User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/December

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
 * is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
 * For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
 * Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion. If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block. Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
 * is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
 * For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
 * Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 * 's actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion.
 * is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Polishing the 'Chrome
Hey Eric, I got California Chrome to FA earlier this year, but he's had three races since then, so I would be very grateful if you could kindly do two things for me:
 * 1) Look over the new stuff added since the FAC (this diff) and do your copyediting magic (you already did so for the rest) and
 * 2) Now that 2014 has come to a close (other than possible year-end awards) can you give the whole thing a glance and suggest areas where I could just plain chop out some material on the grounds of it being news at the time but no longer really relevant? During the FAC, User:Dr. Blofeld suggested that the article was a bit too long when one considers that the horse will probably race next year - and he was right - but at the time I was getting a half-million hits and having wiki cribbed all over by the mainstream press.  Now that the year is over and all has settled down, we have the benefit of hindsight to determine what actually mattered and what did not (I still like the opossum story, though).  Your eyes (and those of your stalkers) will be much appreciated. (also pinging other FAC reviewers, User:Dank, User: Crisco 1492, though your new jobs may preclude you from a copyedit if I want this to be a TFA next year...)  Montanabw (talk)  19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I stubbed Alberto Delgado (jockey), care to expand?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Montanabw (talk)  20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been a good friend, so I'll certainly take a look. Eric   Corbett  00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FA maintenance: Anne Frank
Hi Eric. I have been watching the Anne Frank article since the departure of Rossrs, the fellow who brought it to FA some years ago. Structurally the article is in good shape, with no dead links, and everything is sourced. But what with the wee additions to the article over the years, especially near the bottom of the article, I was wondering if you would be interested in having a look at the prose, to help ensure that it still meets FA standards? If you are not interested or don't have time right now that's okay. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be a great shame if that article lost its FA status, she was a brave little girl, but as it's about a female I'm not sure I can help. Eric   Corbett  00:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Before it was discovered that Eric hates women and is chasing all the women away he helped me with the To Kill a Mocking Bird article when it was being subjected to a rash of edits that I did not see as improvements (even though it was Moni's FA and the book is about a girl and written by a woman and I'm a woman)... So maybe, Diannaa, you can get him to put his dislike of women aside just one more time? Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like women, just as much as I like men, but I think it's safer for me in the current climate to steer well away from articles about women. I've got nothing to gain there and only the threat of an ArbCom sanction should I say or do something anyone takes exception to, so it's a no-win situation as far as I'm concerned. Eric   Corbett  01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that ARB1 could be read that broadly. Anne Frank was a brave woman; please make her article look as good as possible. DYK that I used to live across the street from her house? Drmies (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Drmies here, though one of us could ask a clerk for clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Broadly construed" is a licence to kill as far as I'm concerned. Eric   Corbett
 * You're correct, Eric. In these situations there's only 2 choices for avoiding the hot poker - 1) Stay away or 2) Stay away. It was a lesson I had to learn, from April 2013 to May 2014. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No no no, it can't be that way. "These topics" (which follows "broadly construed") must refer to the Gender Gap Task Force and the gender disparity. Not to women. If that were the case you couldn't edit anything at all since the entire universe is female (or female-born, for the deists among us). Perhaps this is a good occasion to ask Dianna(a) for some enlightenment: how is it that Dianna is simultaneously the goddess of chastity and of childbirth? I am sure she is at (ArbCom-licensed) liberty to explain the matter. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be "narrowly construed", not "broadly construed". Eric   Corbett  15:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I think Eric may be taking it to an extreme, his concern is not without warrant. Broad is pretty broad. I just asked at WP:ARCA for clarification of my own gun control topic ban, and it came back that I should not edit the commandeering article (a generic federalism concept) because SCOTUS last ruled on the subject in Printz v. United States which coincidentally involved gun control. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The remedy adopted in the arbitration does not, by any interpretation, mean that Eric Corbett cannot edit articles about women. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric, interpreting the ArbCom restriction as making it risky to edit articles about women is silly; not even your most rabid enemies would try that gambit, and if they did, they would be slapped down hard. I'm positive.
