User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/May

GA?

You're the expert on GAs, do you think this is anywhere close? Giano (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It shows promise but no, it shouldn't have been listed, far too many rough edges. Eric Corbett 14:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's far better than Jama Masjid, Delhi, which showed up on the main page 2 days ago - between start & C if you ask me (start at best on the architecture). But I've never been able to understand what the GA standard actually is. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arghhh

Another favor to ask: Could you take a look at a paragraph for me? User:Drmies/Ched and me. The "Life" section just really sucks.

• He was the musical director in several churches and eventually became an evangelist for more than a dozen years,[1] afterwards he became a music teacher at the Moody Bible Institute in 1939,[4] where he worked until his death.[1] He adopted the middle name of "Dixon" as an homage to the former pastor of the Moody Church, Dr. A. C. Dixon.[3]

Gerda, Drmies and I have been been working on this .. but that one paragraph just absolutely doesn't work. I know you're off on Monday ... but when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could help. — Ched :  ?  04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How about:

• He was the musical director for several churches and became an evangelist for more than a dozen years. In 1939 he took on the post of music teacher at the Moody Bible Institute, adopting the middle name of "Dixon" as an homage to the former pastor of the Moody Church, Dr. A. C. Dixon. - Richerman (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• What does "evangelist" mean in this context? A membership of a certain type of congregation, such as Free Evangelical, or an activity (preaching)? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I linked to Evangelism, - better read the article than copies here ;) - If that's wrong, please change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Evangelistic work- could mean anything; buttonholing, handing out leaflets, wearing billboards saying "Repent, the end is nigh". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I know, but I would not say someone is an evangelist if all he does is hand out leaflets. I am guilty of an evangelist article myself, but not in question here, - and I fight the name Evangelical for "Evangelisch" as misleading (s. talk of Evangelical Church) ;)

In Evangelical circles I think you would "say someone is an evangelist if all he does is hand out leaflets", and no doubt talk a bit. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

They never get beyond "Hello, are you interes ..." or "Hello, I am from ..." when they appear at my door. The leaflet stays firmly in their hand. This assumes I even bother opening the door, which I don't if I have spotted them coming down the street. I'm sure I've seen people evangelising things that are not religious beliefs, although maybe that is an appropriation of the word to indicate zealotry? Manchester United supporters spring to mind, hey Eric? Although doubtless that is a religion to many. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I well remember one knocking on the door of our student house in Leeds right at the climax of the famous Liverpool-Palace FA Cup semi-final. Our housemate answered the door, and was greeted with "Would you like to hear about the Kingdom of Our Lord?" (or similar) to which he responded "Would you like this TV remote control shoved up your arse?". I feel sorry for them sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mendip Hills and other old FAs

There is a massive initiative going on to review "old" Featured articles and ensure they meet current standards. I have received a request to review several that I nominated years ago. As a result I have spent the last couple of days on Mendip Hills (which you copy-edited years ago) updating info (population data etc), fixing deadlinks, dealing with overlinking etc and have expanded the lead. I wondered if you would be kind enough to take another look at the prose before I respond saying that this article is still OK?— Rod ^talk 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and get to that this evening, once I've had another read through your Dunkery Hill article. Eric Corbett 15:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Private Apartments of the Winter Palace

I'd be very grateful if you could give this a copyedit for me; not one of the best pages, but it's been finished in rather a hurry. Sad because interiors have never been my favourite or strongest point, but it completes the category or main rooms off. Just give me a few minutes to add some cats, and then I'm done with it. Thanks. Giano (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the very least I can do, after all the help you've given me. Eric Corbett 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Miss him, - sad, this "done with it". He could have joined the cabal of the outcasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think he was the founder member Gerda. Eric Corbett 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you and I can take it and stay. I remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no real guarantee he's actually done with it, either. One way to make a statement here is to retire and then unretire, after all. Intothatdarkness 15:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would love if you were right. - Usually I wait a week (Hafspajen, Adam Cuerden) before mourning (bring flowers, dedicate an article, translate one to German). Belly feeling, you know? - I was ready to leave myself but stubbornly decided not to provide the pleasure of seeing me gone to those who may want it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Social reform in Postwar Britain

Looking at Brian's FAC and am amazed to see no article on this. Postwar Britain coverage on this is very scant. I'm not sure you'd be interested in such an article but I was wondering if a page stalker here would be interested in producing a half decent article on such an important topic. Social reform in Postwar Britain ought to have a very decent article by now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Surprised given the number of baby boomers here that nobody is interested in even commenting about it. Oh well, hopefully Aymatth will show an interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pause for thought

I've just come across a comment made by Jimbo on his talk page "Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in."

