User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/September

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, Eric Corbett. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm looking to decrease my involvement with this dysfunctional site, not increase it for the further glorification of Jimmy Wales and his fawning acolytes. I suggest you try and recruit some females, the only editors WP seems to be interested in these days. Eric Corbett 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we were all here to solely work for Jimbo for free on such a hostile website we'd all be mugs of course. I edit here for myself and the personal satisfaction I get out of the project, like most who edit here I think. I don't like the fact that a small group of people are being paid, Jimbo is glorified as if he's created it all ,and the real people who are the life and soul of the encyclopedia don't, but at the end of the day it is what you get out of wikipedia that matters. If you're not getting anything out of it anymore then I understand. I get much less satisfaction out of it than I used to which is reflected in how much I edit nowadays.. Above all beyond the nonsense, it's frustrating just how much work is needed on the vast majority of articles and how few people on here really seem interested in it as a proper encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how many people think that making drama instead of articles is what the place is all about. How to remind the collective semi-conscious around here that absent content there is no encyclopedia?? Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the invitation; oh well, if you change your mind, great. Regarding editors (per other above comments): many people spend the majority of their time contributing to discussions and the minority of their time actually improving or creating articles. Some almost exclusively contribute to discussions, only making the occasional minor edit to articles. It's an increasing trend that's unlikely to minimize in the near future. It would be great if Wikipedia were to become more topic-centric. Just my 2 cents. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Interview

You might be interested in seeing this.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Strangely enough I'm not. Eric Corbett 02:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Ah! My Goddess (season 1)/archive1

The Featured List status of Ah! My Goddess (season 1) is reviewed. There are issues, so you can fix them. --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would I want to fix them? Eric Corbett 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

WP:WMF now exists, FYI. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you think I might be interested in that. Eric Corbett 12:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall you mentioning something about the WMF before, something about consultant contracts if I remember correctly. Anyhow, I envision it as a place where English Wikipedia editors can engage, document, and organize things of importance to them about the WMF. But if you have no interest, then nevermind! Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have little enough interest in WP these days, never mind the bloated WMF. Eric Corbett 14:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Perhaps a point on Talk:Low back pain/GA1 could strike your fancy. It's my review, and I'm still not sure if the background info on "pain" and "back" there is appropriate. But maybe it's a minor sin even if it's not. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Old user name in list of GA reviewers

I just happened to notice that Malleus Fatuarum is still listed as a GA reviewer at Good article nominations/List of reviewers. Just in case you hadn't noticed and wanted to change that. --Boson (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really review anything much these days. Malleus did that, and look what happened to him. Eric Corbett 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A challenge...

Here's a challenge - I am reviewing Pinniped for GA, and think it'd be good if not all four paras of the lead began with "Seals/pinnipeds...." - however I have been staring at it for a while and can't for the life of me tweak it so that the flow and prose sounds good with any change I can think of. The challenge here then is to change at least one para so it starts with something different....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 09:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice one/thx/much appreciated - will buy you a pint or three in the Old Dart sometime.... :) - we should rename this page the real guild of copyeditors then I guess ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Uxbridge

Sorry, I didn't realize it was in the article before—a friend quoted it, but I read it as a suggestion to change it. I'm a fan of deadpan humor in articles, but that's just me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you're a fan of is of no interest to me. I'm only concerned that you don't wreck what's already here, which God knows is bad enough already. Eric Corbett 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, best of luck. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Luck is no defence in the war of attrition against editors such as yourself. You may of course feel similarly about me, but like most other of your admin colleagues you'd be wrong. Eric Corbett 06:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel at all similarly, and I'm puzzled as to why you think I would. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite simply astonished that you considered that edit to the image caption to be a good idea. You need to get your arse in gear if you want to remain an administrator. Eric Corbett 13:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this particular instance (borderline, at best), I'm just as astonished that deadpan yet accurate humor is seen as a "wreck". What do you think of this? ~~ [Ed]

