Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

Can you tale a look at what I am doing here [1] and answer the question in the edit summary. If you've the time, please have a look at what I've written, but not not too much time, as I shall probably alter it all again. DDima got it to GA and I have probably completely wrecked that, but he's looking over my shoulder with a kindly eye, and we are hoping for an eventual FA. Might it just appeal to you? It's in the Ukraine (the Crimea) and that country could certainly do with something that's good news! The plus for you is that it's too far off the beaten track for some of the other editors who like to "opine" architecturally!!!  Giano  19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On a google search most newspaper articles seem to favour 'Crimea' or occasionally 'the Crimean peninsula'. Richerman (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Richerman; definite articles and countries always trip me up; when I was small and learning English, Argentina was The Argentine, and it was definitely The Ukraine too. Funny how things change. I wonder if the Isle of Wight is still a the.  Giano  20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think most of the British are too sure either - I think, to be honest, either Crimea or the Crimea are acceptable. And it must be 'the' Isle of Wight - the Beatles said so :-) Now, perhaps you can tell me if mezzanine should be pronounced 'mezanine' as it is spelt, or 'metzanine' as in 'intermezzo'. Richerman (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm told that my spoken English is even worse than my written, but when speaking English I just say the "zz" sound. I always think the 'tzz' sound pretentious in English, but than I say 'pitzza' and 'metzzo' soprano, so I'm not consistent. If speaking Italian, it's definitely me't'zzanino. Giano (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: I copied your sig; I hope you don't mind. I thought it was quite cool. I need a change of image. Giano (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pretentious - moi? Of course you can pinch the style of my signature - I pinched it from someone, I think it was Parrot of Doom. Richerman (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh poor old parrot, there'll soon be a flock of us - all different colours. Thinking about the mezzanine, it probably should be 'zz' because it's a word derived from Italian, but not the same word; whereas mezzosoprano is the same word. I bet Eric has an opinion on this. Giano (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just looked it up and according to this, once again, either are correct. I suppose it depends on how pretentious you're feeling :-) I don't know what the world's coming to, you used to be able to rely on the Oxford dictionary for a definitive answer but now they tell you anything is ok - it's democracy gone mad! Richerman (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny how all the geographical terms are dropping "The" - so 20 years ago we'd still say and hear "the Ukraine" ("The Gambia" too?) and now they are all "Ukraine", "Gambia" etc. (d'oh, missed your post above Giano, that'll teach me to read more carefully else I come across as some loud person who talks more than he listens...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I probably notice language changes more than native speakers because something suddenly shrieks at me as being wrong (ie: not what I was taught). The latest thing was during the Olympics, why has the 'British Team' suddenly become 'Team UK.' I just sounds like something dreamt up by Tony Blair's PR people.......and that's another thing; why have 'staff' become 'people' as in "I will tell my people to do this" as though every business executive has become a sovereign. Giano (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Sadly that is probably not far from the truth with some corporations having budgets bigger than many countries.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
"The Ukraine" is apparently now a somewhat politically loaded term, since it mainly referred to a region of the USSR back when the USSR existed. So referring to it today as "The Ukraine" is sometimes taken as casting aspersions on Ukraine's current status as an independent country. I haven't seen similar things said about Crimea or Gambia, but I could imagine the same situation existing. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The world has gone crazy. Is The Netherlands still called The Netherlands? Eric Corbett 23:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ukrainians find “the Ukraine“ particularly galling because it means something like “the marches”, seeming to define the country by its geographic relation to others rather than naming it in its own right. (And its status as a province of the Russian Empire long predates the USSR, in which it ostensibly had more autonomy & cohesion than it did under the tsars–albeit little in practice.) There certainly are a great many politically charged place-name variants, though; it seems quite arbitrary that we now write Beijing and Sri Lanka–which were Peking and Ceylon for perhaps half my life—but not Moskva or Italia (let alone Bharat, Maṣr or Sakartvelo).—Odysseus1479 02:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article Name of Ukraine with a section discussing "Ukraine" versus "the Ukraine". Heh. Also I didn't know the term March (territory) (see particularly the "Russia" section). TIL. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Netherlands vs. Netherlands is often used quite interchangeably. The Wikipedia article is titled as Netherlands, but in conversation and lectures from my professors, there is a "the" in there. The reason this happens is because part of the world goes crazy, but the other parts don't. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Gambia is still in use too. In fact our article is Called The Gambia and says the official title is the Republic of the Gambia. Richerman (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Eric, if you are available for advice, could you please help me out? I recently learned that the Saguache Crescent, a small newspaper in Colorado, is the last paper in the US, and perhaps even the world that is using linotype to set their type up for printing. We had a very small article and I expanded it a great deal. I don't write very well, but never the less I thought it was so interesting and at least fairly well written that I wanted Wikipedia to honor the Saguache Crescent by listing it in the "Did you know" section. I've never submitted an article before.