I didn't come here to make moral statements about anything, I came to help write an online encyclopedia. And if Jimbo's vision is the reality, then I've been wasting my time on a project the aims of which I fundamentally disagree with. No doubt any news of my retirement would be music to Jimbo's ears though, which is largely why I haven't yet done it. Eric Corbett 16:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I can kinda buy into that if the moral is free and neutral access to knowledge. I strongly believe that information and critical thinking are the keys to, well, just about everything. Can't do much about the critical thinking part, but we're all doing our share towards the information part. The WMF? Meh. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is his vision then it is a damn dysfunctional utopia. Not that he has any control over it, so I'm not sure who the "we" is unless he is in delusions of grandeur mode. There are certainly delusions of some description. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And if the morality is that nobody should ever use words considered to be naughty in backwoods America? Eric Corbett 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Try phrasing that as "words considered to be naughty by narrow-minded individuals" and you might be on to something. Trying to tie that behavior to national origin is, to me, counterproductive. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll stick with my original statement if it's all the same to you. If Americans want to use a bowdlerised and watered-down version of the English language then let them set up their own fork and leave the rest of us in peace. Eric Corbett 16:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in a small town in the Bible Belt. It's a different culture (and one in which I never quite managed to fit. Likely because I never really tried.). If the WMF intends to use us as an experiment on creating an online utopia then they are going to be sadly disappointed. We can give a one-fingered wave to the polite POV-pushers (who may or may not have the ability to write a coherent sentence) as the rest of us exit stage left. Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Eric Corbett 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of getting virtual rotten tomatoes hurled at me, I have this emblazoned at the top of my User page...

My overall viewpoint towards Wikipedia is that is it a place of learning and a means to counteract ignorance and bigotry. My reason for this belief is that the lack of knowledge is the seed of bigotry. The more knowledgeable and enlightened people there are, in my opinion, the less ignorance and bigotry we will have in the world.

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a much worthier goal than Jimbo's empty words. Eric Corbett 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're reading more into those words than need be. Simply the fact that people from all over the world are coming together to build not just an encyclopedia, but the largest encyclopedia in history, editable by anyone, for everyone to read, for free, for no compensation other than the joy of doing it, is, in itself, a strong moral statement about the kind of world that we would like to live in. We don't need to add anything about utopias or naughty words for just that to be a strong moral statement. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as essays like WP:NOJUSTICE exist and favored admins like Dennis go around spouting "No justice, only solutions", and contributors get banned, chastised, disgraced, ridiculed, name-called, attacked, humiliated, and strung-up by lynch mobs, or unilaterally blocked by abusive admins with personal grudges ... it is exactly the "kind of world" I want no part of, duh. IHTS (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@GRuban. I might be more convinced by that argument if Jimbo Wales hadn't made it so abundantly clear that the only thing he's really concerned about is what he risibly calls civility. Eric Corbett 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Kings Hall, Manchester

Eric, I am loathe to bother you having just spent some time reading about the latest episode of the ongoing drama but I don't really know what to do about Kings Hall, Manchester. It is a virtual unattributed copy and paste from the Belle Vue article that you wrote with little contributions from me. I have been reverted, not for the first time, and am not willing to waste my time on an editor who keeps recreating it against advice. Perhaps someone, page stalker, anyone with clue could suggest a way forward because as it stands it adds nothing of value to what's in the featured article. J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I imagining it, or was that article created and subsequently deleted maybe a couple of years ago? In any event, it needs to be got rid of again. Eric Corbett 15:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You have remembered correctly, same editor. Shall I turn it into a redirect again or is there a better solution? J3Mrs (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd go for the redirect, and I'll keep a watch on it as well. Eric Corbett 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