• No offense, person with unfinished signature, but Cracked.com got there first (Link) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• That was me, sorry Crisco. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading the above right—a Wikipedia admin using "a friend told me to off-wiki" and "I did it for the lulz" as an excuse for vandalizing an article and apparently genuinely not seeing why this is inappropriate? – iridescent 09:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Errr Ed, that was not a good move. Just please don't do anything like that again - The reason is that if we condone this for one....and then 50-100 people think its funny....this could be a real headache to clean up, a bit like April Fools' day...but in mainspace.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The other thing is that one never know who one might offend with some flippant quip. Wikipedia is really at a crossroads to be taken seriously. This sorta thing is very risky and we can't afford upsetting folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, everyone's taking the worst possible version of this story—enjoy yourselves, you can be assured that I won't do it again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies for (unintentionally) setting this off. I posted a link to Uxbridge's leg on Facebook, as I did with Drmies talk page. On Facebook I quoted the caption which Eric deleted in the article soon afterwards. The rest, I think we all know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

When you get the notification saying I rolled you back, ignore it. I was trying to compare two versions of the history to see what you had improved and "missed" with the mouse click. Useless. I have rolled myself back and restored your version. Sorry. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when Jimbo himself edits an article and inserts a blog as a RS, I can only add Facepalm. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't be at all surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dorchester House

Being interested in former buildings and country houses, you or Giano might be interested in seeing if you can finding something on the house which existed on the spot of the Dorchester prior to 1931. It was supposed to have been something of more architectural note than the hotel, probably a crying shame at the time that it was demolished in favour of a rather bland looking hotel. It was inspired by a villa in Rome, sounds interesting, not sure you'd find enough for an article, there was at least one house built on the spot though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems we already have it: Dorchester House and looks to have been inspired (very loosely) by the Villa Borghese or the Villa Farnesina. The Dorchester House article has more than a whiff of plagiarism of copyvio to it.  Giano  20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Surprising, I took for granted we didn't have an article on it because our coverage of demolished buildings isn't great really..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I only found it doing a Google search. Seems to have been written by one User:Maypm - who looks to have written some interesting stuff; I've not come across him/her before. On reflection, I think the whiff of copyvio is more to do with a heavy reliance on quotes rather than any infringements of of copyright.  Giano  11:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FA

Thank you from PSky and Wehwalt for your comment and review of this recently successful FAC. PumpkinSky talk 20:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to see Grace as a FA after all the kerfuffle. Eric Corbett 22:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too. PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

August Closs

I took care of some dab issue for you and removed the unattractive template; perhaps you or someone else can help me a bit. Herr Closs was eminently notable, if only for his love of books, and I don't have access to the ODNB. (Someone told me recently how to get in the backdoor, but I can't find where.) The article needs a bit of help while I'm elsewhere occupied. Thanks ever so much! Drmies (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited August Closs have I? I can certainly look up his ODNB entry for you though. Eric Corbett 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Been a while, I see, since I've been here. Sorry, my obscure reference was to the fact that I removed some Bracket Bot notice (about an unrelated article) when I posted this message. In the meantime two kind editors helped me to the ODNB entry. I hope you're doing alright--I just wrote up my dissertation director, John P. Hermann, who was on one crusade (against the Greek system) while denouncing another (violent conversion in medieval Europe). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be continually in the wars here recently, so business as usual I suppose. Eric Corbett 19:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on with talk pages?

My talk page appears to have its own talk page.[1] Strange. Eric Corbett 17:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going all post-modern on us, clearly. Is your talk page's talk page keeping a civil tone to itself? ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Ucucha's TFA notification bot (UcuchaBot (talk · contribs) was talking to your talk page's talk page, not to you on your talk page. To avert the possibility of your talk page's talk page developing unnatural quasi-human intelligence from reading about all the featured articles you have helped to write, I have extermined it. Quite a few people have accidentally created pages prefixed with "User talk:User talk:" through page moves and the like, or Twinkle warnings... Bencherlite^Talk 17:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Eric Corbett 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had one for years--a meta talk page, so to speak, but not highly-trafficked: User talk:Drmies/talk. It was inspired by User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk, which actually went one step further, User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk/talk. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chorlton-cum-Hardy