At this time it is being considered and the use of "The end of an era" and the phrase "All the news..." is considered not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'd like to keep them, however it may be that all the sources were done in sort of a lighthearted manner, and that may have influenced me to do the same. Please let me know what you think as I trust your judgement as the top authority. Gandydancer (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It is my best guess that most of the editors here that write similar work were fairly good at it before they came to Wikipedia. I'm just the opposite in that I have never been able to write very well and the work that I do here usually involves a great deal of angst. On the other hand, just because I can't write does not mean that I don't recognize good writing when I see it. When a good copy editor comes along and improves something I've written, my heart just sings. Eric, I've been following your writing here for some time and when I'm writing something I'm always thinking, "Oh, I wish Eric would tell me how to write this..." and wish I could ask you. Of course I don't actually ask you for help, but this time, due to my new attempt at a "Did you know" article, I needed the best of the best to convince me that the criticisms about my choice of wording were correct. Thank you, thank you for your help. Hopefully once the refs are fixed it will be ready. Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The references are fixed, so it looks good to go now. Just one thing though. The masthead clearly shows that the paper is called The Saguache Crescent, not Saguache Crescent, so I think you ought to move it. Eric Corbett 15:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

$64,000 question...

Here's one, at Grus (constellation)...I have "100,000" and "64,000"...elsewhere in the article there is "3000"...should the last have a comma in it to conform with the others...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The modern convention is only to use the comma for five-digit numbers and above, so I'd say no. Eric Corbett 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Aah ok. Bird articles seldom have this problem..but astronomy ones often do....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Eric’s remark above, but if it were me I would write the longer distances in kiloparsecs (respectively thirty and twenty—or perhaps abbreviated to 30 kpc & 20 kpc). As for the planetary nebula, I would prefer “three thousand”, in part because the distance is probably more like 800 parsecs, which converts to about 2600 LY. Bigger units make for smaller numbers, and more often suit the precision of the measurement. Imagine reading that a marathon course is “about 46,000 yards” long, rather than “about 26 miles“. Not only is the former figure harder to grasp, it‘s more ambiguous in precision. And if you were to measure birds in angstroms, your figures would be just as astronomical.—Odysseus1479 02:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pity we don't talk in megalight-years - feel a bit funny about switching from lightyear to megaparsec...feels a bit like flipping from metric to imperial mid-article.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know this, although I see it in our MOS This Medical Transcription Desk Style Guide Reference agrees. I've been adding attendance figures to some tables, which are commonly over 1000 and under 10,000. I'll have to change my practice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 that you were a party to has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:

  • The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
  • The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
  • Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
  • The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
  • The request for a full case is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

This being Wikipedia, it's likely that no one will be happy with the decision, but I think it's appropriate given the circumstances. Eric, you're probably not totally happy, and no doubt you'll think to yourself that this was to be expected. I think that for ArbCom to strongly admonish someone is a strong statement. Anyway. I hope to see you here again, one of these days. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this landmark decision is the first time in its history Wikipedia has ever admonished an *** ADMINISTRATOR *** [humble genuflections] for acting towards a mere content builder (who is not an admin) "in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held". I understand some luminaries feel this is likely to lead to the immanent collapse of Wikipedia, so I guess we must now brace ourselves. Alternatively it just might restore a wee measure of morale and self-esteem to the downtrodden content builders (who are not admins), and Wikipedia might start to flower instead. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think his subsequent behavior suggests he doesn't get it but at least this is a positive development, and another motion which formally withdraws his warning / threat will follow. Kevin can also never act towards you in an administrative capacity again, and even he admits that. I hope you will return even though I don't agree with you at times, because you are clearly a substantial net positive. EdChem (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you've made at least this one edit here Eric. I completely agree with all Ed is saying above. This has been a horrible, upsetting episode compounded by Arbcom deviousness and incompetence. That despite all this subterfuge and open reluctance to support an ordinary editor over an Admin, that Admin has now been admonished and in the circumstances the admonishment speaks volumes. The facts are in the open and most people are not fools and can draw conclusions. I think we should allow that to give us closure.  Giano  09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom has made it clear (and official) that it understands who definitely was at fault, and who definitely was not; as a compromises go, this ain't a bad one. You also have an apology, albeit halfhearted, and after much prodding. Giano is right: Drop the stick, forgive and forget, carry on. Life's too short. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I never presume to forgive, but I do often forget. Eric Corbett 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Glad you're back :-). All the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy that Kevin Gorman was only admonished, but that'll have to do. For now. Eric Corbett 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels

