time. It needs a clean shot at it, and once it has been fully copyedited and outstanding concerns have all been addressed. I've seen the film, it's actually quite enjoyable, bizarre, mixing typical Bollywood-style dance with sci-fi, but entertaining nonetheless. Certainly more watchable than some of the generic superhero ones churned out by Hollywood at the moment.. Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) could also use some decent editors checking the prose quality before it heads off to FAC. I've put a fair bit of work into that myself trimming it and making more comprehensive. It gets over a million hits a year I think see [5]. I think it's in generally good shape, but the minor MoS glitches I always have a job spotting.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
A "novice" writes
Dear Eric: I'm a novice Wiki writer, and recently visited the Walter Scott page, where I found some of your work. So I'm writing you about a reaction I had. There is a nasty hit piece about Scott in an area there called something like "Influence on education in the US." It is quoted from a 1990s book called "Unrepentant Leftist" and is very critical of Scott. It amazed me how this otherwise excellent article about a literary giant was suddenly thrust into the nastiness of our current political polarization. I don't think the entire US education system and the widely-admired work of an author from the early 1800s should be indicted due to one man's experience...especially since the important sounding "Influence on eduction in the US" surely deserves more research that this! Can you do something about this..I'm not a huge Scott fan or anything like that, but it occurred to me that whoever put that there is simply pushing his or her political position against a major literary figure...and doing it without any additional evidence. Thanks for listening, and thanks for all your good work. Blueridge12 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, Scott had more influence on US education (and politics) than many other writers; he's the only one I can think of right now who even comes close to Shakespeare and Dickens. Also, to say that this passage is "critical of Scott" is pushing the point--it is critical of the ideology expressed in one of his poems, and with some validity, to put it mildly. I don't see how this has anything to do with "our current political polarization", whichever polarization that may be. Blueridge12, it cannot be that all praise is objective and all criticism partisan politics.
On the other hand, the section is woefully underdeveloped, and any discussion of Scott in the US ought to begin with his readership in the 19th, not the 20th century, and particularly that in the "genteel" South. What it needs is more, not less, and that will help alleviate the undue weight that the passage now has (it needs to be trimmed anyway). It is a fascinating topic, worthy of a doctoral dissertation or a monograph--if that hasn't been written already. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
JSTOR25121661 is interesting, and seems like it develops in a regular Yankee partisan way, until we get to the part where the author says "Negro slavery, like most other institutions, had its vices and its virtues." Drmies (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize it was Monday. Happy non-editing! Drmies (talk)
this explains it a bit better - it may cause bone marrow suppression and can lead to anaemia which may be fatal. However, the citation given in that article is about ferrets, not Star Trek, so it's synthesis anyway. Richerman(talk)10:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
And it's not even true that female ferrets must be mated during the breeding season or else they die, no matter what the British Ferret Club may say. Just like many other animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits etc. they are susceptible to a uterine infection known as pyometrea when they are in heat, and if that's left untreated it can be fatal. EricCorbett10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I thought it sounded somewhat ridiculous, but the budget vets page I linked to (which is fronted by a vet) seemed to confirm that it can happen - which is a long way from saying it always will happen. Presumably there's some truth in what they're saying is there? Richerman(talk)14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It can happen, just as it can happen to a dog or a cat. But it's by no mean inevitable. And if a female ferret should happen to die without having been bred from during her season it's not for the lack of a Vulcan-like empathetic partner, it's because she's contracted a uterine infection. EricCorbett14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a sensitive subject for me. Too many ferret owners aren't prepared to spend the money on keeping their animals healthy – ferrets are cheap and easily replaced without the trouble and expense of a vet visit – so they will argue as I've just done that female ferrets can survive not being mated during their season just to save money on neutering or jill jabbing. Just as some do for arguing that it's a waste of money to have them vaccinated against canine distemper, a disease that's almost always fatal to ferrets, as the vaccines don't work, they claim. I'm not at all in that camp; all of our ferrets are vaccinated and they're all chemically castrated, which isn't cheap. A single implant costs £90, and we've got eight of the little buggers. EricCorbett15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is compounded by the fact that you can't trust the vets not to rip you off. For instance, they insist you should have your dog vaccinated once a year, and if you don't they tell you that you must start the course again and have a primary and booster vaccination. However, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association's guidelines say you should not give the core vaccines more than once every three years and then, only if a blood test shows that the antibody titre has fallen below a certain level. Richerman(talk)15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've threatened to take the British Small Animal Veterinary Association to court over the advice they've been handing out over the use of fipronil in animals' ears, but what you find is that the vets close ranks. Much like admins on here actually. I'm not saying that vets aren't honest, but too few of them are prepared to be honest. EricCorbett16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Might you be so kind as to look at MIT Science Fiction Society? I had found it a miniature-stub of sorts and reared it up to this state (note image placement etc.) at which point I asked for an independent review which left it the current "improved" state.