Eric, could you please stop? That's already 2RR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if it's 20RR; the article needs a lot of work, not stupid accusations. Eric Corbett 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Last warning, Eric. I really don't need to point you to WP:EW, do I? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  You don't need to do anything so far as I'm aware, and I'm not even slightly interested in your warning. I'm not a child and I won't be treated like one. Eric Corbett 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't act like a child, and you won't be treated as one. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 01:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall rattling your cage to ask for an opinion? Eric Corbett 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your behaviour today has been nothing short of a child, so I'm not surprised. Do you enjoy being rude and ignorant? Hardylane (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Unlike you I've never tried it. Eric Corbett 01:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments like this are so unhelpful and inappropriate I can't believe I have to point it out to you. Your sheer arrogance and combative attitude on this, whether your edits are right or wrong, will put you right into the soup at EW or ANI. Why are you doing this? If you're such a superb editor, then surely the excellence of your editing improvements will win others over to your version anyway. Instead, "acting like a child" as Scotty puts it (and I agree completely) gets the article nowhere and throws you into another long block. This is pointless and you're supposed to be better than this.

Please, if you're going to edit the article, please take it in smaller steps. A 3k change is a curate's egg. Others will be both for and against parts of it, so it just goes back and forth. If these were para at a time changes, we might get some agreement as to which ones were supported and which weren't. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I've often made very decent edits to an article and improved it but some editors will always object to a certain version. I much improved the Paris article and a bunch of disgruntled assholes crawled out of the woodwork and had nothing but nastiness towards me and the article. However great the editors may or may not me there'll always be editors who feel protective towards articles that they've contributed to and disagree with changes. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an editor in getting universal support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley The article needs sorting out, it is bloated and wordy. If editors with Eric's degree of competence can't be trusted to remove crap then what is the point? The other editor is the one who should be justifying re-adding rubbish. I have "pruned" this article in the past but "stuff" accumulates. I certainly couldn't work in the manner you suggest, nothing would improve and tempers would get even more frayed, I don't see your contribution as being at all helpful. J3Mrs (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric's "degree of competence" is not carte blanche to annoy other editors just for the hell of it. Patience and tact are also required, not this donnish attitude that the plebs have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And surely this works in reverse, other editors should not be allowed to annoy established editors through ignorance and incompetence and who said "plebs have nothing to contribute?" Not me and not Eric. J3Mrs (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Eric's responses have been (in general) quite measured, at least to this issue. Now, for someone calling another editor an idiot, implying that they have no life, etc. ...  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Andy Dingley said Eric would "annoy other editors just for the hell of it" is astonishing to me. Is that civil? It certainly assumes no good faith. J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hardy, you're really not helping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nikki just indef protected the article. PumpkinSky talk 01:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, she protected it for three days. The feedback tool was indefed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you make a major effort to begin overhauling and cleaning up an article and somebody blind reverts you completely why would Eric not revert and accept it? There really has to be some adjustment to the 3RR rule over for editors who can be trusted to make appropriate edits to an article. It's happened to me several times and it is rather irritating when you can't make a revert after you'd made decent edits. I'm intolerant of such people and won't accept that sort of blind reverting and clearly Eric doesn't either but when such people irritate you it's somehow childish? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Eric made no effort to engage with other editors on the article talk page to explain his changes, as he had been specifically asked to do on two separate occasions - [2], [3]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is interacting with some editors, particularly those who don't know what they're doing and who revert wholesale can be counter productive. J3Mrs (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Like Precisely. No sense arguing with trolls. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[4]. I'd have thought the edits he made needed no explanation and he said all that needed to be said in the edit summaries. I'd soon get irritable if I had to explain even the most obvious of edits to people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But that's not wholly true. Deleting a referenced paragraph (about the 1964 blues broadcast - which incidentally is quite notable for those who are interested in music history) on the basis that the section "needs a bloody good clear out" was not "the most obvious of edits", and could have used a fuller explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the way it was worded was presented as mindless trivia. If it was an important concert, then it would be appropriate to mention it in the history in the right context and tone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Turns out the concert didn't really take place in Chorlton-cum-Hardy anyway. Eric Corbett 22:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucky I questioned it then, otherwise we may never have known.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK here's a perfect example. [5] Edit warring. He is right and I'm wrong? Should I just except his poor english revert and bad faith (and clearly false) edit summaries? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of the situations where the stupidity of fixed and inflexible rules about some actions in wikipedia may be matched by insensitivity and cluelessness in some admins who would blindly aply the 3rr rule without lookingt more closely into it. It would seem better to flag it as some kind of unhelpful addition and place a warning on that editor's page. Also, you could alert someone like me, who would definitely take time to understand what has been going on, preferably before you feel obliged to revert for the third time. It's tedious, but given the inflexibility sometimes shown, may be it is something we have to do? Remember, you are trying to maintain the integrity of wikipedia, and it is possible that this kind of problem is a kind of game-playing for all we know (though we are not also supposed to do that, because of the "assume good faith" rule which people often do not realise should not be maintained in the face of clear contrary evidence.)  DDStretch  (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My corps