... and if it's not an unattributed copy and paste job, as the editor claims, it's rather difficult to explain why the Bibliography section contains so many unused sources. Eric Corbett 15:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. The sources were obviously copied too, I expect he'll be back, he's somewhat persistent. J3Mrs (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I can be persistent too, and so can you. I worked hard on that Belle Vue article to honour a fallen comrade – a fellow member of the infamous Manchester Mafia – who was denied the opportunity to complete it, so I'll not sit idly by and watch anyone take the piss. Eric Corbett 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll add both the Belle Vue article and the redirect to my watchlist, if either of you need help with that editor, ping me. No sense anyone getting into 3RR trouble. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of the Manchester Mafia I thank you. Eric Corbett 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of potential participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather case, the committee has made special arrangements to enable i-banned editors to post and respond evidence about each other. These are as follows:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for the purpose of participating on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Interaction bans and the Lightbreather ArbCom case

Editors banned from interacting with Lightbreather are reminded that the banning policy states that:

"if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere onWikipedia, whether directly or indirectly".

This includes case talk pages. However, while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them and may not make direct communication. Such statements that they do make must be brief, to the point, and civil. Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban.

Lightbreather has been also informed that this applies to her. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But she will simply ignore it, and beg for immunity to continue writing her essays, which she will be granted. Meanwhile, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Just wait to be shafted by ArbCom? Eric Corbett 19:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist. Sigh. And buy popcorn to watch the show. Hell, buy stock in Jiffy Pop. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

She seems to be doing a pretty good job of displaying her true self on the Arbcom pages .. I'm considering not even adding my evidence. — Ched :  ?  23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will matter. She never seems to have really hidden her true self and still gets away with her passive-aggressive bully tactics. Intothatdarkness 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

George Meany

Apologizing in advance for bringing another American topic to your attention. Thanks again for your help with Harry Yount. I have been working on and off on the biography of U.S. labor union leader George Meany for several years. Two weeks ago, I put it forward for a GA review and so far, crickets are chirping. If you or anyone else here would take a look and make any improvements whatsoever, I would be grateful. If there are any glaring faults, please let me know. Is a two week plus wait expected, or am I being too impatient? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No disrespect, but complaining that something at GAN hasn't been picked up for two weeks is ridiculous. Even the most cursory glance at WP:GAN will show you that (a) that there are a number of unreviewed articles going back to last year, let alone last month; (b) that even within the tiny WP:GAN#ECON subsection, this is one of the most recent nominations and there are seven entries ahead of you in the queue, and (c) that you have "Reviews: zero" which means the regulars aren't going to be inclined to do you a favour and let you jump the queue. – iridescent 07:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you will take another look at what I wrote, Iridescent, I hope that you will notice that I was asking for information and for comments, not complaining or asking for special favors or jumping of queues. Now I know that it may take months before someone looks at the article, and that I should consider becoming a GA reviewer myself. Any tips you might have for a first time reviewer would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your frank comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, on a quick look I would say the article seems a bit newspaper-heavy for my taste - there's at least one dissertation about this man, and several journal articles that could be used for sourcing (though I haven't examined their content closely). If you'd like to email me, I could share a few PDFs with you? As for reviewing, I would suggest WP:RGA as a good resource, and WP:Good article help has a list of potential reviewing mentors if you're interested. I sympathize with the impatience - I've got an article in the queue myself at the moment - but as Iri says, 2+ weeks (even 2+ months) is the norm. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for emailing those PDFs, Nikkimaria. I need to do a lot of reading now, which is a good thing. You might want to check out the Port Chicago disaster, which took place about 25 miles from where I live. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A dubious copyeditor

Eric and fellow FA/GA writers: would someone please check out contributions of 108.221.18.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? He "copy-edits" articles, but to my non-native eyes, his contributions only degrade the wording for the most part. He seems to have a general dislike for passive voice, relative clauses, and generally follows some quite old-fashioned (or just idiosyncratic) style. At best, he replaces some just fine constructs with another, equally fine, but for example I feel that this round of "copy-editing", getting rid of some just fine "in order to"s deserved a revert. I'd be interested in an analysis and, if I'm right, someone having a word with him, or, if I'm wrong, a trout whack on my head. No such user (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And his selective editing of his talk page to remove all criticism raises further concerns. No such user (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to be critical of other editors, or at least in the current climate it would be unwise of me to do so. Eric Corbett 21:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