Welcome back. Today I started Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels but it was a bit "thrown together" as I thought we ought to have an article on it - if you fancied taking a look at my poor grammar etc that would be great.— Rod talk 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up with Enid Blyton right now. Eric Corbett 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries -although I'm having trouble getting my head around Enid Blyton bondage.— Rod talk 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a section I've yet to write. Eric Corbett 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation question

Eric, Would you (or any of your talk page stalkers) have any MOS guidance about the capitalisation of rock types? At Talk:Wookey Hole Caves#Another look a question has been raised about the correct form for Dolomitic conglomerate, Carboniferous limestone etc in the article Wookey Hole Caves. Any advice or edits appreciated.— Rod talk 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Those examples are different: Carboniferous needs the capital because it’s the proper name of the geological period in which the limestone was deposited, but dolomitic is derived from the common noun dolomite, referring to the mineral content of the conglomerate, so should not be capitalized.—Odysseus1479 20:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - copying your response to the article talk page.— Rod talk 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview

Hi, Eric Corbett. I'm working on a minor college assignment where we have to write a report on a community, and we needed to interview some members of that community. Basically, I'm trying to figure out how articles are created and improved to become some of Wikipedia's best articles. I saw you're one of Wikipedia's top contributors to featured articles and was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few questions about your involvement with and how the article development process works, particularly concerning the ideas of discussion and consensus. Anyway, I put the questions up here. It's totally optional, but if you're willing, feel free to just add your answers to that page. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks. Stj6 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Stj6: As your project requirres you to talk to "some" members of the community, I wonder why you have only approached one editor? PamD 06:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I technically only need two for this project, I was hoping to get a content-creator and an administrator, but more input can't hurt I guess. I have a second set of questions drafted that are angled toward the administrative side, but haven't had a chance yet to post those. If you want to participate, feel free to leave your answers there too I guess; any editor's opinion is welcome. I couldn't think of a better way than asking editors individually, but if there's a community page that's relevant, I'm all ears. Stj6 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case you could interview Eric and Gorman at the same time in a face off on content vs adminship :-]. On second thoughts, probably not a good idea...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea: Eric and Kevin, who worked on the article on a philosopher who wrote An Ethics of Dissensus. I would love to watch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay there's an administrator set now here if someone wants to answer as an administrator. I think there's only one question that's different, but whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Stj6 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In your study of WP community I'd think you wouldn't want to leave out the role and issues surrounding subcommunities (i.e. WP subprojects). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

<knocks repeatedly on door> Malleus! Malleus! Come on, Malleus, we know you're in there!

If you're reading this, Mrs Fatuorum, erm, Dr Corbett, could you possibly wake up your husband? There's a crowd outside that want to talk with Eric, and for blessedly once it appears they don't have torches and pitchforks. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • So you want to write a report on my opinion of WP's community? I don't think so. Eric Corbett 14:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • POPCORN! Who has the popcorn?? Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I gave the impression that the report is focused on your opinion specifically. The report is on how Wikipedia develops articles to become a successful encyclopedia. My thesis is that this is achieved mainly through collaboration, discussion, and consensus. I'm using a variety of research, such as outside sources, observations of talk pages (does anyone know of any article talk pages with a good amount of collaboration?), and interviews. Truth-be-told this is just for a really minor first-year composition class project that basically nobody will ever read, and it required two interviews. Anyone's opinion isn't the focal point of my project, I'm just using it as one of many sources to support my thesis. Stj6 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It's some time ago but have a look at talk:Peterloo Massacre and the collaboration that took it to FA. Richerman (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Peterloo Massacre is definitely the best example of a successful collaboration I've ever been involved in here at WP. I'm still amazed at what was achieved in just a few weeks. Eric Corbett 22:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that was the Greater Manchester Wikiproject's finest hour. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This talk comes to my mind: Talk:1950s American automobile culture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling all prose-warriors

