Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/December

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


Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone's interested...

I understand that there's been much drama lately with AE2 and all (no comment on the case itself), but if anyone's interested, I've been working on the Battle of Brunanburh article, since I was rather shocked that the article about the most second most important Anglo-Saxon battle (as described by Alfred Smyth) was such poor-quality. I'm aiming to get it to GA status, at least (the article has already been nominated, actually), and I think I've just about finished working on it. I just thought people here might be interested in looking over it and giving their opinion on any improvements that could be made, since a north-west England location is the leading theory for the battle site. A thread on content might be a welcome break from all the threads above this one. Thanks, Biblioworm 06:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"The invaders had fortified themselves in trenches"- the last place I'd want to be in, in a battle fought with spears and swords, is a trench! The source webpage mentions "timber-fortified trenches"- is it possible that the trenches were by-products of constructing timber defences? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just tried to clarify that sentence a bit. Thanks for pointing it out. Biblioworm 22:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This page quotes a James Parket, who seems to be indicating that the trench was in front of a "board wall"; the Anglo-Saxons crossed the trench and broke through the wall. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Biblioworm I've been watching your changes, but I'm currently only getting involved in a handful of articles. But as you asked, I think a few mistakes have occurred:
  • In the last paragraph in Location (before the list) you pruned mention of arguments against Bromborough. Also I'm sure there are more, such as the lack of any evidence in the record from nearby Chester? I would echo other people's views that while Bromborough may well be the current favorite theory, that is still all it is.
  • Do you think you might have been a bit aggressive with the pruning shears when it came to the Burnley section? If I was a less experienced user and saw thatthis had become two short sentences I suspect I might be somewhat unhappy.
  • In doing so you removed the only link to Burh, while that article focuses of the south of England, I'm pretty sure it is relevant. Also there is a stub on Dingesmere, which I'm pretty sure used to be linked?
There where a few more bits, but not really significant, and the more I type the less comfortable I am using Eric's talkpage for this at the moment, so I'll leave it here. Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In regard to the first point, I don't think I removed anything of significance from the last paragraph before the list, but perhaps I just don't remember. On the pruning, I removed that large section of content because it was mostly unsourced, and the parts that were sourced simply weren't enough to construct a coherent paragraph. (Obviously, all content in a GA must be sourced.) To address your last point, I'll see if I can find a way to reintroduce those links. (If you're uncomfortable using this talk page, you could always put your feedback on the article talk page. I only posted this here to make possibly interested parties aware of the work I'm doing.) Biblioworm 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman case

Please take this as notice of your ban from the Kevin Gorman case. I thought to indulge you slightly by letting you post about something totally irrelevant to the case, but apparently you're more interested in making silly drama. Note that this ban will be enforced by an AE block if that becomes necessary. This ban can be appealed via email to ArbCom if you choose to do so. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC).

