User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/September

Stockport County F.C.

Not sure how close this is to you, I just passed it at GA as it was a nice read. Feel like I should give them a shove to FAC if poss. Anything to add? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary

[1] hey, thank you. You seem to be quite competent yourself. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable GAs

Hi. History of Japan, a "level-4 vital article" was recently rewritten and submitted for GA review which it promptly passed. It opened with:

• "The first evidence of a human presence in Japan dates back to 200,000 years ago, but it was not until around 32,000 BC that an established Paleolithic culture came into being." (Correct answer "It is likely that humans first arrived in Japan hundreds of thousands of years ago by crossing the land bridges that have periodically formed ... The earliest undisputed evidence of human habitation is of Late Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, from about 35,000 years ago.")
• and next section: "Today historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland who conquered the native Jōmon people." (Correct answer "The Yayoi technologies originated on the Asian mainland. There is debate among scholars as to what extent their spread was accomplished by means of migration or simply a diffusion of ideas, or a combination of both.")

The article is now being dealt with, but maybe you or a talk page watcher might want to find and look at the reviewer's other claimed 235 GA reviews - especially any that fall outside of the scope of pop culture (their field of expertise, judging from their claimed GAs). There could be a lot of similar efforts out there marked with a '+'. This doesn't look like much of a review to me. Cheers, anyway. zzz (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussed here zzz (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time. Only a few days ago I had cause to report this as the reviewer was quickly passing GAs in order to get their score up. Cassianto^Talk 08:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting the first evidence of people in Japan wrong by 150,000 years seems like a bigger deal than getting the weight of cattle wrong by a couple of %, but point taken (I think). The Japan review is far less detailed than that of the cattle, though. zzz (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is clearly not ready for reviewing in its current state. I nearly made a couple of additions, but I should gain some perspective first as I have not edited in this field. Excuse the disruption. zzz (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing them you fool. And my gripe wasn't with the cattle's weight; it was with the article as a whole. My point was that the quality of some "GA"'s are shockingly bad in comparison to some others. Cassianto^Talk 14:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True. There's only a handful at WP:GAR for some reason. zzz (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Workhouse

I see you reverted my edit to the page "Workhouse." I have no problems with it, but I figure I should ask.. Does Wikipedia officially use British or 'murican English? Wertercatt (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)Since there is no such thing as 'murican English and no place for such slang in an encyclopedia, your question is pointless. However, if what you are asking is whether Wikipedia uses British or American English, the answer is that both are used. See MOS:ENGVAR. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) It depends on the article, best to use whichever form is already being used and do not go through and change it all absent consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) Interested by your usage of "absent" as a preposition, Montanabw, meaning "in the absence of" or "without", I checked the Oxford English Dictionary - which identifies it as a U.S. legal term. I must admit I'd never come across it until recently, and then mostly in Wikipedia discussions. But then Wikipedia discussions can tend to legalism. Is it in MOS:ENGVAR? John O'London (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd best take the fifth on that! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger

Good to see you back Eric. I intend to take Rod Steiger to FAC later in the week, I wondered if you could give it a read and edit beforehand? It looks in good shape to me, but I'm sure you'll spot a fair few things!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Borley Rectory article

Articles on Wikipedia should never make assertions or claims for the factual truth of religious beliefs and spiritual or supernatural phenomena. The reasons why doing so is not acceptable in a secular encyclopaedia should be obvious. Therefore it is required that your recent edits must be reverted. Afterwriting (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing "religious" about hauntings. Ghosts clearly exist, they've been reported throughout history. The only question is, what is that people are actually reporting? I think in fact that it's you who's taken a wholly inappropriate religious stance, not me. Eric Corbett 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your beliefs about this your editing is a a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. No claims of objective or factual truth about such things are ever acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. Let's see who agrees with you on the discussion you ought to have started on the article's talk page. Eric Corbett 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not just my "opinion". And the onus is not on me to initiate further discussion on the talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The onus is most definitely on you to justify your pseudo-religious stance. So let's see what you have to say for yourself on the article's talk page. Religious fervour doesn't cut it with me. Eric Corbett 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What "pseudo-religious stance" and "religious fervour"?! The onus is very clearly on you to attempt to justify making truth claims in articles in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. Afterwriting (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The truth is that hauntings were reported. It's not for me, or for you, to speculate on those events, or from a position of scepticism to assume that they must inevitably be "alleged". Eric Corbett 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Daft isn't it. This "fringe theory" thing really seems to be an American thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR input

Hey Eric, can you look at Chrome Division and Alphastates, articles I've nominated for GA reassessment? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Antonelli Bros Ltd