 * Let's be more direct. I imagine instead that you're so offended at the stupid recurring casual slander that you're some kind of misogynist (including by our fearless leader himself), that you're boycotting this kind of article in protest.  I'd be just as pissed off if I were in your shoes.  But keep in mind that those who call you a misogynist do not care whether Anne Frank is an FA or not; they're busy playing other games. If I had any suggestions for a boycott target that would actually affect them, I'd make it, but I don't.  But Anne Frank isn't it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but all it would take would be for someone to post on the talk page something along the lines of "we have far too few articles on female Holocaust victims" and I'm stuffed. Eric   Corbett  16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trust me, Eric. If in doubt, don't go about. Like myself, you've got many eyes on your every move. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, yours seems to be a very literal interpretation but with people like Sandstein around it perhaps does pay to err massively on the side of caution. I think NYB and Floq have it right but, really, who knows in the present environment. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for curiosity, I asked NYB. Turn to the horse, that horse is male, - nobody could predict reactions if you engaged with a female horse, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given our precious enemy of the state culture, GoodDay's advice is quite solid. In a sane, equitable system Eric would be able to work on an article like this, but I think most of us understand (even if it won't be said aloud) that our system is neither sane nor equitable. Intothatdarkness 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (pictured) (sorry about the repetition for those who saw it already: that a candidate for arbitrator dared to type the phrase "common sense", - remember that an edit that without doubt improved Wikipedia kept three noticeboards busy for weeks?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A final observation on the recent GGTF ArbCom case
Now that the dust is finally beginning to settle on that ridiculous GGTF ArbCom case – which never had anything to do with the GGTF in reality, as I predicted – I have one observation to make.

There were four findings of fact relating to me, all of them entirely negative. No mention at all of the forty-seven FAs, the numerous GAs, the almost six hundred GA reviews I carried out, or the very many editors I've helped to get their articles to that standard. I think that tells us everything we need to know about our lords and masters, and may go some way towards explaining why I might not be in any hurry to return to editing after my next Monday break. Eric  Corbett  23:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * nothing special about that case, see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unusual to see cases get hijacked in the way this one was, I agree. Eric   Corbett  23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you ever see that the arbitrators apologised for unfair treatment, like they should to you now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll be a cold day in Hell! Eric   Corbett  15:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I bang my head against a desk trying to get one FA, so with 47 of them you must have a sore head Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the findings were unbalanced. They should have recognized your contributions, to place things in context.  In future cases it would be useful to present such statistics in evidence, propose a finding in the workshop, and then nag the arbitrators on the proposed decision talk page to make sure they include it.  Such a finding would have addressed the unreasonable objection, "why were these two [highly disruptive] female editors banned while the male editor wasn't?"  As for future cases, I am sure we will see more instances where productive contributors are taken to arbitration by POV pushing battle mongers. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It won't even be necessary for the so-called battle-mongers to go to Arbcom. ANI lends itself to quick flash-swarm lynchings and it's much less effort to do the trick there.  The WP model of consensus and continuous revision works well in articles with a large population of active and pagewatching editors.  It does not work for most WP pages.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most WP pages shouldn't even exist. We're hosting more and more shite by the day. Ever heard the saying, "If you want to find a needle in a haystack, don't add more hay". - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Principles 5 and 6 both infer Eric's (and others) contributions, but I agree they could have been more explicit, perhaps as was done for Sitush. I agree with Jehochman that being explicit would make it easier for others to understand why the result was lopsided. I'm unclear on why you think you were treated unfairly. You got away with a wrist slap considering what was on the table and how many people were out for blood.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I said he was treated unfairly. So nice to get away with only a leg taken while life was at stake. Repeating the edit that collected my highest thank-you result so far: "Can't help thinking that some women widened the gender gap they proclaimed to close, - we others are left who didn't even see a gap." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Like Gerda said. And I am an unabashed feminist. So if anyone takes issue on that point, they can come crying to me. That said, I'm not apt to be sympathetic.   Montanabw (talk)  22:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There definitely appeared to be a whiff of Self-fulfilling prophecy at work when you considered the manner in which certain objectives were being presented and pursued. At times it seemed so extreme that Hyperbole and Self-parody came to my mind, along with a suspicion that Fifth columnism might become a reasonable model to understand certain behaviour. "With friends like that, who needs enemies". No doubt someone, somewhere is busy writing this down as mafia evidence now.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice how Jimbo is studiously trying to keep out of things, having effectively made false promises that spurred people on? If you want a scapegoat for the entire farrago, there's your man. - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Boobrie