Unfortunately, I had thought the issue was content and not appearance - and I do not really think the improvements, are. Nor am I as absolutely certain that all articles need infoboxes as the comments on the talk page indicate - all I want is that it be a nice, reasonably comprehensive and useful article - and to that end I solicit your assistance.
I found the suggestions made to me to be ones I would cheerfully (?) give a newby editor, but I am unsure that at 40K edits, editors with 11K edits necessarily notice that I am not precisely a newby. I believe you might recall me as the idiot who actually improved Joseph Widney to GA status by cutting it down (I wot not of any other articles which reached GA status in such a manner <g>). Many thanks! Collect (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I prefer the alternating images - it looks better on my screen (which is large, I will admit). You might ask @Mike Christie: as he's been working on the old sci-fi mags ... and is also someone who has worked with classes in the past (i.e. he's a heck of a lot more patient than I am... sorry!). It's probably not quite GA status yet, but in my mind it's not the pics/infobox which has any bearing on that... but the sourcing. You're going to need sources for pretty much everything in the article. Personally, I'd start the article body with the history section, but I'm a historian by training so... take that with a grain of salt. I did a couple of quick edits but Mike's got access to a lot more sources than I do (I have a lot of sci fi books, but not really anything ON sci fi. My library runs to horses and history...) It's looking good, you just need some more sourcing (and then a prose polish, but Eric can provide that...) Ealdgyth - Talk11:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I admit to pride in image placement <g> due to part of my background (way too many relatives were in journalism). I know I am missing quite a few notable members for sure - Russell Seitz, Dave vanderWerf, and a host of others - including a bunch of TMRC members (I think including Pete Samson, and a bunch of others, although they rarely attended the MITSFS meetings, they definitely borrowed books IIRC). Eric will tell you that I like brevity, however. And thanks in advance to Mike Christie if he drops in! Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. Eric is free to return to Wikipediocracy any time he wishes. His account is disabled at his own request.→StaniStani17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I would add that my resignation last year had nothing at all to do with any of these suggestions:
Apathy to Wiki politics.
Visceral dislike of WPO's perceived mission, which they see as the destruction of WP.
Fear of being outed or harassed by scary, scary WPO people / fear of their IP address being connected to their account name and misused.
Personal antipathy to taking criticism of WP off-wiki, believing that discussion should happen internally.
Fear of running aground of Wikipedia rules about canvassing, personal attacks, outing, etc. if they participate.
I'd be happy to see you there, with maybe one caveat about whether the individual you could no longer tolerate might remain an ongoing problem for you there should you return. I very sincerely hope it won't be a problem, but, well, not all the people who edit there, including me, are necessarily the easiest people to get along with. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if you took that as an insult, because it wasn't intended to be. Unfortunately, I guess I might be able to say that even with the best of intentions and motivations, it is possible for people to wear you down. I have certain restrictions as per an Arb case here, and I think it might be possible that someone might object were I to say more about how I would not consider it necessarily belittling to say that it can become difficult to consistently ignore conduct one is consistently given the opportunity and some might say obligation to ignore. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I write like that sometimes. ;( I guess the easiest way to say it is that I personally know from personal experience how hard it can be sometimes to ignore conduct when people might seem to in the eyes of some anyway to go out of their way to provoke you. And, although I could go into a bit more detail about at least one such instance in my own history, I am under an interaction ban here regarding one editor. So, if I were to mention that individual specifically, I might be subject to sanctions. And if I didn't specify the comment as relating to someone else, which might be seen as an attack on that "someone else," it might be construed as relating to the i-ban subject, even if it isn't. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Or more like, "ignoring those who deserve to be ignored can be difficult when they maybe seem to do little if anything but willfully get in your face," although, of course, that does not necessarily refer to any single individual or individuals. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Spotted a red link in the Ritz for Peter Beatty, a horse trainer/breeder I believe who jumped out the 6th floor window of the Ritz in 1949. [6] I thought Montanabw, Sagacious or a few others might be interested in starting him, if you can find enough on him that is.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Now that would be quite something LOL! I'm not sure there is enough on him though, I think he was a horse trainer for Agar Khan but google books isn't picking up much, perhaps the newspapers have more.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it OK with y'all if I post this at WikiProject Horse racing? If this is in the UK, most of the active members there are Brits and they may be able to find something. What article is this in? Montanabw(talk)01:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