While I have not yet proven my editing chops here, I do see some of these edits as acceptable. The Bay of Pigs Invasion changes are solid, as are the Lycoming XR-7755 changes, from an American english perspective. The Cognitive dissonance edits are not an improvement; rather they seem rather heavy-handed and actually make the article less clear. I will take a look at some of them, they seem to be extensive. Scr★pIron^IV 21:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Association for Promoting the Extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts

Thanks for editing the above, but I don't think that the word "acts" on its own, as used in the article, should be capitalized (I'll check other articles on this). BTW the article is still at a very early stage, I'll be adding to it next week. Hohenloh ⁺ 19:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Whichever you choose the article ought to be consistent. I merely copied the first usage, I didn't introduce the capitalization. Eric Corbett 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Cosby in advertising/archive2

Hey talkpage stalkers and all, was reading Bill Cosby in advertising...which I didn't think read too badly. Now that I've gone through it, be interested if someone else does to see what they think. Has been very slow to attract reviewers at FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posted some comments at that FAC, trying to be helpful... Anyone up for a GA review should I nominate something? Or should I nominate it?! Nortonius (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If you feel reasonably confident then go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

On a very quick read through it looks fine, so if you stick it up I'll review it. Eric Corbett 21:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah thanks both! Eric I'll stick it up right after I save this, you're very kind! Nortonius (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am. ;-) Eric Corbett 22:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You are indeed! I thought Monday was your day off?! Posted under Art and architecture. Nortonius (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bit fed up

Hi Eric, I see you are still plodding on. I know you have much more to be brassed off about but I'm very discouraged, I haven't looked in much recently but now that I've had a bit of time I've discovered, looking through my watchlist, that what I thought I knew about citations has changed. I've not had a lot of enthusiasm for a while and I wonder if I ever will have again while there are so many tinkerers and so little writing. J3Mrs (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Plodding on is about right. And you're not the only one who's been complaining to me about all the tinkering with citation templates that's been going on recently. Still, much easier to do that than to actually write something I suppose. Eric Corbett 15:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always tried to do the right thing (with varying degrees of success) with citations, but my little system for getting them (nearly) right has gone to pot and, well honestly, I can't be bothered. J3Mrs (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

{{#tag:ref| in raw wikicode always sucked. {{efn-lr}} fixes the failure of roman numerals in footnotes. What's not to like? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been a lot of other changes recently, some of which certainly are not an improvement from the point of view of content creators and none of which have been widely advertised. Go to the CS1/2 talk pages and they are practically owned by the very few people who actually code these things: they seem not to listen much, instead dabbling in their own little hobby without much thought for how it affects the core mission of this project, ie: what happens in the edit window.

As with Eric and J3Mrs, I am out of sorts. I'm having occasional blasts where I do a phenomenal number of edits (mostly fairly repetitive) in a short period but I'm also both spending less time here and, critically, spending less time researching stuff off-wiki. I am being asked to look at more and more things but feel increasingly unwilling to do so. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to coding stuff, I freely admit my ignorance and simply attempt to make my citations consistent within the article. If someone else doesn't like it, they can change all of them to a different consistency within the article. I don't even attempt to understand it, I just copy and paste whatever form I am told is proper. I have other dramas to face and am willing to freely admit my complete ignorance on this topic. As for the rest, I think we all are getting a little twitchy - I just snapped at Sitush a week or so ago, he had snapped at someone else, and probably was on edge due to the [issue that probably cannot be mentioned] situation. Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, Just ignore the mean, nasty, vindictive stuff. If someone is talking "at" you, instead of "to" you - ignore it. Some people don't know how to really communicate - they "listen" in order to "respond"; instead of listening to understand. If someone is pissing with an article you care about - walk away for a week or two, then come back and fix it later. Life is short, and it's damned sure not worth getting high BP or heart problems over a freakin website. Relax - enjoy the good things in life. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What Ched said. There's a few million articles that need work on, and not enough editors to fix them, so you can always find something to improve. It's just some website, your next employer won't care who moaned about you on ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, good advice. I sometimes suck at taking good advice, though (eep!) Very, very hard for me to ever walk away... always worried what happens in my absence. That said, taking deep breaths is always an excellent approach and even if I can't walk away, I can take a lot of deep breaths and keep breathing for calming effect until my mastodon settles back down. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A borderline "difficult" editor