I have an inkling that my corps de logis and cour d'honneur are being italicised with a Anglican shudder and only left because I added them (I wrote those two pages too) which is nice of you; but you can take them out of Mount Vernon if you like; they are probably not really appropriate for an American glorified farmhouse. I inserted them rather tongue in cheek. In fact, at Mount Vernon, I believe the natives call the cour d'honneur "mansion rondelle" or something of the kind. As ever  Giano  18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether they should be italicised or not, and as a (lapsed) Catholic I'm certainly no Anglican; I simply strive for consistency. As for Mount Vernon, I think we're getting close to an assault on GAN? Eric Corbett 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant Anglician or whatever the word for the emotions of the British is. Yes, one or two loose ends, I uploaded a plan, but could never get it quite right, so gave up.  Giano  05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We British don't really have emotions, that's for the Johnny foreigners. Eric Corbett 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem Eric, you need to discover your feminine side.  Giano  20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What feminine side? Eric Corbett 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:If a picture of a bus is essential for Chorlton cum Watsit, I have found this one; it's far more attractive and will encourage more people to visit the depressing looking place than the existing bus picture.  Giano  20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That bus picture will be gone soon enough along with several others, as well at least half of the existing article. I've got no patience for pussy-footing around. Is that what you meant by "feminine side"? Eric Corbett 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen such a depressing looking dump; the only cheerful information was the fact that people no longer go there to be buried. Doesn't it have any lap dancing clubs that could be tastefully photographed?  Giano  21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was there earlier this evening as it happens, and it's not really as dull as it's portrayed. There are some really quite chintzy areas. It's one of those places though where people think that dragging a few tables and chairs outside a cafe makes it seem sophisticated, as opposed to cold and wet. Eric Corbett 21:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A colleague of mine was dragged kicking and screaming by his wife to live there. Apparently it is very popular with the 'ladies who wear comfortable shoes'. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean no six inch stilettos and lap dancing clubs?  Giano  21:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. In that sense it is indeed rather dull. Eric Corbett 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the lack of lap-dancing clubs is somewhat compensated for by the fact that it's unique amongst Manchester suburbs by being above the snowline - as you can see from the main image. The skiing in October can be excellent . Richerman (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a rather strange choice of lead image. Eric Corbett 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As is the image that illustrates the 20th-century developments section where the main focus is - the shadow of a horse chestnut tree??? Richerman (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I'm allowed to I'm going to take a machete to this article, and with the help of J3Mrs maybe a half-decent article will emerge. But I've got a kitten demanding to be played with, so first things first. Eric Corbett 22:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And how is said kitten? And when will she appear to illustrate a wikipedia article? I have found that my own critters often make handy wikipedia models... Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

She's snoozing with her head resting against my arm right now, and she's growing up fast. Eric Corbett 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi, Thanks a lot for taking up and completing the comprehensive review of Pundarikakshan Perumal Temple with such precision. The comments were very constructive and i am taking this as an input for other articles i am editing. The vernacular usage of words was a difficult part. Once again, thanks a lot. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I hope you agree that the article looks better now than it did when the review started, which is the point really. Eric Corbett 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

yes - i do. The major difference from the initial time is the separation of the art/history part with others.Once again, thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sunbeam Tiger info

Eric,

I'm prepared to defend the changes I made.