removable if you want. Doorknob747 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)
A question for any males watching this page
I wonder how many other male editors feel as as I do, increasingly under pressure from a feminist agenda misguidedly supported by the WMF? Who are going to lose tens of thousands of donor's money in a face-saving attempt to redress the thing I'm not allowed even to mention. EricCorbett15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I would not dare to correct a typo on any article in a controversial topic. As a new editor, I feel that I am not free to edit in any area at all. There is such an aggressive stance taken against editors - particularly those who are not in keeping with the doublethink of the day. I see good editors who do great work who are hounded for their lack of belief, and others whose horrendous behavior is tolerated - even if they aren't particularly good editors - simply because they agree with the current trend. They say Wikipedia is not social media - and I will disagree. The behaviors on the drama boards are as bad or worse than any facebook conflict I have seen. Yes, there is an agenda. Yes, there is tremendous pressure. I will probably stay in the background most of the time, with little gnomish edits here and there, because this project scares the hell out of me. I have already been accused of sockpuppetry by an admin once, and had it hinted at another time - because I had given a well-reasoned argument; too well-reasoned for a new editor. As for what I have seen happen to you, all I can say is that I hope you keep writing good stuff like you do, and don't let the bastards get you down. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, in the interests of full honestly and disclosure, I just wrote the following to a friend on Facebook : "There is a guy on Wikipedia called Eric Corbett who lives just down the road from you. Good writer, nice as pie if you want to write stuff. Approach him as an admin with a God complex and you'll get it with both barrels." (note : "just down the road" in this instance means Bolton - Manchester) As for myself, there is a lot I would say about Wikipedia that is not at all positive, but if I shot my mouth off and said what was on my mind I'd just get blocked. And that would be annoying. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You know I'm not an admin Ritchie 333, nor ever likely to be one. My only purpose in being here is to write about the things that interest me, and to help others to write about what interests them. I recognised long ago that there's a moral vacuum at the heart of Wikipedia which I can do nothing about. EricCorbett22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood - I mean if an admin came on to your talk and started belittling you, you'd give them what for, and I don't think you need any examples of that. As for the moral vacuum, I hear that loud and clear off-wiki on a regular basis. As I mentioned elsewhere recently, the real problem is there are some people who are on Wikipedia too much and would benefit the project from being on less (not you!) but they are not self-reflective enough to understand this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Fowler Calculators of Manchester. Designed and manufactured a series of circular slide rules from 1898 to 1988. Considering the membership of the Oughtred Society an international organization with members in 22 countries. It is noted for its highly acclaimed Journal consists for the most part of "professional" white males it's surprising that there's no article on that or them (sarcasm). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the WMFs attitude is best summed up as "We should do something. This is something. Therefore we should do this." pablo10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have maintained from the get-go that Eric only afflicts the comfortable, I've yet to see him snark at newbies. Every now and then he can let the snark get out of hand and a bit of shrapnel hits a mostly-innocent bystander, but so can most of us. The real issue here is not the "feminists" generally (remember people, I identify as one myself) but rather a sub-group of people with issues, some of whom also claim to identify as feminist, though in my book all but one or two of the "Get Eric" crowd in question seem to use the label as a way to gain sympathy and not out of any actual interest in building content about women or in fighting the real fights that real women face in the real world. JMO. Montanabw(talk)01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
They are agenda-monkeys hiding behind a socially acceptable label so they can get some cover for their activities. To me the sad side of this whole affair is that they've by and large been able to get away with it. Remaining silent in the face of their "we are feminists" cries only gives them more legitimacy in the eyes of those who don't look deeper into the issues. Of course, that's just my view on it. But the ease which which they were (and in some cases still are) able to lurk behind that protective cloak does give me pause. Intothatdarkness13:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You said it! And I was calling them on their crap from the get-go, to no avail. The problem is also that people like me are also hobbled by not being able to use that particular identification without it being linked to the lunatic fringe. It reminds me of my real life where I also frequently have to qualify some of my views with the caveat, "but I'm not one of the people on the lunatic fringe and don't dismiss me by stereotyping me there!" The labeling allows people to shut down all discussion and just fling mud. Sigh... Montanabw(talk)16:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Women can be frustrating but try not to get so angry about it. You're missing out. Women haters, gamergaters, not sure why you exist. You're wasting your lives away in hate. Popish Plot (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You want to stay as far away as possible from the risibly named Arbitration Committee, which has never arbitrated on anything; its only purpose is to hand out punishments. It matters not a whit whether you're guilty of whatever it is you're accused of, the overriding concern is a quiet life. ArbCom was created by Jimbo in his own image, and showcases many of his own flaws, not the least of which is stupidity. EricCorbett05:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
