User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/January

Tiruchirappalli
Hi, this article is currently at FAC. While some are convinced with the prose standards, one reviewer certainly feels that it needs to be more engaging. I know it's difficult to copy-edit the whole article and how tedious it can be for an uninvolved editor to do it. If you have time, can you spend some time with the "History" section alone. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  05:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric was very kind to help out with the copyediting of Mughal but asking again to copyedit another of our Indian articles at FAC so soon is definitely demanding of him, especially during this Christmas period! In your own time Eric and if and when you feel like it of course... Given the incoherent nonsense which is generally written about Indian cities this is a shining example of what Indian cities should strive to be like though but just needs that final polish.. Given the lack of detailed coverage in books, it really is a very comprehensive article. Sitush might be interested in giving it a read. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eric. Rare to see editors like you who respond immediately without any hesitation; so kind of you! The prose definitely looks much better in many places now. A special thanks for touching other areas (apart from History) too. Let's hope for the best. Happy hols :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  04:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Special thanks to Dr. Blo as well :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  04:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Eric, your work with the article so far is much appreciated. Are you done completely with it and I wanted to ask if the prose is of professional standard now? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been rather short of editing time over Christmas/New Year, so I'm afraid I haven't quite finished yet. Eric   Corbett  00:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, can you drop a note on the FAC page once you're done with it. Thanks again :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  09:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Congratulations on your first FA, the first of many? Eric   Corbett  10:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much appreciated Eric, thanks for that. Another worthwhile endeavour, especially given the diabolical state of many Indian cities. Child administrators take note, this is what editors should be doing...♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Eric: Let's hope so :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  13:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A fun one....
this might make an amusing mainpage article. I think the prose can be tightened but examples aren't jumping out at me. See here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Chartered psychologist
Hey, you, Happy New Year !!! Some POV/COI/poorly sourced editing (going on for years) at Simon Baron-Cohen has been occupying me of late, and perhaps you can help on something. What is a Chartered psychologist, why have we no article, could you write a stub, and is there a different "Chartered clinical psychologist"? I see a search reveals that numerous psychs have this "chartered" distinction-- not known on this side of the pond. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you as well. I was reminiscing about you promoting Chat Moss to FA only yesterday, six years ago to the day. Anyway, this chartered psychologist thing is a scheme cooked up by the British Psychological Society. I could write a stub if one were needed. Eric   Corbett  17:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a Chartered Clinical Psychologist. There are only a few permitted names that can be used in between "Chartered" and "Psychologist". As Eric says, it was a scheme dreamt up by the British Psychological Society in the hope that they would have regulatory powers to govern such people, as with the GMC and Medical Doctors, and so on. They were rather disappointed when they did not succeed and the powers were given to an authority with close links to medical people (which has often been a bone of contention within psychology). For myself, I declined to be chartered when it was set up, because I saw it as a take-over of the entire subject of psychology by applied people, such as clinical and educational psychologists and it was of no benefit to me as an academic. Now I'm retired, I am even questioning the relevance of paying high yearly fees for what has become a rather mickey-mouse organisation that can't even be bothered to get my Chinese address correct, despite having been told and written it a few times.  DDStretch    (talk)  05:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In a wider context, "chartered" is a big thing in UK professional qualifications, usually meaning your organization was established by (or later got) a Royal Charter (I'm not sure it is legally protected though) [oh, it is, sort of-below]. Chartered Accountants are the best known, but there is the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals etc. I'm chartered myself, but not as any of those. I see the US has Chartered Financial Analyst, but Her Majesty is wisely not giving any backing to those. Best wishes for the New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "In January 2007, the UK Trade Marks Registry refused to grant protection to the American Chartered Financial Analyst trademark, as the word 'chartered' in the UK is associated with royal charters. decision Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My fees