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Commas make the world go round
Can somebody take a quick peek at Talk:Mersea Island/GA1? The main bone of contention is the reviewer, thinks there should be more commas in it to improve readability, I think there ought to be less for the same reason. I have thrown the mantra around of "every time you remove a comma, Eric cheers" but which one of us is right here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tells me everything I need to know
Against the backdrop of screaming blue murder to have the location of her IP address deleted from history I find this. Tells me everything I need to know. Eric  Corbett  00:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not surprising but the irony of the complaints and proposed actions is huge. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It will be interesting to see what conclusions Marinka posts on her web site in the spring after a few months of investigation, but I'm damned if I'll be shamed by "only" having set up a charitable fund to help animals, even if they are "only" ferrets. The double dealing here is quite extraordinary. Eric   Corbett  00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ferrets are good little creatures 8) I'd get one but my rat terrier would try and eat it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, Marinka is a sock of Coat of Many Colours, who was a long-term sock of Rinpoche. Did you interact with either of the latter two enough to make them want vengeance on you? I think it's interesting that the user name dropped you when blocked, even though that account never interacted with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a sock of Coat as I said on my Talk page, though I am happy to confess to literally dozens of sock accounts over the past five years as I pursue my personal passion. Free world eh? No issues (nor interactions) with Eric (certainly with AAij) as I also made clear. Generally sympathetic to Eric. Cheers. 86.151.173.229 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (Marinka - a pseudonym of course)
 * Coat of Many Colours rings a bell, but I can't remember why. Eric   Corbett  01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You made a comment about her (doubting her geekiness) on Hafspajen's Talk page. You posted on your IP since you were blocked at the time. Coat as a matter of fact isn't very good with computers - a standing joke in our circle. You got that right about Dubai BTW. 86.151.173.229 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (M)
 * That IP posting is absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric   Corbett  01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are Rinpoche? (Not that I know them--I have heard of them.) Well, Mr. Corbett, you'll have to do more to be appropriately famous since that will excuse your sexism and your exercise of power (or lack thereof?)--or did I completely misunderstand this attempt at incrimination? Drmies (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've outlined the evidence in several places. I'm convinced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just about the least sexist person I know, and why people keep claiming that I am is completely beyond me. Eric   Corbett  01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're certainly a lot sexist than old Sitush, with his masculinity pointing at the skies. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do what? I'm not sure how I have offended you, Drmies, but I really do not understand some of your recent comments about me. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Steady on, remember what we talked about last week? Eric   Corbett  01:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've not offended me at all, Sitush--it's just my biannual reference to that photograph of yours, you know? :) And oh yeah, I forgot: I missed the meetup, again. I trust y'all had a splendid time. Maybe I'll submit to the medieval get-together in Leeds one of these days and look up Marinka van Dam as well, on my way to the "Manchester circle and sausagefest", to shake y'all's hands and look at the ferrets. Sitush, your bike still running? Drmies (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [ec] I think I've worked it out, sorry to both of you. It may be an allusion to a certain photograph. Probably not the best time to mention that thing given what is brewing off-wiki but, hey.- Sitush (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * [multi ec] Whoever it may be, it is another example of the politicisation of this place. I don't do politics. I've never done politics. I've never even voted in council/national elections etc and am certainly not going to change my ways for anything that is more than a committee of some allegedly apolitical group or another. If people want to play a political game then I want no part in it. Basically, it looks like I'm out of here because as soon as "big" politics gets involved, reason exeunts and dogma comes centre stage. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically that time-wasting GGTF ArbCom case hasn't resolved anything, only driven the conflict to other areas of Wikimedia. Eric   Corbett  01:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a manipulation on your decided verbage of course. But enough out of me I have libations of home made cider to attend to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about mailing lists and behind the scenes stuff but the original post in this thread reminded me of how hypocritical all that weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth is when that editor appears to have had no qualms about trying to do the same thing to me. (now hatted). J3Mrs (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had quite forgotten that Rinpoche honored me a few years ago with a visit. I still don't understand the obsession, the roleplaying, all that fake outrage. And DYK that the Marinka name is either an impersonation of a real person or an elaborately built ruse? Sad. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going for the latter. I didn't see anything that suggests that the MvD account was based on a real person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reminder as to why I studiously ignore the "mailing lists". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They should have renamed the whole time consuming (don't find polite word) unbelievable case to  - btw my edit with the highest number of thank-you-clicks so far. - Did you know that I suggested to use simply "GGTF" and had the feeling that arbitration understood me, the first time ever I had that feeling ;) (Note that individual arbitrators understood me before, but not when they decided as a group.) - Please (not you, Eric, see above, but you others): vote. We don't need another case like that, which means we need people who look though things from the start. "Hope" is the first comment on my talk, written by a candidate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably already have seen [| the admission] but the evasion wasn't them. Seems Legit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As heard on Radio 4
"You don't mess with Manchester. Manchester has muscle." Jeanette Winterson, just before 8 o'clock news, a trail for a series next week. Pam D  08:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Art gallery? What's an art gallery?"- Mancunian on being asked for directions to Manchester Art Gallery. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry kid, I would have difficulty with that one- but if you had asked me for The City Art Gallery thats another story. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, even if the natives get confused by the conjunction of "Manchester" and "Art" I'd just like to express my support for Eric (and disgust at the activities of CoMC). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The programme is Manchester: Alchemical city, five 15-minute episodes, next Monday-Friday (8th-12th Dec), 13:45, BBC Radio 4. Pam D  23:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeanette Winterson is the god of writing. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting, I'll definitely try and catch that. Given recent events it's interesting that the blurb characterises Manchester as a "combative and insubordinate urban centre". Eric   Corbett  00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you might enjoy the programmes, if you haven't already, about "one of the most important cities the world has ever seen". Winterson has an interesting take on its radicalism, John Dee, alchemy and other interesting observations. I'll be listening to the rest. J3Mrs (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to take a couple of ferrets to the vet, so I missed it. But I think I can catch it on the BBC's iPlayer, which I'll check out now. Eric   Corbett  16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ... yep, just listened to the first two episodes. Very enjoyable. Eric   Corbett  17:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Stained glass in Liverpool Cathedral
Hello, Eric. Not sure how things are with you at present, but if you are so inclined, would you have a look at this article and advise if it is worthy of GAN? If so, may I have your advice and improvement of the text. Best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have a read through later Peter. If I've been banned by then just email me and I'll let you know what I think. Eric   Corbett  17:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could pass your email onto me too. I wouldn't want to lose touch with an editor whose opinions can be trusted. It says a lot about editor retention if the ultimate accolade in editing is a ban. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric. Do you now have time to give this a look?  --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look tomorrow Peter. Eric   Corbett  00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. And thanks to you for another successful GAN. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you must be thinking of someone else. All I'm good for is chasing new editors away. Allegedly. Eric   Corbett  16:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ho! ho! ho! What would we do without you? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel closely paraphrased ;) - going to nominate my second FAC next, nothing for you, Eric, a musical audition piece mentioning opera, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Have I ever told you how much I hate opera, and indeed musicals in general? Eric   Corbett  20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think I said it's not for you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * True. I'm not a Philistine though, I like music and I like singing, I just can't stand the theatricality of musicals/opera. Eric   Corbett  21:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Highbeam
Do you still have Highbeam access? Could you get this for me, please? Chandra Shekhar is in a right mess and I thought I would do some fettling. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – I have access; how do you want me to transmit it to you?  Go  Phightins  !  21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've sent you an email. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Emailed it to you. Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  00:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Magna Carta