Have any of you come across an editor called Haldraper? He or she often returns to articles and under often fake edit summaries (like "tighten a bit") omits large amounts of content. He or she has been tackled by myself before (in my case, for edit-warring an article, then, waiting until a 2 week protection had lapsed and then starting again). He or she has been blocked for doing this before, and they have been blocked for edit-warring. Their latest shenanigans is on Wincle where they come up with many spurious reasons, but just in edit-summaries, and they do this to many articles about places in or around Cheshire or Manchester. They never engage in talk page discussions about contentious editing and seem to ignore the WP:BRD notion. They also generally ignore messages on their talk page about the style and content of their editing. Anyone come across them before? I'm wondering what, if anything, should be done about them.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at some of this editor's contributions, and found that sourced data has been removed from multiple articles with no explanation during the rewrite. I have reverted a few, as the wording was not necessarily an improvement. I will keep an eye open to see what response I get, but do not wish to change more for for fear of being accused of hounding. Scr★pIron^IV 18:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for at least confirming that I am not completely deluded about some of the edits this person makes. I, too, find myself in a tricky position, also because I don't want to appear to be hounding, but many of the edits I find remove far too much.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That name rings a bell, let me think. Eric Corbett 18:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Trafford, Greater Manchester, see User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 9 J3Mrs (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's it! Eric Corbett 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't worry too much about "hounding" where there is a clear problem and pattern that can be documented with diffs, though sometimes I save the diffs in case they try to drag me to ANI. But that's me. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the way some editors have been treated in this place - and the completely irrational behaviors of some - I think I have become a little paranoid. But I did get taken to AN/I once, and it was not a pleasant experience. It's so easy to have one's name dragged through the mud. And all of the little admin wannabes over there who are so eager to show they've got "the right stuff" for the tools just love to pile on. But I live and learn, hopefully getting better at navigating through the quagmire. Scr★pIron^IV 20:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

See also the thread under the heading Clayton, Greater Manchester here. Richerman (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You should peek at my (nearly) 10-yrs of experience on Wikipedia. The last 3 or 4 yrs, have been so much fun. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Water-Beings in Shetlandic Folk-Lore

Eric, have you seen this? I found it on jstor when looking for something about Finn-men. Richerman (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe it's almost a year since I parked that ref here. I even have the Jessie Saxby book Shetland Traditional Lore as the intention, at one point, had been to continue working on those. Sorry for butting in. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Free trade movement

Using the communal brain-storming area here, with apologies. Can anyone find an appropriate article link for the Victorian free trade movement in the UK (not the Edwardian one of Radical Joe Chamberlain). I've begun Liberation Society and am struggling to find a link - surely this is not the Anti-Corn Law League? My mind has gone blank. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How about Corn Laws#Opposition? There don't seem to any links in there for anything more specific. Richerman (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That will do, thanks. Anti-Corn Law League seems too specific and I cannot recall any other FT movements around that time. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Reculver

Thank you so much for taking on that GAN Eric, and for the time and effort you put in – you always do, but fixing that image for the article was an especially unexpected bonus. Thanks also for your kind words in closing. I have a sort of connection with the subject of that article and its immediate environs, so I'm more than usually delighted to see that little green badge. I'd offer you a virtual beer, but you'd be very welcome to a real one if you're ever down Brighton way! Nortonius (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Plus ca change

I've been reading up on Farnworth and stumbled across:

"Halshaw Moor Wakes," a saturnalia which was first celebrated in September, 1827, when bull-baiting, badger-baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, foot racing in almost a state of nudity, grinning through a horse collar, eating a dishful of scalding hot porridge without milk and feeding themselves with their bare hands, and even the more disgusting exhibition of eating a pound of tallow candles, and stripping the wicks through their teeth for wagers, were amongst the orgies on these occasions.