Given the recent shenanigans at the WMF and elsewhere, if anyone would like my help copyediting at FAC or elsewhere then please email me to discuss terms. I'll also do GA reviews for a one-off payment of $44.44, payable in advance to my PayPal account. Eric  Corbett  21:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would suggest quite a lengthy one. 86.168.1.100 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you specifying a fee in dollars? I can think of a few possible reasons, but they would reflect badly on my countrymen so I won't mention them... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm simply matching the fee structure of a certain WMF employee. Eric   Corbett  23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I mean, why dollars, and not pounds? I understand the general rationale behind a payment schedule. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the "certain WMF employee" charged as much (and in dollars)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. As usual, there are things going on around me of which I am not aware. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'd probably have missed it too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah Eric, but you write better. I'd charge at least a hundred quid an hour if I were you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Times are hard. The last time I wrote professionally (not on Wikipedia) I was getting £40 an hour, and that wasn't so long ago. So I think my offer of $44.44 is fair, as GA reviews usually take far longer than an hour. Eric   Corbett  00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair? You're really underselling yourself. I though 44 bucks was barely 30 quid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But my competition is offering to write a complete article from scratch for $300, so I have to adjust my expectations accordingly. Especially given that I'm neither an admin nor a WMF employee, and therefore lack credibility. Eric   Corbett  00:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe you can do Bridget Bishop for free, given your interest in witches. It's in pretty poor shape. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no shortage of articles in poor condition, but my interest is in English witchcraft trials. So I'll need to be paid to look at American trials. Eric   Corbett  03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's like that? We get paid in pounds, not in dollars? (at 1:40). 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're here, I've decided we should have another bash at FAC with The Coral Island, perhaps in the next week or so once I've addressed the couple of outstanding issues left over from the first review. Hopefully I won't get blocked during the review this time, but no guarantees.  Eric   Corbett  18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. OK. Here's what: I won't block you this time. Maybe that helps. Is there anything I can do re:outstanding issues? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it for a while, but there didn't seem to be too much to do IIRC. I'll have a look through to refresh my memory and get back to you. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read up on the previous question. You don't think that screenshot was doctored? Drmies (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm bloody sure it wasn't. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you link to these shenanigans (for the benefit of those of us forced to Christmas { yes, it's a verb ) in the Cayman Islands) and thus have avoided such excitement; I would just mention that I normally charge £1,000 an hour for the first 10 hours and then negotiate thereafter. Happy New Year.  Giano   18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My heart goes out to you, Giano. Are you checking on your assets there, or merely vacationing? I work for a university, so I do it all for free (or a pittance, if you like). Drmies (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A vacation! A vacation? What precisely is a vacation? Do you seriously imagine people like my beloved nephew vacate anything? I can tell you one thing though; you won't get very far in life doing things for nothing. Teaching the great unwashed to read and write is all very well, and I'm sure you'll be rewarded at the Pearly Gates or wherever it is Americans queue for entry, but really, you're not going to live tres nicely on fresh air and nothing. Now, do you per chance have the foundation's phone number, I'm sure it'll want to discuss terms with me.The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a thread on Jimbo's talk page here, but I imagine that'll soon disappear. For a succinct off-wiki summary of events you could do worse than to read this. Eric   Corbett  19:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I turn my head and another has rolled. Lady, your advice is appreciated. I just wish I knew who to charge. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarah is still an admin. For now. I wonder if this episode will lead to another line of interrogation at RfA along the lines of "Are you now being, or have you ever been, paid to edit Wikipedia?" Eric   Corbett  20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But MZMcBride is on the case, apparently. Yes--I suppose we had to come to that stage at some point. The correct answer: I wish. I'm hoping for a check from the estate of Danilo Kiš, or from Dalkey Archive, the press that published three Kiš translations recently. And I'll take that money in Deutschmarks or dollars, or even in Serbian dinars. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew some of the latest incident, but not the (partial) resolution, or about everything in that DailyDot page. That was informative. Lady  of  Shalott  21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing under the influence
So, are you drunk yet? You old cunt, I know you are! 12.226.215.125 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How could you possibly know that, given that you're in the US and I'm in the UK? Eric   Corbett  20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric, is this someone you know, joking with you, or a troll? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A troll. Eric   Corbett  22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably won't do much good, but blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There will be another one along shortly, seems to have become the pattern here. I've deleted these kind of things in the past, but I now think it's best to let them stand, to show what regular editors have to put up with. Eric   Corbett  22:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you're a "regular" editor? Hey, I'm drinking a delicious beer, one of the best I ever had. If you run into anything by Evil Twin Brewing, give it a try. I'm having a "Kiwi" (brewed in Spain, apparently) and it is amazing. But I'm not drunk yet, though I'm probably a very old cunt. I lose a week for every day spent here. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