Reading the above it seems some of the earlier issues are resolved (I don't watch or participate in more dramatic areas of wp, so don't really understand what was going on) and was wondering if you might have the time, or inclination, to take a peek at Magna Carta. I understand that you were a but busy when I asked before, but I think it is getting close to GA standard and, if the quality is to be further improved before the 800th anniversary on June 15, time will soon be catching up with us. I put a request on WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but there is a long queue (and I suspect your skills may be even more useful). There are some specific issues and areas in need of a copyedit highlighted at Talk:Magna Carta but any help or advice would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To summarise, I was dragged to ArbCom and almost banned because of some questions I asked about the alleged gender gap, which I'm no longer even allowed to discuss. So my motivation for helping anyone with anything is at rock bottom. Maybe in the New Year, we'll see. Eric   Corbett  21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh OK. Well have a good break in the meantime.&mdash; Rod talk 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kai Holst
I understand you have used much time on good articles, I have translated an article about Kai Holst from Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål which is GA there. The sources are alas mostly, if not fully, in Norwegian, but if you read it and find anything lacking I would do my best to correct it. Ulflarsen (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply just above. Eric   Corbett  18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Internet fame
Or perhaps infamy. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who gives a shit what Auerbach thinks? Especially given that he can't even get the story straight. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't care what he thinks but he might have copied "mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story" from my simpler reference to Kafka after arbitration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The comments are interesting, which is unusual.  Montanabw (talk)  21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't repeat my opinion of Jimbo Wales here as it would get me blocked. Suffice it to say that I haven't changed my mind. Eric   Corbett  02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I've never heard of Mr Auerbach, so I don't know how worthy his opinions are. I've never noticed any great adverse sentiments towards women here; it's sometimes a bit of a rough and tumble for all, but what group of intellectuals, egotists and hypochondriacs isn't? So for the project's benefit, I asked Mrs G why she though we had fewer women here, and apparently it's because "most women have other more vital things to do - having babies, washing, ironing, shopping all while simultaneously holding down their highly paid careers - whereas their husbands mow the lawn on Summer Saturday morning, light the barbecue on Saturday evenings, and the on all other evenings of the year have precious little else to do than play with their laptops while pretending to be working on a spreadsheet." I'm not sure I agree with that, but I a sure a lot of other women will, and there probably is some small grain of truth at the bottom of it - albeit it's a rather sexist theory. Giano    (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there's a large grain of truth in that. I was listening to a discussion on Woman's hour on Radio 4 the other week - as a fully reconstructed male I listen to stuff like that. They were talking about men's attitude to to housework, and they reckoned that the majority of men (myself excluded, of course!) will "help" their wife with it but still feel somehow it's her responsibility, even if she also has a full-time job. One woman recounted the story of the time she came home from work and her husband said "you didn't notice I've mown the lawn." She replied "You didn't notice I've vacuumed the carpets, tidied and dusted the living room and washed and put away the crockery" and he said "Well, that's different". I apologise in advance if this opens a large and bitter can of worms :-) I've thought all along about the gender gap that, probably, many women just aren't interested in editing. Certainly, whenever I mention it to anyone they usually say "that's interesting" and then look at me as if I'm a bit weird. Richerman    (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like this comment : "The real reason Wikipedia has gender bias is not because women are not interested, but that the structure of the site is not set up to devolve power from the 90% young, white, educated men who contribute to the site". (example here) Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If the worst case scenario is that 10% of contributors are women (figures vary, some say 15%), the implication is that everyone else is a young white educated male. Well, I'm not young and I doubt that many who edit in the India-related topic area are white. This just looks like another example of people making sweeping generalisations with no obvious means of support. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the mathematically inclined, if you say 90% of the site is an x, y, z etc. individual, and claim correctness if any of x, y and z is true, then if each has 50% chance of being true individually, that does roughly add up to 90%. Not to mention that I don't really understand the crying that it's a disgrace 90% of the people writing an encyclopedia are educated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Eric, for your work on Geoffrey (archbishop of York), "not noted for his saintly restraint nor his even temper. ... the sheer number of disputes made the chronology much more tortured than usual" (said the nominator), -  precious  again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Did the writer attempt to contact you for a comment? If not they are a hack, a fool, and an unethical journalist. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the link posted here was the first I heard about this. Eric   Corbett  14:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't contacted either. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, so the journalist has acted unethically. You don't write smack about people without first attempting to contact them and get their side of the story.  The writer also didn't contact ArbCom.  So, don't worry about it. Jehochman Talk 14:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "journalist" has a grudge relating to Gamergate and has latched on to other stuff, quite possibly with off-wiki prompting. The situation vaguely reminds me of, although I suspect Finkelstein would have made contact. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience is an intelligent and ethical guy.  I believe he once wrote something critical about me and did contact me for a comment. Jehochman Talk 15:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How often do you contact people before writing about them on Wikipedia?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How often do you sharpen you skis before playing tennis? Never. Wikipedia is not news. We cite everything to reliable sources. When writing the news, reporters must check and cross check their facts because they are using primary sources, often dodgy ones with ulterior motives. Jehochman Talk 03:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cristian Raducanu, for starters. And, yes, I did declare a potential coi because I played with him many years ago. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about when you write articles about old friends.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't talk about anything else so I suggest that you stop baiting, as is your wont. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears Jimbo's going to be on Question Time in Watford on 8 January - I don't suppose you fancy popping down and having a chat, do you? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Jimbo knows what a ... I believe him to be, so the answer is a resolute no. Eric   Corbett  21:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RL would be entertaining. We'd buy popcorn and watch the show steamed live!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Was 'steamed' a deliberate typo? :-) I'm not sure if the BBC is available (streamed or otherwise) outside the UK, sadly, but I'm intending to watch that on the iPlayer after it is broadcast (or live if I'm in front of a telly that evening). Sadly, I suspect that Jimmy will just be asked to comment on various topical UK political matters. Probably very little about Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like Jimbo is the "add on". They have one in every broadcast of QT. Very occasionally they do actually say something worth noting. I know enough high-ish level politicians that I could probably plant an awkward question for him from within the panel but, really, the type of person who watches the programme probably will see through him anyway, as tends to happen with many of the add-ons. I've never yet found out what the appearance fee is for QT but I'd be very surprised if there isn't one and I could probably get a ballpark figure without too much effort. But that is a rock-and-a-hard-place thing because if someone refused the fee the accusation would likely be one of narcissism. Given the no-win, he'd probably be best advised to withdraw. I can pretty much guarantee that his role in Wikipedia will be overstated, although perhaps not by him. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Apropos of putting all this wikipedia stuff in perspective....life in Oz has been weird. Phillip Hughes' death really affected alot of people - many folks were very very upset about it to an extent I haven't seen for a long time...and now we have one possibly two Islamic State sieges in our CBD....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Hi

I consider you a decent and honorable person. Would you be able to help me expand Murder of Kylie Maybury? Kylie deserves better than the relatively meagre article she has now. I'm asking other Wikipedians that have experience to help us too. Paul Austin (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not, no. Eric   Corbett  18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another civility warrior bites the dust
Do you sometimes find it extremely hard not to gloat and want to say: I told you so? In my experience, when someone seems too good to be true, that's exactly what they are. I wonder if those like Chillum and the other civility warriors who enjoy so much mutual backslapping ever have moments of self-doubt. Giano   (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you pinged me. Your comment leaves me filled with self-doubt. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">Chillum</b> 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure you will recover your equilibrium Chillum. Even so it must be a tres difficult time for you.  Giano    (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just try and forget about them, it's easier that way. There was obviously a lot of socking going on at that recent ArbCom case, but nobody in charge really seemed to care. Much more important to try and get me banned, by hook or by crook. Eric   Corbett  21:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was quite a bit of socking, and they'll all bite the dust sooner or later. There is, however, one very big civility warrior to expose yet. He had the good sense to keep his main account out of that case, but he'll come crashing down very soon. Giano    (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few candidates. I remain absolutely disgusted that a case nominally about the GGTF was allowed to turn into the witch hunt that it did. Eric   Corbett  23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember: the infoboxes case was requested because of massive reverts of infoboxes, - 11 hours later someone called "ban Andy". - Did you see my ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

 * Very kind of you Crisco, and I wish the same to you and yours. Eric   Corbett  09:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, two birds with one stone. Eric, Chris, merry Christmas to both of you. May your days be merry and bright. I have my mother in law in my house, and the kids are not in school--on the bright side, I got a bottle of Famous Grouse. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

So I'm told I should write an article