I passed through the place a few days ago and, well, I'm not sure that anything has changed since 1827. Do you think "grinning through as horse collar" mean gurning/girning? - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It must do. Eric Corbett 14:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

gurn/girn/grin are I think the same word written by speakers of different dialects. A horse collar is still used at Egremont for the Workd Gurning Championships. Presumably to identify the active competitor so that the audience are not mistakenly applauding the natural beauty of a non-participant.  pablo 07:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I've never yet made it to Egremont on the correct day, although I've been a few times for rugby or when hillwalking. Come the day of the gurning, I'm usually too busy flossing my teeth with candle wick ... - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR article

Hi Eric,

I'm writing an an article on the Estoire des Engleis, a chronicle written in French. Since it seems that you have access to JSTOR, could you (or a talk page stalker) see if this paper has any important information aside from what is already in the article? I'm almost finished with it; I just need to add one more fact and all the citations. Thanks, --Biblioworm 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Biblioworm, if you want to email me I can pass along the article, but you are also eligible for free JSTOR access through The Wikipedia Library. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I sent the email. --Biblioworm 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching the GGTF topic ban (see this AE request), you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Callanecc, "The edit summary made is perfectly clear that Eric Corbett knew this was a controversial (if not a flagrant violation) comment due to the topic ban and I'm fairly sure we've had the it was a mistake excuse before (page title should have given it away)." Umm ... First, that sentence is pretty messed up just in terms of grammar/structure (really, it's incomprehensible). I don't know if everyone is supposed to guess what was your meaning?! (To be so unclear under the circumstances - rationale for an extended block - is really poor form.) Second ...

