Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/November

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


Our fearless leader

Thought that this was a [gem]. How many times have you seen Jimbo run scared? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This comment makes my point above, it has nothing to do with Eric Corbett so why stoke it when Eric has said he wants nothing to so with Jimbo? You should be taking this to Sitush. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Wnt recently posted this on the arbcom case page. I suppose it would be useful to know if you are indicating by it whether that specific event has happened to you as described or not. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes me wince

I don't understand anything at all about info boxes and have no wish to. If people want them they can have them, if they write the page. However, can someone who does understand these things, to something to this - the dead to do not "rest" they are buried, interred or generally disposed of in some other fashion. I've tried altering it, but it doesn't like it; obviously, one has to go into the workings of the thing. Giano (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

RexxS is the chap to ask on this one. Perhaps it was Shudder and Wince who were the undertakers. CassiantoTalk 09:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Without looking into the history, "Resting place" is probably a least-worst compromise. "Burial place" or "Interred" would be standard English, but wouldn't cover people whose remains are in above-ground tombs or columbariums (columbaria?), of whom there are quite a few. (The people noteworthy enough to get Wikipedia articles, are disproportionately going to be those important and powerful enough to warrant mausoleums, niches in the Kremlin wall, tombs in the chapel etc, none of which would be covered by "burial place".) ‑ iridescent 09:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
To me, resting implies that they are having a short recovery period, before getting up and carrying on with their life - which is unlikely. In the case of our Julius, he has a very fine mausoleum in London, so he is strictly speaking "entombed". I think this all comes back to people who dislike for various reasons confronting death head on - hence "passed away", "passed over", "entered into eternal rest" and "kicked the bucket" etc. On an encyclopedia, I don't think we have to be quite so coy. Giano (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're not supposed to use those words and I replace with "died" when I see them - WP:EUPHEMISM. FWIW, I can see both your point and that of Iridescent. "Resting place" looks to be a compromise and as such it is imperfect. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I've lost this one then! I suppose we couldn't have "Reposing in the arms of the Lord" could we? Giano (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Resting place, should be replaced with Buried. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. CassiantoTalk 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay and Cassianto; remember, this is a template we're talking about, not an article; it needs to be able to cover situations which are definitely not burial, ranging from "stuffed and put on display as a museum specimen" to "cremated and scattered on the pitch at Macclesfield Town". In that context, I think "resting place" is going to be least-worst option, unless we go with something unreasonably literal like "current whereabouts of body". ‑ iridescent 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Template infobox, indeed. I've brought up the subject at WP:BIOGRAPHY, as ephumenism should be avoided. Words, shouldn't be scary :) GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Iridescent, that's fine, and I get that, but who exactly "rests" when they are dead. This kind of flouncy language is best reserved for public obituaries, not an encyclopaedia. CassiantoTalk 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Final physical destination location? — Ched :  ?  18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ec]]x2 I can edit the template to allow the use of different label such as "Burial place" as an option while retaining "Resting place" as the default, but I'm wary of disturbing a prior consensus on what the label should be. I'll have a search through the talk page archives and if I don't see any previous objections I'll incorporate the change. Do you want "Burial place" as the alternate label, or is there something else you would prefer? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: Bleh, see Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 12#Euphemism. And archives 1, 4 and 12 for exactly the same arguments. I think I'll just add the option and see if anybody wants to revert it. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Hang on guys. Are you just ignoring the very good advice from iridescent? The place for this discussion is at the infobox Talk Page. Folks won't take kindly to a conspiracy cooked up here on Eric's page - for a variety of reasons. 86.151.106.59 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not used to being part of a conspiracy. How exciting! Anyway I've added the option to {{Infobox person/sandbox}} and temporarily modified Julius Beer to use that sandbox infobox. It looks like it works to me. Comments? --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hardly a conspiracy, when it's happening quite openly for the whole world to read here! Nothing is cooked here - and we are not "folks" or "guys". Now, have you anything to offer to this discussion or are you just some passing troll? Giano (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Rex, that's much better. Buried somehow seems more satisfactory and final, whereas "resting" sounds rather temporary and something one would do in a very downmarket Funeral home. Coincidentally, "home" is another word which makes me wince and shudder, but we had better leave that for another conspiracy. Giano (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The good is oft interred with their bones might serve well. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
and to think it's Halloween tonight as well! Giano (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So I made a scary suggestion on reformation day: "We need a reform of AE, to comply with the principles of "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion". See also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence phase closing

