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.
Hi Eric; notwithstanding the vicious and sustained bullying campaign by (white, privileged, American) warriors against you, I need to ask for a bit of help with the van Gogh article if you get a chance. Iridescent recommended you as one of the best we have, not exactly news and my opinion also; though I also rather fancy John as knowing what he is doing. Asking for help here, if either of ye can manage to spare time, it would be most appreciated.Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
A better plan would be to co-opt one of the several Van Gogh experts (JVollenhoven being the latest) trolled or blocked by your cartel over the years. As a crowd-sourced effort (though it is locked to IPs) the present Van Gogh article has a certain charm and value (choosing a deliberately patronizing form of words). As an encyclopedic article it is a joke and its faults not to be redeemed by a mere grammarian, however exalted. 86.155.148.161 (talk) [Marinka van Dam] —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The Civility Police are very selective - rules only apply when it suits. Where are all those who vociferously scream about NPA? Oh, whoops, I forgot - if the attacks are against Eric, they are considered acceptable ... SagaciousPhil - Chat
7-R-R. Behaviour like that from one of the untouchables makes it really difficult to achieve anything round here. There is also a good argument in favour of expanding the fire coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no argument in favour of expanding it until the facts have emerged, not mere speculation and surmise. EricCorbett21:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, here we go - the "Civility Police" decide what they want and who is to be "punished"; spiteful, vindictive, blatant sock accounts are to be treated with the utmost respect, especially if it means old scores can be settled. At some time in the future we can all hope that WP will be considered an encyclopaedia rather than the rolling news story some wish to make it ... SagaciousPhil - Chat
Some folks missed the point about the name calling (deliberately by the look of it). Sorry I spoke Eric, I might have realised there would be an Andy Dingley about. J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Calling me "go boil your head, you crabby old fuckwit", and "piss off twat-face, you miserable old scunner", is clearly acceptable in WP's increasingly desperate attempts to recruit more editors. Even better if they're female. EricCorbett21:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You weren't the only one missed off, Sagaciousphil was too. But I'm really Andy Dingley's target, regardless of any rights or wrongs. EricCorbett22:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm ... the "CivilityPolice" choose their own rules as always - why do we bother? Hypocrisy is endemic - Eric, you have *always* helped so many of us on WP - how many times have you and I constantly tweaked articles? Why do we continue to contribute to a site that seeks to castigate us? I guess it's because we love producing good content but I do wonder why we put up with the hassle. SagaciousPhil - Chat22:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just said this elsewhere but I think it's worth repeating, I've never understood why editors watch others just to run to the noticeboards. After nearly six years I wouldn't know how to do it. Pathetic really. How it improves the encyclopedia I don't know. J3Mrs (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't, clearly, but unfortunately some get a perverted kick out of it. And in any case, who are we to deprive them of such pleasures. ;) CassiantoTalk22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I've worked closely with Eric for quite a while and have *never* known him to make any 'thoughtless' edits. IPs with next to no contributions suddenly buddying up throwing their weight around deserve little or no credence. If you have an account, pull your "big girl knickers on" and log in to it to comment. SagaciousPhil - Chat00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Eric, looks like I'm in a minority view with you and a few others that this whole Counter-Vandalism Academy Unit (presumably it was the Counter-Vandalism State Comprehensive, and Counter-Vandalism Secondary Modern before that) is a huge exercise in missing the point of what writing an encyclopedia is all about. I'm worried I'm sounding a bit too much like a Daily Mail reader, though, and that's concerning. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Eric's right, the IP is wrong; Wikipedia is written in neither Cockney nor 18th-century English, and in both British and American English the H in "historic" is always sounded nowadays. The OED even has this as one of their FAQs. ‑ Iridescent17:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
repute (verb)
believe, consider (per my own knowledge and Merriam-Webster online; I am currently a continent away from my OED and other paper dictionaries, but feel free to check in yours)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I think it's you who's doing the edit warring. Do we now need to have an RfC on your basic misunderstanding of English punctuation? EricCorbett22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Eric, in the past 24 hours Curly Turkey was asked to dial back the mounting personal attacks against you. Could I likewise ask of you that you consider copy-editing without taunting him in your edit summaries? You more than many know how irritating it is when someone starts altering an article you spent a lot of work passing through GA, in particular when you've just had several unpleasant exchanges over the past few days. Surely both of you can find enough common ground to collaborate rather than undermine each other? Thank you for giving it some thought. MLauba(Talk)00:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I have made no personal attacks, simply a few observations. Unlike Curly Turkey, who has venom at the heart of his soul. EricCorbett00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
He was asked to reconsider his approach, and it would certainly make it easier if you were to phrase your observations in a more depersonalized manner. MLauba(Talk)00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Has he reconsidered his approach? How do you suggest "depersonalizing" a gross misunderstanding of English punctuation to someone who refuses to learn? EricCorbett00:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not getting in a pissing contest over this. Since Curly has been blocked then unblocked over the less than optimal dialogue with you over the past 3 days, resetting relations to neutral could be a good way to avoid this ending up in yet another miserable experience like so many before. You, however, don't need another lecture from someone your junior, and I need some sleep. Good night. MLauba(Talk)01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