You must know that what you are doing is dishonest, but you have to live with that, not me. And BTW, please don't waste your time in trying to bully me. Eric Corbett 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is dishonest? HighInBC 03:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Who cares? Eric Corbett 03:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well there are quite a lot of dishonest things going on actually Chillum; having micro-followed every utterence of Eric for God knows how long and still not managed to nail anything substantial on him and ban him forever; there is now a plot afoot to deprive him of anyone who objects to the campaigne to get rid of him [1]. Those of us with long memories here, know that we are going quickly back to the sad old days of 2005/6/7, when Wikipedia was openly run by the Admin's IRC channel and one or two very odd people who imagined that they were Jimbo's best mates. I shan't abide by the ban to not discuss Eric even if it's passed so I expect to be banned before he is, but once I'm banned and the next man is banned, others will see just how corrupt this place is and pick up the cudgel, and off we will go in the never ending circle again because those who love to have power here can never accept what a diverse community of cultures and personalities is required to make the project a success. Giano (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Giano I have been around to see the same story, needless to say I remember things a bit differently. If you wish to talk about this my talk page is open. HighInBC 16:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You and I Chillum have been round the block too often together to think there is any chance of reaching an agreement on your talk page. I'll wish you a happy Christmas though. Giano (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it wise for Eric to avoid the Gorman case even without threats; those of us who were in the room when the "Manchester" comment was made back in October are watching the case and following its twists and turns. Montanabw(talk) 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's wise for all of us to avoid the case. I liked Iridescent removing the preliminary statement, completely. Imagine all did that and wrote articles instead. Is Kevin a danger to Wikipedia? Can't we just watch what he's doing and say something when it seems wrong (which I did, more than once)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It may be wise, but Gorman must stop telling lies. Eric Corbett 21:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Chillum asked for an example of dishonesty in this case, and here's just one. Gorman in his evidence has suggested that I am banned from taking part in his ArbCom case because I am one of three editors who have been harassing him,[2] but nothing could be further from the truth. Yet Lankiveil is apparently quite happy to allow that lie to stand. It's clearly true that an editor in Gorman's fragile mental state ought not to be subjected to the usual protracted timescale of a case, but I would remind everyone that my own case has been open for almost three months now. Still, who cares about that, I'm not an administrator. Eric Corbett 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    and he's saying I'm banned from it too. I don't think I am (Lankiveil can you clarify that please); I have just decided it's Christmas and it's really not worth the effort of getting involved in another time wasting exercise. If Kevin's wise, he'll begger off somewhere and enjoy his Christmas off-wiki too. Yes, the case about you has been dragging on for ages (they've even dragged me into it to), but are we going to let it get us down and spoil Christmas? No, we are not. Are we surprised by any of this? No, we are not. Giano (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Lankiveil's task is to protect Gorman, not you or me. Eric Corbett 21:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

British Isles mythology article needs much help

Someone, anyone, check on Colt pixie. Not sure it's even a real thing, but if it is, the article needs much help. Figured if Eric isn't interested, someone here is... Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in myths myself, unless it is of direct relevance to a historical article in a specific context. For example, when writing about the Battle of the Winwaed (which I will be doing shortly), you must at least mention pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon religious traditions (which are almost entirely myth) to give the reader an understanding of the battle's importance (namely, that the battle resulted in the effectual end of paganism). But I only chose to work on that article because the battle was of great historical consequence, and for no other reason. However, I think Sagaciousphil is interested in such articles and might be able to help you; since I watch the admin noticeboards, though, I'm vaguely aware of some dispute over something that someone said and it resulted in Sagaciousphil being blocked and unblocked, and it doesn't appear that she's active at the moment. Biblioworm 21:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The article does need help, but I say if it doesn't want to be called a colt, it shouldn't act like one! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to wish you a very happy holiday season Eric. I could bore you with "you're a good man" cliches .. but suffice to say: Thank you. I appreciate you. I admire you. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

doesn't mean I always agree with you - but it would be pretty boring and pointless if I did — Ched :  ?  01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

 Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


[Piggybacking] From me also, Eric, and the same for all the Usual Suspects watching this page. Have a good one, indulge to excess, and my genuine best wishes to all of you for 2016. Keri (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
So it took almost three months to do nothing? I think we all know that the only reason the case was accepted was as a vehicle to have me banned, but the evidence just didn't justify it. Eric Corbett 00:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet Community Reassessment

CobraNet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS Warrior (1860)

I see you have reduced your activity here and I don't blame you; that last block was extremely silly. I was pleased to see Warrior come up as today's TFA; I recall we both copyedited it a couple of years ago. It's looking good I think; thank you for your help on it. --John (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So now I can wish you a happy Yuletide

Good Yule!
Good Yule!


Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)



Thanks. I'm sorry about you losing your admin bit, as I said at the ArbCom case, but frankly you're probably better off without it. Eric Corbett 00:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2015/December&oldid=1091675610"