Eric Corbett, this is just a note to alert you that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence phase will be closing in 2 days. If you would like to add any additional evidence or respond to statements made by others, you have until November 5th. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, the Evidence phase has been extended and will now end on November 10, 2015. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of any WPO viewers

Whoever it was said that the reason I've made no statement at the current ArbCom cas is because I believed it would make no difference is absolutely right. ArbCom only accepts cases against individuals when their guilt has been pre-established in the eyes of Arbcom.

And this latest foot in the mouth from Jimbo Wales demonstrates how much he's trying to influence possibly the worst set of ArbCom members since WP time began.[1] Eric Corbett 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We aren't exactly best friends, which I think you will probably readily acknowledge, but that comment does seem questionable. Admittedly, I among others raised the question about whether Jimbo's talk page is within the scope of sanctions, but this seems to me to be him avoiding the question raised, about editors misusing his talk page,and seems to be taking the easy way out and basically blaming the victim, that person being in this case you, the victim of a really poorly researched sensationalist article in a magazine that, at least when I was a kid, generally published material which wasn't quite so embarrassingly bad as that article is. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the way that Jimbo tends to go. He'll make an inflamatory statement and then disappear for a few days. Eric Corbett 21:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would have said the comment was not so much inflammatory as plain stupid. Bearing in mind J Wales is privy to classified Arb information and dialogue, how is it now possible for the Arbs to accept the case without admitting it's rigged trial in a kangaroo court? Wales is indeed a very silly man. Giano (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we already knew that Giano, but some prefer to ignore it. Eric Corbett 22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I've dealt with it now. 22:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You'll undoubtedly get reverted, as Jimbo's words are law. Eric Corbett 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
See? I told you so.[2] Jimbo Wales can make as many personal attacks on his talk page as he likes. Eric Corbett 22:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We need an Eric Corbett editorial for the Signpost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.4 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So write a short article and submit it instead to WPO.→StaniStani 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why should I bother? To be attacked once again Vigilant, whose presence is why I resigned from your site? Eric Corbett 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to see you and maybe User:GorillaWarfare and maybe User:Keilana and maybe anyone else interviewed for the piece put an article together here for the Signpost, with maybe a longer version of the same, or one with fewer contributors, run in the WO blog. GW could indicate how little of what she said was apparently used, and maybe Keilana could do the same, while you maybe concentrate on the numerous errors. The WO blog might be able to help put together a more full version with more backstory, to fill people in on what has led to this situation. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't trust GW, and I don't think anyone else should either. I will not be taking part in any article. Eric Corbett 00:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If for no better reason, to irritate your critics on both sites?→StaniStani 00:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the ol' meatball maxim of "defend each other". user:Jimbo Wales mightn't, apparently. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You know what.... at this point who cares what Jimbo thinks? It is clear that you two don't get along, ranting about him for years isn't going to and hasn't solved anything. The notion that you Eric are sexist at this point is outdated, you have made great improvements. This years long grudge against Jimbo, against the WMF, against whatever it is like a hateful poison on you that needs to end. Those are my two cents, do with what you please with them, and I hope for the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You've got it the wrong way round. Think about it. Eric Corbett 01:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Let him who threw the most serious stone make amends first. I'm guessing that is what you are thinking, and, honestly, considering you actually have rather more first-hand experience regarding content than someone else, it is hard to say that you are necessarily wrong in that. Having said that, everybody needs to have some scapegoat to blame things on. Lightbreather certainly seems to need such. It looks like, unfortunately, you are the one who got selected. Honestly, I wish it were me instead. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I mean how long has it been? Has anything been accomplished? Who is going to be the better person, and just say enough is enough here? You can do that in ways that don't involve doing the same things as the other party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to start? Shall I forward on to you an email Neotarf sent to me yeterday? Would you believe it even if I did? Eric Corbett 01:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't need the email, I know this web is entangled in a-lot of strings. Have you thought of any way to just start on a clean slate? I agree for example in saying the article about you wasn't right, but also agree that there might have been better venues to address it. You should try to sever the strings holding you in place and strive for this clean slate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Eric, I think it might reasonably be in your own interests to maybe forward the e-mail from the sitebanned Neotarf, and any other harassing e-mails you may have received, to an arbitrator or the arb-com mailing list. If there is clear evidence of your being regularly harassed off-wiki, and if there are multiple such harassing e-mails that would probably qualify, that is certainly something the arbcom should be informed about. I regret to say that the individuals involved in this mess have seemingly had a history of engaging in off-wiki harassment, and information of such would certainly be useful to the arbs and/or functionaries if any of those individuals ever sought to have their bans lifted. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm only talking about one email, from Neotarf. But I know how this place works. I'd be accused of faking it if I forwarded it on. Anyone who wants to can ask Neotarf herself about the contents of her email. Eric Corbett 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to think this an obnoxious and rather self-pitying comment, but if you have only received one grossly inappropriate e-mail from trolls, things could be worse. Granted, it is probably worse to see those comments posted here, and I personally think that such are a clear violation of WP:BLP in the case of individuals whose real-world names are known, but it can be more than a bit disconcerting to see some really strange and sometimes more than vaguely threatening messages in your e-mail on a somewhat regular basis. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
To be quite blunt KK, I'm not sure you are the ideal candidate to be telling anyone about severing strings. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you do it then. When it comes down to it though Eric is going to have to figure out the best course of action, the approach that has been taken so far hasn't worked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why would I? I assume (rightly or wrongly) that Eric has already determined the "best course of action" for himself. — Ched :  ?  04:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If this were the best course of action there would be no problems. Both sides are saying "Im right, and you are wrong" walking away from it and wanting to push for change in a different way I feel could help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Galileo and the Pope both thought they were right as well. Oh well, I've taken up enough of Eric's time and page. Everyone will do what they think is best. — Ched :  ?  04:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, that is an admirable sentiment and I believe your sincerity but you have been a rather vocal opponent with strong views on EC do you think you could make much headway. I truly hope that understanding can be bridged for both sides but it only works when there is compromise and those compromises need to be on both too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A person's viewpoint can change over time, what I see is that people on both sides telling Eric/Jimbo "Yeah you are right and he is wrong" is making things worse. I know you want a compromise, but that isn't going to happen with supporters on both sides calling the shots. Eric, and Jimbo need to talk this out like two grown adults either that or the mention of an I-ban might work best. I urge others to think up some ideas here, it is certainly better than sitting here throwing more jabs at each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's the attitude that can take us there. I think this entire thing could be avoided if the crowds die away. Best wishes on a productive solution Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No doubt you'd be proposing a one-way IBAN Knowledgekid, so that Jimbo remained free to bad mouth me yet I was unable to defend myself. Wasn't that how this whole mess started? Eric Corbett 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No of course not, the IBAN would be two-way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
And who do think would have the audacity to block Jimbo Wales for breaching his ban? And do you seriously believe that he'd ever agree to it? Eric Corbett 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This is just an idea being floated, I could see WP:ARBCOM being good if they can get their act together. Have you tried talking with him regarding a solution? Im convinced the heart of the issue is this grudge you and Jimbo have against one another. There are more than enough people watching your page that could come up with some ideas if one doesn't seem best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would I want to talk to Jimbo? He knows what I think of him, as I told him in no uncertain terms, and if anything things have got worse since then. Eric Corbett 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you have to lose by doing so? No, you don't need to but resolving this long standing issue would be a huge relief to you wouldn't it? You are a great contributor Eric, but have a bunch of things weighing you down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've made my views on Wales very clear. I don't want to have anything to do with him, and I expect he feels the same about me. And please don't try to patronise me with your pop psychology. Eric Corbett 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If that were true though, then the two of you would have gone your separate ways. Jimbo wouldn't be making comments on you on his talk-page, and you wouldn't be making comments about him on yours. This doesn't really say "I want nothing to do with ..." If you are still indirectly communicating. I will stop here, I just wish something constructive could be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo can clearly do as he wishes, and I equally clearly can't. What's become painfully obvious to me though is that I made a serious mistake in editing under my real name. How would you feel, for instance, if an admin emailed you a picture of your house with your car sitting in the drive, with its number plate clearly visible? Eric Corbett 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I would question their sanity, and say that you have a unique name. Is there a way you can change emails, or get a new username to get a new look? It will make a difference to new users to see a username they don't know. You can show others you aren't anything the article unfairly paints you as. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I would feel it was time to move any paint-stripper and loose house bricks into the back garden. 86.187.174.13 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not me who needs to change anything. Eric Corbett 02:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. See also, about outcast and integrity --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Eric Corbett, in the open Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White Cross Army