Where would you like to start? Spmdr (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to start with you fucking off. I don't have the time or motivation to deal with wankers like you. Eric Corbett 14:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, looks like your revisions to the tiger page are woefully inaccurate. How can you defend such a response to Spmdr? I wonder would you be so rude in person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.55.79 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly would. Would you? Eric Corbett 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Always such a pity when a person's edits reflect so badly on their employer: IPs can be so informative.  Giano  20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  Difficult to understand why someone working for Dean Witter Financial Services in New York believes themself to be an expert on the Sunbeam Tiger. Eric Corbett 21:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for assistance to others in article improvement no matter the topic. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Drmies submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Eric Corbett as Editor of the Week, not for his "own" articles (which need no advertisement) but for the work he does for others. Eric, despite unverified assertions to the contrary, is quite active in editor retention even if that's not his immediate goal. His qualities as an editor and FA/GA writer are well-known, but what doesn't always get a lot of attention is the enormous amount of work he does on other editors' articles, on topics sometimes far outside his usual field. Folks come by and ask him, and he usually gets to work--and if you know his work you know what a thorough job he does. On the current version of his talk page, see for instance User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Uruguayan_War, User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Fatinitza, User_talk:Eric_Corbett#You're back (Eric dropped 25 copyedits on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) and User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Copyediting (37 to Paris). He's helped all kinds of people get their articles in decent shape, in GA shape, and in FA shape, and he doesn't often get the credit he deserves for it. Thanks for the consideration, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 16:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sunbeam Tiger

Eric Corbett

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 15, 2013

Recognized for improving the prose of every article he touches, and for the hard work in bringing the multinational Sunbeam Tiger to both FA status, and the front page of Wikipedia.

Recognized for

Imparting workmanship into articles

Notable work

Sunbeam Tiger

Submit a nomination

How extraordinary and completely unexpected! Thanks Drmies. Do I get special privileges for the week, such a dispensation from 3RR? God knows, I could certainly do with one. Eric Corbett 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I just take the blame if he goes over 3RR for the week? ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ;-) Eric Corbett 20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as you only get me blocked for your 3RR on article improvement then sure. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I (proudly) take the blame for the infobox on Fatinitza, my last for an opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not be the same without you. You improve articles and editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Haha, I had forgotten all about this. Ping me next time, will you, with our fancy new pingware? Also, it's well deserved of course. I can't give you any dispensation (at least not from this account, bwuhaha), though I would have blocked an IP on Chorlton-cum-Hardy in early August if I had seen it, for false accusations of vandalism. Please be nice to Crisco; he's having a hard enough time already after being called a racist once or twice. Oh, and considering your interest in witches, have you read about troll cats yet? Fascinating creatures! Drmies (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations! A well-deserved award. --John (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  I find it rather ironic really, as my aim has never been to retain editors, but to make them better editors by showing them how to write an encyclopedia article. Hasn't really worked though, I accept that. Eric Corbett 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a day late and a dollar short, as usual, but this was well earned. I'm very fortunate to have had Eric teach me most of what I know about properly sourcing articles, help me with writing prose, and be a part of every GA/FA/TFA I've ever been a part of. Thanks for everything you have done for me, as well as everything you have done for the many, many other Wikipedians who were interested in improving themselves. You might catch more than your share of heat around here, but many us know you really make a positive difference here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Crisco racist? Tony the Tiger could resemble Mr. Blobby and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to his character... An outer skin really makes absolutely no difference to the soul and true personality of the person (especially over the Internet) and people who claim otherwise and make a thing of race are more likely to be the ones who have a chip on their shoulder about it. Two of the most racist people I was in college with were of Pakistani parentage, everything to them came down to skin. You could offer them a Club biscuit bar and they'd jokingly think you were making a racist jibe at them!.. I♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I used to work with a Pakistani like that. If you even commented while eating a bar of chocolate that you preferred white chocolate to dark chocolate he'd get the hump and accuse you of being racist. Eric Corbett 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean racists can be of any race you like? Well I never..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me! Eric, can you or somebody else here put Susanna Reid on your watchlists, some newbie seems intent on adding trivial tabloid smut about her in the article which I removed and he reverted. Not sure what you think about the flirting mentions and press reports. I suppose BBC complaints are worth mentioning but it all comes across as tabloid fodder to me and I'd probably remove most of it. Perhaps you could edit out what you think is trivia.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't much like those flirting reports and accounts of her cleavage, doesn't really seem appropriate. Eric Corbett 20:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks better without it, but I might need some assistance in keeping it that way, Nesta8 seems to think we're Nuts magazine...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