I received an email from a not-so-friendly admirer recently. I'm sure they thought it was nasty, but I found it rather droll. They did point out I've never written an article before. You probably can guess the source (although I'm certain it was coordinated), but they did make a valid point. I just gave a "Man of Mustard" award to Drmies, and I noticed that there isn't an article on The Ba-Tampte Company. I don't have access to the tools to find sources, or more accurately I don't even know where to find them. Any chance you could give me some help in finding some sources? I know the topic is slight, but there are far dumber articles out there. I've got a lull in my work activities for a few days, so I might as well make hay while the sun is shining. Thanks Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As an enthusiastic consumer of their products (especially at Passover), I suspect that this company is notable, and worthy of an article. I have written similar articles about food and beverage topics, such as Mezzetta, Marin French Cheese Company, Hagafen Cellars, Israeli breakfast and Whoa Nellie Deli. I have a very long list of redlinks on my user page, namely articles I think we should have, but I haven't yet created. Feel free to take up any of them. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I can be of any assistance at all to you in this effort, please let me know. Thank you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, chiming in, Ba-Tampte may not be an easy one to start with, but I wholly encourage you to write something. Ba-Tampte doesn't seem to ever have been profiled in the New York Times (as one would expect a NYC-based company like this to have been at some point), it just has received two mentions in November 1976 when someone in Greenwich, CT had trouble finding them and people wrote in to say where to find them in the "De Gustibus" column. (I can send you these, but its not really worth it.)  And though the entire archive of the Brooklyn Eagle is now online, that ended in 1955 when Ba-Tampte was just starting!  An easier option but perhaps less fun is to peruse recent NY Times obituaries, often those folks meet WP:GNG but aren't in some flashy profession and get overlooked for some time. Deaths in 2014 (always one of our most popular articles on a week-to-week basis) always has redlinks on it.  E.g., David Garth  just died and is generating substantive obits but has no article yet.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On that mustard note, I just picked up some fine German Thomy Senf. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Format of exhibition titles
Eric (or stalkers), do you have any idea of the correct format for exhibition titles? I've just created Ken Hawley and am unsure whether I should be writing "The Cutting Edge" or The Cutting Edge. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ITALICS is your friend. While not explicitly included in the list, I'd say that an exhibition fits the category of a "major work" (and itself is not a part of one), thus I'd say it should be The Cutting Edge. No such user (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That will do me, thank you. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

==Yo Ho Ho== <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Mele Kalikimaka
Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawaiian? Is Eric in Hawaii or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish! Eric   Corbett  12:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Huck
This Huckleberry Finn article... would need some attention. From a good article editor perhaps? Hafspajen (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Eric Corbett!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Eric Corbett, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages. Yes indeed, may Eric, yourself and anybody who does good for wikipedia watching this page have a good new year!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors at Bolton
I noticed the reference section at Bolton, over which we laboured for a long time, and it had turned to a sea of red. I did something to get rid of the red.... but probably not the right thing. Anyhow it has made me lose the will to live. If anybody wants to know what discourages editors it is this. I give up. PS I wish you and Mrs Corbett all the very best for 2015. J3Mrs (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rather irritating bug was introduced into the citation template a couple of months ago, the result of which was all those complaints about the citations having no title if only the |contribution parameter was used. But to compound the matter if you simply change the |contribution parameter to |title then it appears (incorrectly) in italics; I've started labouring through with the most satisfactory fix I'm aware of. Did we once have an etymology section in that article? If we didn't then why is the Mills book listed in the bibliography?


 * Anyway, a Happy New Year to you and yours and to everyone else who watches this talk page! Eric   Corbett  15:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We did, it was removed by the editor who decided it needed a review and who "fixed" the History section. I didn't mean for you to fix it, I just thought it looked better minus the red, but thank you, I now know where to look if I come across it again. (I doubt I'll remember why.) The trouble with not looking in much recently is that everything I've looked at has been "improved". J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I can't understand why that Toponymy section was removed, so I've put it back. Eric   Corbett  17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I shuffled it in after you removed it again. It looked lost in the history. Thank you for sorting out the refs. :) J3Mrs (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me, as I didn't notice it where it had been moved to. I see you're having the usual fun on your talk page. Have a drop of plonk and forget about it until tomorrow. I've just opened a bottle of port, and as Ruth doesn't like port I'm going to have to drink it all by myself – I don't believe it keeps once the cork has been removed from the bottle. At least it doesn't in our house! Eric   Corbett  19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, except the bottle is already open. Port, like sherry, puts me to sleep. J3Mrs (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)