Well, I think I (somehow) kicked an own goal. The externaliser in me would just blame it on being esoteric and being quiet...but the internaliser in me wonders whether the prose was less than riveting and yet I am all out of ideas - all input welcome at the post mortem....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ewa Ziarek

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

FYI: [2] Vox Brevis (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange. A totally new account is created and so far its only action is to post a complaint about Eric which was dismissed in short order. Obviously this "new" user is anything but a new user, and could quite clearly be a sock for some other user. If that doesn't begin to seem at least like a (disruptive) SPA then what is it?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That's very unfair. The new account has actually managed an impressive four edits which is easily two more than they needed to bring Eric to a screeching halt and get him banished forever into Outer Darkness™. One edit actually puts a nice Virgil quote about, ahem, integrity on their user page, so, I mean, that's good, isn't it? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Missa Brevis was moved to Missa brevis, the expert Latin Vox should shortly follow, - a trumpet is pictured now here, to return the wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
"brevis" it was, and gone the above-mentioned "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito." - Quantum potes tantum aude, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Not strange at all, a commonplace occurrence, and one we're all expected to put up with. Eric Corbett 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Rather than mucking around with "VE", perhaps the dev team should develop software that would charge $0.50 per post on AN/I. The budget for the fundraising banner department could probably be eliminated completely. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there ought to be a graduated scale, as my scalp is surely worth more than 50 cents. Eric Corbett 00:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree on it being not strange at all. After a bad block that that left two administrators with egg on their faces, I was accused of being Kumioko's sockpuppet or Kumioko being my sockpuppet. The editor who did that of course didn't get blocked for his idiotic accusations. I'm just supposed to put up with it and administrators like Orlady who are clueless about what constitutes WP:NPA....William 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The predicted outcome of the AN/I case
For your information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe we know the probable outcome. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the result was decided fait accompli by our betters before the 'principled' post was posted. Rather like the Arbcom case was hurriedly swept away so as not to give Gorman's new paid appointment negative publicity. The surprising thing is that we continue to be surprised. Giano (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not surprised that no one saw fit to stick a feather up my arse for that block. And to think that I even thought about it for a moment, as if there were any doubt about the editor's intentions. I think I'm going to make a habit out of blocking new accounts run by people who are obviously too smart for their own good, and this new "Crown Regent of Wikipedia" should be first. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Will the Rambling Man be as good as his word?

"(And despite this 25th [etc] retirement, if Eric isn't back editing in a week, I'll eat my hat, my cat and my bat). The Rambling Man (talk) 8:02 pm, 12 February 2014, Wednesday (8 days ago)"

Will you be posting a video of this amazing feast Monsieur Mangetout or will we just have to take your word for it? Richerman (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

...or a prat? ;) -- Cassianto (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
👍 Nortonius likes this.

I ate the lot, and have regretted doing so as it's caused me no end of gut trauma. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Especially mixing the three. Individually and properly prepred they can be quite tasty (especially with a little Kethcup). Cat doesn't go well with bat unfortunately. Been there, done that! :-( 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
TRM: Of course, He returned 26 February 2014. Blessed be. I hope you didn't eat anything bigger than a kippah; certainly nothing out of Seuss. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No chance. My bet failed, but only by a few days. Still, rejoice, for he has returned. Again. [repeat]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What to do

I've been away for a bit and am rusty, but recent events have inspired me to do a bit more around here. Is there an article you'd like to see improved, something with a bit of murder and torture perhaps, or some good old 18th-century weirdness? I'd like to fix Elizabeth Brownrigg as she sounds like a real nasty piece of work, but I'm as yet undecided. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. Baby farming springs to mind, lots of murders going on there, notably Amelia Dyer. Eric Corbett 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if I could do it in record time, ready for 1 April. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it as a potential April 1 candidate, but FAC is terribly slow these days. Eric Corbett 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Amelia Dyer was a renowned Victorian baby farmer, one of the most prolific of her generation. Born in Pyle Marsh, she became an apprentice corset maker and later trained as a nurse, a gruelling but respectable position in Victorian England... Parrot of Doom 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"?