the female response (about Kafka as a realist, especially in The Trial) is on my talk, look also for the AE reminder there to stick to two comments in a given discussion, - wish that would be passed more freely. Imagine how much more content could be written if everybody would stick to two comments on talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reason that fundraisers are needed now is to pay the salaries of the incompetents at the WMF, nothing to do with server space. EricCorbett13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup, there are a lot of people living very comfortably on the back of this volunteer-written, free encyclopaedia, while contributing virtually fuck all to its content. Keri (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, Eric Corbett,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
I poked my head over at Wikidata... and noticed some errors. So I fixed them. But ... it appears Wilfrid was a citizen of the United Kingdom, even though he died around 709, because most of my changes got reverted. For some reason, even thought the Wilfrid article on EN is well cited, they are only pulling references from the Italian and Russian language wikipedias. I'm so glad that they are working so hard to get infoboxes into everything so that wikidata can be accurate and stuff... so they can then turn around and push data from Wikidata onto EN. Ealdgyth - Talk23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
How do I deal with an admin who doesn't know how to edit?
Today's main page FA is Exhumation of Richard III of England and over the last few days an admin with over 10 years experience has made some of the most inept edits I have ever seen in a featured article. I have asked him to stop, but once again he has been adding information with just a bare url as a reference - something I've asked him not to do already - see:Talk:Exhumation of Richard III of England#More bad edits. As I'm getting tired of cleaning up after him what's the best way to put a stop to this? Richerman(talk)15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Presumably you're referring to Anthony Appleyard? Sadly I don't think there's anything you can do except to continue to clean up after him; he's an admin and he holds all the cards. If you complain you'll find your yourself branded as disruptive, and ultimately blocked to teach you to display the proper respect for your superiors. EricCorbett16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Former arbitrator, checkuser and oversighter" trumps admin, if someone wants to play that "mine's bigger than yours" game. I've given a warning on the article talk page for the moment, as hopefully this is just a good-faith misunderstanding as to what's considered appropriate content on Wikipedia. (The standards of Wikipedia were far lower back when Anthony Appleyard passed RFA, and if he's been away for a while he may genuinely think he's being helpful.) If the issue carries on, let me know and if need be I'll dish out a formal {{uw-point}} warning. – iridescent17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. I tried giving him the benefit the doubt for a couple of days but eventually your patience runs out - especially when someone's buggering up the TFA. Richerman(talk)18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't already seen it, Anthony, there is a nice little cite tool in the editing toolbar. In my opinion, it is much more convenient than typing the code manually. --Biblioworm23:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Richerman: The answer is always to find another admin who does know how to edit, (like iridescent *waves to iridescent*), and have them handle the situation. All admins aren't alike, just like all editors aren't alike. Even though Eric seems to still believe we're all power hungry mongrels :), I can assure you we aren't (well at least the majority IMHO). Hell, I've been rebuked by my fellow admins many a time for screwing something or other up. And, then I made sure to not make the same mistakes twice. - The only time it becomes an issue is if the admin refuses to change or comprehend their failures. Then we have a problem... but it looks like Anthony Appleyard is listening now, so our system of a distributed hierarchy seems to still be working. - By the way, feel free to let me know if anything like this happens in the future with someone else... I'll happily lend my assistance. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Much of my time logged in to Wikipedia has been spent in obeying history-merge and page-move requests that need pages to be temporarily deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked the question on Eric's talk page because I knew if he didn't have the answer one of his page watchers would. Anyway, I've just been watching a recording of the interment which was very moving and I'm feeling quite mellow. No hard feelings Anthony. Richerman(talk)00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:
If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)