International terminology
@ Eric, I have an interwiki problem:

I need two interwiki anchors, one for the Couple close roof, in German "Sparrendach", and one for the simplest kinds of roofs with purlins, just the symmetrical coouterpart of a shedroof.--Ulamm (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, up to now the couple close roof has no lemma nor a chapter of lemma in en.wiki, though it is a basic kind of a roof.

To attract a bit more of your interest for this problem, I'll add three external links: http://www.ib-rauch.de/holz/dachkons.html, [http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/planning/building_control/guidance_and_advice/idoc.ashx?docid=4c1e9e2c-fe1e-4eda-8514-2648f5842043&version=-1. this] and http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/collar-tie-roof.html --Ulamm (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're just bloody rude
You see Eric, you're just an uncouth, vile mannered yob, but other people are merely stopping sexism. You should remember that next time you feel the need to be a little blunt.  Giano  19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed that earlier. Strange how so many seem to think that what rules there are only apply to others, not to themselves. On another note, one of my pet hates is lazy tagging, and I came across [this patchwork quilt of tags] on R. M. Ballantyne earlier this evening. I'm going to work through them and remove the lot, so much more constructive than threatening to shove your drum sticks up another editor's nostrils, but if I can provide citations then so could the tagger. Eric   Corbett  20:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There! The above should solve everything! Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ...Brilliant! --  Cassianto Talk   12:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is! FWIW, I tag quite a lot, usually for citations. I feel that it is justified because I'm merely bilingual (English and Gibberish) & a lot of the stuff that I work with may have sources available in Tamil, Hindi, Oriya etc. A fair amount of my tagging is also of the drive-by variety, mainly because I come across problems elsewhere while trying to fix one article. A recent example would be my fixing and expansion at Bharwad, which led to a lot of tagging in linked subjects. There's no easy solution to this other than application of common sense. And we all know that common sense is not in fact common. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I love that tag Montanabw! The only tag I add is the bare urls or ref fill tags to the reference section because an editor or two usually end up filling them out within a few hours after tagging and seem to be able to do it quicker than I do! I can see why some might add tags to big bloated articles which would take ages to source, but I can't understand why people add tags to shortish articles particularly if in the developing world and add "ref improve" or "unsourced" when they could spend a minute or two sourcing them themselves.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant I am stealing it for my page and do quote manically.  Giano   13:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish I could take credit for its invention, but I swiped it from someone else, and I now forget who it was, but they deserve all the credit, I'm just sharing the gospel!  Montanabw (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The earliest example I could find of this tag is here .—John Cline (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing.... Sigh♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You tagged this as "poor laziness". You are unfair to your fellows :-) I attribute it to a specific mental disorder of wikipedians I don't have a name, but you guys with good command of English may want to invent. ('Patrolitis', 'Bot-ulism', or something).  Basically, if one runs some automated tool, for many of us it is close to impossible to stop, think, and do something material. I attribute it to the same mechanism reported during investigations of pleasure centers in rats: once you start clicking a button 6 times a minute, you are wired for good. I know this firsthand; I have reasons to be very conscious to my mental state, so when I noticed this with myself, I immediately ceased New Page patrolling, Twinkle, AutoWikiBrowser, and stuff. Another plausible reason is WP:Editcountitis: thinking and searching is detrimental to your edit count (and I know this firsthand too :-).  - Altenmann >t 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Chetham Society
Sorry, in the process of revising the Chetham Society page I think I've undone some of your changes? I realise that I am new to Wikipedia editing, so you may be able to help me with why it's not possible to add a simple 'Organization infobox' to the Chetham Society page? The Burgon Society and some other societies have an identical Infobox and both are Societies and both are registered charities - so I'm not clear on why it's not possible to have a Chetham Society Infobox. Also, I've always understood that 'single quotation marks' are for quotations whereas "speech marks" are for speech, hence I think I also corrected what I thought was a mistake.