While you're there, Victoria Coren, a BLP currently containing an unsourced paragraph about her apparent career in the harcore porn industry (WTF?) could do with a look over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Coren is quite open about her brief time as a porn director (it's mentioned near the bottom of her official biography), to the extent that she wrote an entire book about it. It's clearly relevant to her biography, as it's highly unusual for someone in her position to go into porn, and even more unusual for it to have no apparent negative effect on her subsequent career as a darling of the Daily Telegraph. – iridescent 2 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Even so, was it worth going to as much detail as the article did? If you think it is, revert my edit and add a source. Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What's there now seems fine to me. Eric Corbett 11:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blimey, something cheerful – this seems very out of character for WP! About bloomin' time, yes indeed! Nortonius (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

I didn't know what the hell a stroopwafel was until about 15 seconds ago, upon this window opening. But yea, there ya go. Some make-believe Dutch snack food (or dessert or breakfast or whatever-the-hell) to say hi. Long time, no chat. Hope you've been well! Lara 21:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In the pink. How's your studying been going? Eric Corbett 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I transferred to UNC last year and made the dean's list my first semester. So that was cause for much celebration. Then I took a brutal history course and got a C- that really dragged down my GPA. Continued anger over that, but it's what I get for trying to double major. I'm getting things back on course now. Graduating in May and (probably/hopefully) taking a gap year to prepare for grad. school. Really ready for a nap, but I've got to figure out what graduate degree I want. Lara 11:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo, UNC, fancy pants! Good luck paying that off the next thirty years. Maybe you can play double your debt or nothing by signing up with the neighbors. Stroopwafels are delicious. If you go to the motherland of stroopwafels you can buy them on the market, freshly made, still warm. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

UNC is actually pretty cheap. A little over $7k a year. And about half of that is paid in grants. I have very little student loan debt, thankfully. Duke, on the other hand, is over $40k a year. None of that for me, thx. Lara 02:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing much - I've just been out in Aberdeen for a couple of pints, I think I might make this - could be good for a chuckle...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor lamb, you must be bloody freezing! Fun isn't quite how I'd describe a meeting with Rodhullandemu though, but YMMV of course. Eric Corbett 21:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, quite nice up here actually. Bit breezy out and about yesterday but nice weather overall - pleasant change from four months of humidity and heat that I'll be experiencing over the Aussie summer. Yeah, "fun" would depend on what we all talk about really.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's trade. You can have the arguably mild winter that's about to roll into NC and I'll take your Aussie summer. Lara 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Useful stuff

This looks useful. How would we cite it? Not that I've read it all yet. J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's from a journal called The Manchester Geographer, so use the 'cite journal' template or similar. Most of the detail is here. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) As it's an article from a journal try: Kennedy, Thomas (1989). "Who built Chorlton? The development of a late Victorian suburb" (PDF). The Manchester Geographer: 2–19. I can't work out which volume it is though. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read it now and think there might be some mileage in splitting the history into just two sections but I'm not sure what to call them. It seems to divide naturally into pre-Victorian about rural Chorlton and the growth of the suburb? Any thoughts? My spelling of recusant is a blind spot, and no doubt will continue to be, I think I'm getting too old to improve. J3Mrs (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a natural split to me as well. I'd probably call them Early history and Suburban growth. I'm still having some nagging doubts about the extent of what we're considering to be Chorlton though. I accept that the Stretford Memorial is probably in Stretford and not where I'd always assumed it to be, in Chorlton, but it seems ridiculous to me not to consider the Southern Cemetery as being in Chorlton.