Can you help with this question at Talk:Somerset Levels#"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"??— Rod talk 13:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's a single area I'd suggest that is is correct. When a place name ends with an "s" it often seems to cause confusion; I see that the Himalayas article has exactly the same problem. Eric Corbett 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to be guided by you - but there are several areas each named as the X Levels (and more technically some of the areas we know as the levels are "moors").— Rod talk 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm reminded of an area close to me called Chat Moss, which is similarly made up of a number of "sub"-mosses. But because it's not called Chat Mosses there's no singular/plural confusion. What it basically comes down to is this: is the term Somerset Levels the name of a single area or of a collection of levels? The capitalisation suggests that it must be the former, otherwise it would be called the Somerset levels. Eric Corbett 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to put your thoughts at Talk:Somerset Levels#"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"? as there are now several others involved in the debate, each with different ideas.— Rod talk 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Already done that. Eric Corbett 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Oi've orlways used arrr, but that's Wessun usage. Could refer to the style guide in "Krek waiters peak Bristle". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Some curry for you!

A curry to you................................here. Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Manchester

Hi Eric. Just FYI, the next Manchester meetup is on 23 March (a week on Sunday). I still have Drmies' money, with which I'm instructed to buy you a pint if you can make it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be away on holiday that week, Sunday isn't a good day for me anyway. Eric Corbett 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

List of National Trust properties in Somerset

I've been doing some work on List of National Trust properties in Somerset, including trying to copyedit some of my prose, and have found some of my sentences in the descriptions are overly long and complex, but I'm having real problems clarifying and shortening them. If you (or your talk page stalkers) had the time or motivation to make any improvements that would be great.— Rod talk 21:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling stalkers

Anyone here interested in providing a peer review on another race horse article I hope to take to FAC: Mucho Macho Man. I need both horsey and non-horsey eyes on this to see where I may need to improve the article. Please feel free to give it a very critical eye; I will most certainly get a critical eye at FAC and would prefer to fix any obvious problems before I get there. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mucho Macho Man/archive1 . Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at my Enid Blyton PR I'll take a look at your horse. Eric Corbett 21:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm on it. Montanabw(talk) 01:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of Blyton you may be interested in this Eric. Richerman (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed interesting, thanks very much! Eric Corbett 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If I look at Blyton, will you try your lead artistry on BWV 172? (Thanks for recent edits in the matter, I had to defend one of them.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Can't speak for anyone but myself, but I will. I'm coming to the conclusion based on the comments so far that the Blyton article is a crock of shit, so I wouldn't recommend wasting your time there Gerda. Eric Corbett 17:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Not in the least; she's really quite fascinating; just needs a bit of work to get to FAC, don't be discouraged! Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked and commented a bit, Fünf Freunde müsst ihr sein ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh I don't know Eric, Tim riley gets a huge amount of comments at peer review, and his articles are usually top notch. I think it's probably a good thing to get such a response. Thanks Gerda for taking a look at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
By the help of more than five friends (some mentioned above), the spirited cantata is now a FA, but improvement of the lead's flow would still be appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Found a third-party source for why that horse kept stepping on his own feet, and more details on the solution, can you pop over to the PR and see if I have addressed your concerns? Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric and anyone else interested, I have "Macho" at FAC now if anyone is interested in either reviewing or watchlisting the review. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Delicious Smoked Herring!

Røget sild!
I think you've earned some scrumptious Danish smoked herring. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Sagaciousphil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Corbett--"bog snorkler"? Has thee lost thy marbles? You cain't go round sayin' shit like that! Mr. Administrator and Civility Enforcer (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know what a bog snorkler was, but I know now. Eric Corbett 19:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You just said it again! Drmies (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well F*** it all, Eric you C***! What a M***** you are to use such language! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what a bog snorkler is either, but I'd bet it's a damn sight better than a snog borkler..."GJC 16:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the plural of cannon