1. Your block rationale contains three unsure conditionals ("if not" & "fairly sure" & "should have"). Not exactly a firm basis for issuing such an extensive block to such a high-quality contributor.
2. Are we blocking editors now, not for violating their topic ban, but instead for making "controversial comment" in the presence of, but not necessarily related to, their topic ban (except in the minds of, say, the AE OP, the blocking admin, and the supporting AE commentators)?
3. When someone says something of the nature of "I might be blocked for this, but ...", do you think it means the person is confessing violation knowledge and/or guilt? Or do you think it is a simple expression of an uncertain confidence in the assessment capacities of those on this site who wield clubs (blocking bats)? (Me thinks the latter, duh.)
4. I think it's safe to say Eric can be taken at his word when he said the location was an unintentional mistake.
5. It's very interesting how the impulse to block seems to be prefaced on some sort of value of "The rules are clear, and we enforce the rules", when as above the violation is all but clear. (Plus, it isn't as if other rules aren't being egregiously violated and overlooked every day on the WP. That doesn't mean no rules s/b enforced, but it should mean that in cases like this one, you be a little more careful before declaring a breach and wielding your bat.) IHTS (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you really argue with AE in fairness and logic? - I learned that the only thing you can do is ignore it and stick to fairness and logic, decency and integrity, - as Eric does, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As in most places with mountains of vague and opaque rules and essays-disguised-as-rules, the "rules" only apply when someone with power feels that they should. Otherwise, they do not. Intothatdarkness 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the opposite. Only the simplest rules apply. Look at the second edit, indenting for clarity. That is an offense, it's a second edit. - Look at my last encounter with AE: I made a third edit! I am allowed only two. Who cares about the content of that edit (and if it has anything to do with the spirit of the sanction - if that exists)? Who cares about that it was possibly provoked, and about the number and content of the comments by other editors. Counting to three, that's all. "Content" is a word from a foreign language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet even then it's a matter of who happens to break the rule. Again, rules are ignored or applied at random. Intothatdarkness 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As is normally the case, someone that creates content is blocked by one who does not. For a BS reason, at that. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is such a waste of Eric's and WP's time: unblock him and apologise already. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a horrible block. This AE request was serviced and closed in about 6 hours with a unilateral and undoubtedly controversial action without any other requests for alternative views, all of which occurred while I was asleep and hence had no chance to comment. The remedy was placed far too quickly without any time for any other administrators to give consensus and alternative opinions, and maybe try a more conciliatory solution that is best for the project. Eric, if I had unilateral authority to indef block Callanecc for stirring up trouble instead of improving the enyclopedia, I would - but I don't think I do, I'm afraid. @Drmies:, can you help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I too think this block quite wrong. Few would automatically look to Eric for the soft answer that turneth away wrath, but I'm damned if I can see what's so block-worthy in the edit for which he has been banned here. – Tim riley talk 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I'm a bit out of it--literally and figuratively--at the moment. I am rarely in the mood to block anyone, and I wouldn't want to indef-block Callanecc, whom I think of as a good admin and a net positive to the project. I also happen to think that Eric is a net positive, but saying that is just begging for more fan club comments. Come on Callanecc, please. What on earth does this accomplish? This is punishment for the sake of punishment, but you have nothing to prove to anyone, nor will this improve anything for anyone. Reading this, this morning, made me think of Wikipedia--and lo and behold, it happens. I don't think I know EvergreenFir well enough to say they're that kind of person, but sweet Jesus, a one-week block for a comment and a colon. Funny: the newspaper reported this morning that higher fines (for traffic violations) don't do anything but raise income for the state. We may have something similar going on here, though I have yet to see a single check for all the random, poor blocks I've made. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Eric should be unblocked because he is in the middle of some FAC reviews. Who else could do those - very few. And of course I don't really want to indef Callanecc, it's just if I was supreme overlord of Wikipedia I could get away with it .... oh except everyone would leave and sound off about me elsewhere on the net. Maybe a terrible idea, actually. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I was planning on reviewing Denbies later today. Now it seems I can't as Eric is blocked for an entire week for what exactly? Never a good idea to block somebody when they have an article at FAC. It's more disruptive to the process than anything the person could have said to be blocked. @Richie, in fairness, Callan often has a fair outlook when dealing with arb cases and as Drmies says is generally a decent admin and guy, but he does see the need to be assertive with carrying out what is passed at arb. I think he's just following procedure, but in my opinion it's pointless blocking somebody like Eric like this while they have an article at FAC...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Denbies is a joint nomination with Sagaciousphil, so she's holding the fort at FAC. Eric Corbett 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Both of them are in pretty good shape and the FACs should pass smoothly..barring any silliness. They're on my watchlist now too so I can always offer an opinion/solution/fix etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very generous of you, and I'm certain Sagaciousphil will appreciate your offer of help too. We had intended to start work on another British feminist this week, but that's obviously going to have to wait now. Eric Corbett 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• This seems a nasty and unnecessary block. I am going on strike for the duration of this block, in solidarity with Eric and the needless shit he puts up with from utter numpties. That means at least two FACs will miss out on getting reviewed, but so be it. --John (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm touched John, but there's really no need. I'm quite accustomed to these daft blocks, and they don't bother me in the slightest. So go and review those two FACs. Eric Corbett 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: is overall a decent admin, so this is a puzzle. My theory is that placing this utterly absurd block is a covert attempt to create a backlash of sympathy in favor of Eric. (Then again I've been reading a lot of spy novels lately.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Or, as is much more likely, the GovCom simply ordered him to make the block so that he'd take the heat rather than them. Some of them are well known for their dislike of Eric, and some like to view themselves as the kings of Wikipedia. My one thought is why didn't EvergreenFir simply remove the comment if it was such a problem rather than immediately jumping for the block / drama request. All the comment said was, "I can't talk here", which was, at the worst, unnecessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, I don't like to pass judgement on people I've never met, but with 2,100 "offensive" username reports and 2 created articles (for a total of 129 readable words of prose), it's really no wonder... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here for silliness. I joined to help write an encyclopedia, that's all, not to be some kind of policeman. Eric Corbett 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• hrmph .. figures. Can't say I'm surprised though. — Ched :  ?  02:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

forum
Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 139th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - today we have in common that we have a TFA on 31 May ;) - I am proud to be in the minority oppose group with you, as one of estimated 13% women. - I just read again the forum of 2012 and invite to do the same. We still need a perspective. - Wickedly Welsh Chocolate for desert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)