This article about an ice cream company in your neck of the woods just came in on CAT:CSD. I've tidied up but since you're local you (or any of the Greater Manchester regulars) might be able to do a better job, I dare say? I've got a gut feeling they were probably more popular in the early - mid 20th century than nowadays. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

opinion notability of murders vs murderers

As you've been active at Moors Murders article, I thought I would seek your opinion about a similar article. I've suggested a page move at Talk:Peter_Sutcliffe#Proposed_page_move. It seems logical to me that we should have an article about a set of murders in preference to a biography of a murderer, in exactly the same way as the Moors. What are your thoughts? Is there a difference between the two cases I am missing? --ℕ ℱ 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

R. M. Ballantyne

I saw you reverted my edited on R. M. Ballantyne. I can't read the source because it is behind a paywall. But more of Ballantyne's books other than the Coral Island are obviously certainly read. There are reviews for them on Amazon and Goodreads.

How would you clarify the article to say that the Coral Island is most read, but not the only of his books that is read? Jehorn (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say what the source says, which I did. If you can find another source to contradict the one cited then we can make whatever changes are necessary then. Eric Corbett 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Thank you. I didn't expect that. Wow. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification

I did this NE Ent 01:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Your account is newer than most senior editors, but your talk page has more page watchers than Administrators? You must be doing a great job. --112.79.37.44 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange that, isn't it. ;-) Eric Corbett 18:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It proves something very important. DBaK (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cult of Eric has no boundaries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You WHAT???? ... sorry, sorry, misread it there for a moment. Phew. DBaK (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem on Montanabw's failed RfA

After dragging me into this discussion on his talk page for no obvious reason, Kudpung deleted this objection from me:

How did I get dragged into this? And what's this "anti-admin brigade"? In point of fact, no matter what Kudpung or the founder think, I believe that WP would be very fortunate indeed to have a few more editors more like me and less like them.

I think that's deeply dishonest of Kudpung, although not entirely unexpected. Eric Corbett 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

His whole "anti-admin brigade" thing needs to go. It's not only intellectually dishonest, it's a passive-aggressive form of personal attack. Intothatdarkness 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not been around much and, alas, wasn't aware of the RfA. If memory serves me right, I think there is a quite long history of disagreement between you and Kudpung, Eric. It probably isn't worth stirring it further, however irked you may be. This is not to say that you should not have posted what you did - I've not looked at it - but rather to say that it isn't worth your time pursuing the issue because of WP:TPG etc. This said by someone who has been through that mill, so there is an element of pot and kettle in what I say. Either I'm getting soft in my old age or the morphine is kicking in, and my money is on the latter. Might I suggest Walter Whitehead as a distraction? It is probably in need of some TLC of the type that only a few here can supply. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who was stirring anything. For reasons best known to himself Kudpung decided to drag me into a discussion of Montanabw's RfA, and then deleted my objection. It's no secret that I have no time for Kudpung and his namby-pamby attitude to RfA reform, but I'm not the one acting dishonestly and with malice. Eric Corbett 23:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If it helps, I was the one who pinged you after he posted links to your previous RfA attempts as some sort of example for me to consider. (not sure what was implied because when I took it one way, he explained that he didn't mean it that way, so... meh.) If you want to trout me, that would be OK; I'm trying to get some feedback from selected sources. My RfA was quite the drahmah, complete with off-wiki canvassing against my candidacy, and because I could not "canvass" to alert people I was running, and because it was stated - that I have a WP:OWN problem, a "battlefield mentality" and bite newbies, it failed at about 60%. I was very heartened to see that I acutually had more support !votes than 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year - it was the percentage of opposed that killed it. I'll acknowledge that in retrospect I do recognize that I sometimes charge into situations with guns blazing when I don't need to, and I intend to work on that; the rest needs some time for me to process to decide what needs to be taken to heart and what was simply misunderstood. I do plan to try again, probably next spring, giving it 6 months plus a touch extra to be sure that the annual March madness/silly season/cabin fever that seems to hit WP every spring has passed. Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung linked you to my RfAs, the most recent of which was more than eight years ago now, without explaining why. He has recently accused me of personal attacks and trolling because I posted the message I've quoted at the top of this section, objecting to his dragging me into your postmortem. I think that tells me everything I need to know about Kudpung. Just remember what they say about sleeping with dogs. Eric Corbett 13:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking selected "oppose" !voters for their views, at least the ones who didn't appear to have a pre-existing vendetta. I plan to try again and I think it's helpful to understand their views, regardless of whether I agree with their conclusion. I think it was Ben Franklin who said something like "love your enemies, they will tell you your faults." Not that I have any. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Freida Pinto

Hi Eric, hope you're doing good now. I've nominated the above article for FAC. It's been quite a while since I last wrote a BLP. I would be really grateful if you could give a full read and spot prose glitches which I might have missed. Thanks, —Vensatry _(ping) 11:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you'd missed out this one, can you please give a full read? —Vensatry _(ping) 09:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)