I'm currently working on Wellington Monument, Somerset and there is a long story about military guns for the site. One source I'm looking at says "cannons" and the other "cannon" even when talking about 24 brass guns. Does MOS (or you as my preferred expert) have any thoughts?— Rod talk 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Should obviously be cannons, but there's a lot more wrong with that sentence than just singular/plural. Eric Corbett 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) My Concise Oxford English Dictionary says "cannon" for the plural. Similarly "Cannon to the left of them, cannon to the right of them." [3] Or was that just poetic licence? BencherliteTalk 20:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec)English Heritage NHLE listing agrees with you (cannons) but Byford (the book I'm currently reading, uses cannon. Which sentence{s} have I mashed as there is a while paragraph on them?— Rod talk 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Poetic licence. Eric Corbett 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
(tps) Rod, I think the general consensus is that there isn't a general consensus, so you should probably use whichever you prefer (as long as you do it consistently). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I had come to that conclusion (particularly following the posting of this link on my talk page which suggests "The unchanged plural is preferred in Great Britain and Ireland, while North Americans tend to use the regular plural cannons") and therefore a couple of hours ago I standardised it to include the "S".— Rod talk 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Judging by the quotations in the OED, even in British English the plural of 'cannon' is 'cannons' if you simply mean 'several guns'. However 'cannon' is also used as a collective noun meaning 'artillery' as in the Charge of the Light Brigade 'Cannon to right of them, cannon to left of them'. John O'London (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii

I review for Choice, and every now and then I get something really interesting, like this time--a new translation of these notebooks. I'm looking forward to it. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens

You may be interested to know (if you didn't already) that there are exhibitions in Manchester all this week about the history of Belle Vue. see: Manchester Histories Festival

Interesting, thanks. I'd have liked to go to one of the Ordsall Hall events, but I'm not going to be in Manchester that day. Eric Corbett 21:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Murdered people on display for fun

Wow. I was genuinely repulsed when I linked to and tried to assimilate that Snuffsters site. It seemed astonishingly immoral to me. (Hard to believe someone would make such a site.) And later when Kaldari said he was "proud of it", well ... that response was nearly as unbelievable as the site. Now Jimbo on his Talk seems to say anyone having reaction like mine is faux, or that I have some agenda for said reaction? The site is identified as "parody of Friendsters", and indeed I believe it is/was, but, I never ever saw Friendsters before (have never gone to that site) so for Jimbo to identify the site as parody as a preface to making his comments about some of the responses to it ... doesn't that fall into just those who would have that "insider's information" (as there was no footnote I'm aware of on the site explaining same). (I guess my point is that it seems defensive, and unreasonable, to defend Kaldari by starting off with essentially "Why did you get upset over a simple bad-taste parody" when I think there would be a limited circle of people of all those happening upon that site to even know or understand that fact.)

I sensed that your reaction was of genuine disgust too, not faux, and not the kind of disgust Jimbo is mocking, i.e. disgust over a bad parody.

(In other words [because am having difficulty expressing myself I think], if someone told me I'd be seeing a site that was a parody of Friendsters site, and showed me Friendsters site first, then perhaps I'd have the reaction Jimbo seems to think we all s/ have [i.e. "Hey, that's a parody OK, but not a great one, and not very funny either."]. But that would be the only scenario I can think of where Jimbo's admonishment makes some sense. [He thinks we can be genuinely shocked, then after-the-fact undo the reaction, by thinking "Oh! ... Didn't know that. Now I get it. Eh. Not funny."? Are our emotions supposed to be like computer tape, able to be re-written!?])

Am just trying to make intellectual sense of this. (It's possibly my first-ever criticism of Jimbo, public or private.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My disgust centred on the fact that the site featured the murders of real children; only a moral bankrupt could see that as just a bit of innocent fun. Eric Corbett 00:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever, you, I, he, she or it may think of that site, I can tell you now that attempting to make Jimbo condemn it is a waste of time - he won't - now or at any time in the future. He obviously likes Kaldari and that is that. Per my edit on his page yesterday - nothing is going to change, so accept that's the way things are, and make the best of it on Wikipedia, or spend you hobby time elsewhere. I am one of the site's biggest battlers, but one has to pick one's battles and know when there's a good chance of winning and beleive me, on this one there's no chance. Trying to convince Wales otherwise is a lost cause. To right thinking people, that site and its contibtors are repugnant, but because you can't change things here, you must either give Kaldari the benefit of the doubt and get on with your own things, or if one's moral conscience forbids that, then for the sake of your own sanity you should go. Sorry this sound blunt, What I'm saying is, although J Wales' failure take a stand has, in my eyes, damaged us all and the project: "what can't be cure must be endured." Giano (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do people still ask for Jimbo's opinion on things anyway? His contribution to the encyclopedia itself has been what exactly? He founded the website and promotes it in public but there's hundreds even thousands of editors here who have more experience as editors. It's sort of like ringing up Alexander Graham Bell asking for advice on how to operate a state of the art mobile phone isn't it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that by and large they are asking for Jimbo's opinion, rather they're showboating on a page with 3,055 watchers. Eric Corbett 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but I still think there's a proportion of editors who still see Jimbo as a superior being.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