The article White Cross Army has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No current evidence of meeting WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of White Cross Army for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Cross Army is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Cross Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Will jimbo pay?

I don't ever intend to contribute here again, other than on this talk page, but I would like Jimbo Wales to back up his offer to pay for my alternative site. I have a Paypal account, it wouldn't be difficult.

I could admittedly have posted that on his own talk page, if I hadn't been banned from it; the dishonesty runs deep here. Eric Corbett 00:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

'Tis good to see you've returned. Hope you'll change your mind about restricting yourself to your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand what these blocks are about. Eric Corbett 03:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You understand more than I do then. The whole agenda, if it is an agenda, seems badly planned and confused. In fact, I doubt it is an agenda - more a lot of erratic people from various backgrounds running around like headless chickens because they feel they are in an alien culture and wish to establish a comfort zone around themselves. You are the wasp that's spoiling their psychological happy homestead. Giano (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Giano's right, Eric. The chances of "cock-up" (am I still allowed to say that?) are far greater than "conspiracy". --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No! Rex you may not make such sexist and vulgar remarks. We women have suffered too long at the hands of brutes like you and that revolting Mr Corbett. It's time to overthrow the tyranny of male domination: "Rise up, women, for the fight is hard and long; Rise up in thousands singing loud a battle song." The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
A thousand apologies, M'lady. I stand corrected. [sotto voce]: good job I changed it from "fuck-up", eh? --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"[...] being fucked can certainly be gender-neutral. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)" IHTS (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently rejected a report of a purportedly obscene username for administrator attention, "User:Cocky boy". "Contains the word 'cock'". Some of those names are bot-reported, and then it's of course to be expected, but this was user-reported. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
Phew! I'm really glad I never got around to registering User:Scunthorpe boy. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration over two redirects...

Dear Eric, We do not really know each other, but I have to say that I have been following your wikipedia story for some time now, even before I joined wikipedia. So I have been here just a couple months. I got notified earlier this evening that someone is opening an arbitration case against moi because I created two redirects. Any advice? Thanks! Zpeopleheart (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Zpeopleheart: The arbitration request looks like it will very likely be declined at this stage. So you don't need to worry about it. Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) 20:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
here you go [3] ani and arb here [4] plus there was anpther ani earler this week and another ani just opened toady. I got two annnies and an a arbbbie and a bitch ain't one!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpeopleheart (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2015

comments

I posted tonight with comments which include your name. My apologies for not using the ping function. — Ched :  ?  07:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A question, for posterity

Eric, I recently found myself debating whether repeated 72 hour blocks feel more like slaps on the wrist or slaps in the face. I was wondering if you'd be willing to clarify this for me since you have some relevant experience. This is for posterity, so be honest. ~Awilley (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A block is a block, makes no difference to me what the length is. My view is that blocks are simply a way of telling an editor that (s)he is unwelcome, not part of the WP in-crowd. I'd make an exception for indef blocks though, which are simply a demand for the blockee to fall to his/her knees, admit their sins and beg for forgiveness.
So to answer your question directly, I don't regard blocks as a slap anywhere; rather, I view them as simply another weapon in WP's arsenal of ritualised humiliation. Eric Corbett 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the candid response. ~Awilley (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, where will my reply be used against me? Eric Corbett 22:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It came up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Awilley's section about halfway down. ~Awilley (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. As far as I'm concerned you can block me for as long as you like - I was once blocked for two seconds, just to make a point - but when the block expires I'll be exactly the person I was before. To expect anything else is simply naive. Eric Corbett 22:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2015/November&oldid=1091675559"