Have you seen this BTW? I've been wondering how best to tackle the missing statistical parts of the article, and it seems to me that the best we can do is to combine the figures for the Chorlton and Chorlton Park wards, even though the latter contains a little bit of Withington. What do you think? Eric Corbett 11:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that. Your suggestion seems reasonable, we could somewhere explain the extent, ie the old township and the parts added in the wards. I think Hough End, which seems to be the addition, could possibly have a section about it and its hall which seems quite significant. I'll compile something on the population growth based on Vision of Britain and the figures from the Man geog soc article but not until later as I have an appointment. J3Mrs (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started population and done some thinking. The Manchester Geog Soc article could provide a nice little summary picture of the village in the mid-19th century as well as some interesting facts a figures for its growth if I knew how to reference it. Shall I put it in the bibliography and reference it like a book with page numbers or is there a better way? (sorry to be so gormless about these things) By the way Manchester Council provides much data in its ward profiles and I don't know what the best way to reference them either. J3Mrs (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Dropping by to say thanks. It is reassuring your still here doing great editing. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC again

Following the latest "success" with the Sharpe and Paley list, I thought I would offer List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley as a candidate. It incorporates the lessons learnt from the review of the previous FLC, and is of the same format. Would you be prepared to copyedit the text and make any helpful comments? Appreciated, as always. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but it might take me a day or two to get there. Eric Corbett 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush. It's been sitting around for a time while we enjoyed our golden wedding celebrations. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that really is something to celebrate, Congratulations to you both, I hope one day we can say do same. J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I've had enough. What was good enough for this reviewer last time is not good enough now. Another day wasted. I can't design templates anyway. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I could change the template, but no doubt that would make someone else unhappy. Every day here is a wasted day. Nobody cares about your work unless you're working on a "vital" article such as house. Eric Corbett 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but please do not change the template. What matters to me is that the list, its links and its refs work for the reader, which they do. I don't really care that the bottom of the page, which no sensible reader studies anyway, looks pretty for a reviewer. This reviewer demands consistency, but is not consistent himself. I'm pretty pleased with the list, certainly from the point of view of the reader, and I'm reluctant to waste any more time on it. Will sleep on it, anyway. Thanks for your concern, and sorry to have wasted your time. I shall certainly continue to write more articles and lists, but these will be for the sake of the readers and not to satisfy pedants. Gold stars are nice (and flattering) but life's too short. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As you wish. I'm really not sure that FLC/FAC is worth bothering about anyway. The rules seem so arbitrary, particularly in the case of FLC. Eric Corbett 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can be arsed (and I'm sure you and I have a million and one better things to do, particularly with a feisty kitten), what's arbitrary about the rules at FLC? Just wondered in case there's any scope for improving it instead of just slating it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And at one time I seem to remember that you tried to persuade me that embarking on FAC was a good thing! I see a parallel here with the management of the NHS. It seems more important to follow the letter of the MoS than to make the content more accessible to the "ordinary" viewer with few or no IT skills; just as NHS management seems to be more concerned with meeting government targets than having the patient at the centre of their concerns. Ah well, today I've enjoyed the therapy of writing a couple of church articles; much more important IMO than making a list of references look like each other. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing the nomination. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No reason why you should withdraw the nomination, just the luck of the draw with reviewers. I wouldn't try and persuade you of that now Peter, and I can't really see me ever taking another article to FAC to be honest. Can't be arsed really. Eric Corbett 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, never a problem at FAC. Goodraise has made a few dickish edits lately, I'm not sure why. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem at FAC as well, of course. Eric Corbett 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you're following the happenings at FLC, but I have to admit to a certain mischievous delight when a pedant cannot deal with the apostrophe. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Made it at last! A greater struggle than I had anticipated; thanks for your help, advice and support. Not sure whether to get any more lists in the series up to FL quality; will think about it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)