I looked through the day's edit history, and noticed you have made quite a few recent copyedits to improve the article. Thank you. It is appreciated.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed in that same history - those "In XXX she did this" sentences that you consider grounds for removal of FA status - you know who added the most recent ones? Harizotoh9. The person who nominated the article for FA review. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly want to see the article delisted, but some of those who've commented so far need to start listening to what they're being told, or it will be. Eric Corbett 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you are referring to my co-respondent, so to speak, in the plural. We are mostly anonymous here, but I do not think he is a crowned head of Europe either. From his signature he seems to be a cowboy, which is a legendarily valiant breed, so he can not be expected to be ... as meek as a mouse, shall we say; but I do think that his heart is in the right place. As is yours, oh former hammer of fools, as you have shown by your help. Thanks again; you are one of the best wordsmiths in this place, and I especially appreciate it when that wordsmith's hammer is used to craft a plowshare rather than a cutting sword. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather puzzled as to why you and your "co-respondent" aren't working on the article, which will very likely be delisted in due course if you don't. Eric Corbett 23:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway templates

You are one of a handful of editors with more than 50 edits at Ernest Hemingway and at least one such edit this decade. There is a debate at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Ernest_Hemingway_templates regarding the inclusion of {{To Have and Have Not}}, {{The Old Man and the Sea}}, {{The Killers (short story)}}, {{For Whom the Bell Tolls}}, {{A Farewell to Arms}}, {{The Sun Also Rises}} on the article. Previously at WP:NOVEL a discussion was held when editing at Fyodor Dostoyevsky got contentious. The discussion was held in May 2013 at a broad level regarding editors with multiple templates like these. At the time Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham were all in this group. Since then William Shakespeare has been added based on discussions at WP:BARD. That discussion reached no consensus but the closer suggested reopening debate on the group as a whole or on a subset with five or more templates which might be handled differently than those with fewer templates. He made no suggestion that the debates should devolve to debates at each individual author's page. The group with 5 or more would be Hemingway, William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Jules Verne, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde, and Hans Christian Andersen. My interpretation of the current debate is centering on whether Hemingway should be laid out differently than this peer group of authors in the sense that this article be the only one with these templates removed. Please come join the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

Any chance you could give Bringing Up Baby a copyedit before I nom for GA? Not sure if you've seen it but it's one of the greatest comedy films ever made IMO. I think the content is satisfactory and it reads OK but in parts it could use a copyedit as suggested in the peer review. Will look this afternoon at the Blyton article, it's looking so much better now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think have seen it on TV, years ago. I'll take a look later. Blyton's looking pretty good to me too now, one or two references still to tidy up, but getting close to an assault on FAC I think. Eric Corbett 15:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think it's close now. I did look at the 1950s works earlier and an awful lot of them are generic series books so it would be redundant to mention them all, but there are a few from each year particularly early to mid 1950s which might be worthy of mentioning. The problem is knowing what to mention and what not to mention and how to present it so it doesn't ignore the fact that she was continued to produce many new series additions every year. I might have to compile something comprehensive first and then we can whittle it down and hopefully embellish it. It'll be tomorrow now though, just been preparing Emma Thompson for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"What about .... a fucking 12-string?"

Since it seems to be fashion to pop a bit of blatant profanity on Wikipedia's front page, here's my attempt : Template:Did you know nominations/The Troggs Tapes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote of the week "Admin's don't run this project, we just have elevated permissions that we use on behalf of the community." ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2014/March&oldid=1166664190"