As I say, I'm relatively new to editing, but I don't think a combative statement like 'if I say there's no Infobox there's no Infobox' is very helpful in explaining exactly why there is this inconsistency in policy concerning Infoboxes. Sorry if you have found my changes to this page problematic in some way, but I'd appreciate more of an explanation as to why these changes have been made. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1j2h3g4i5d (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You might wish to refer to a fairly recent Arbitration Committee case on the use of infoboxes here. The situation right now is that you want an infobox and I don't, so there is no consensus to add one.
 * The Manual of Style makes it quite clear that single quotes are only used within quotations. Eric   Corbett  15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I was unaware of any controversies/arbitration cases - apologies for not knowing about any of these debates, sorry for adding one to the page - like I say, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. Sorry also because I wasn't aware of the Manual of Style details. I hadn't considered the Infobox a huge issue - I don't mind whether there is one or not in this case (there is no consensus to add one: absolutely fine, I'll not be reinstating one) but what I would like to know is why not? Simply saying 'because you say so' is not a sufficient explanation so I'd be grateful if you could please explain and justify your decision. Will you be removing the Burgon Society Infobox, British Academy Infobox, and those from all other charities too or do you only object to this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1j2h3g4i5d (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling, I won't be either removing or adding infoboxes to any article, unless I've written it myself from scratch and have decided that either adding or removing an infobox is appropriate; to do anything else would be wikisuicide. In this specific case I simply don't see what value it adds to repeat the details given in a very short lead in a box to the right. Eric   Corbett  17:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Fair enough point about repetition, but my intention had been to establish the Infobox first - with only a few details listed - to which I was hoping to add further details later, such as a society logo, etc. No problem though - I can come back to this another time as/when ready to add further society details. K1j2h3g4i5d (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

GAN
Towards the end of last year I expanded Cholmondeley Castle and wonder if it's worthy of GAN. I should be grateful for your opinion and advice, and for copyediting if you think it's worth it.

Incidentally, looking at the discussion above, can you explain why Battybot (good name) has been going around deleting &nbsp from dates? Now there is a good chance that the number of the day and the name of the month will appear on different lines, which seems silly to me. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's only doing that to dates in citations isn't it? I don't really know why it's been approved to do that, presumably because a non-breaking space between the day number and the month is considered to be non-compliant with MOS:DATEFORMAT for some reason? I suppose it's also possible that the presence or absence of a non-breaking space might have some effect on date sorting. I'll take a look at Cholmondeley Castle later and get back to you. Eric   Corbett  14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've found the relevant discussion here: "Presentation information should not be included in CS1 parameter values because that information ends up in the COinS metadata because when external referencing tools read the date value they get non-date text." So basically including non-breaking spaces pollutes the metadata generated for the displayed page. Eric   Corbett  14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So does that mean that I can use it in dates within the text, but not in citations? WP is very confusing to simple souls like me.  Another source of confusion (for me) is the NHLE template, which does not include the publisher (English Heritage) but does, for some reason, include EH as the "author".  This caused me trouble at FLC and is still potentially troublesome.  If you are interested (and can be bothered) there is a discussion here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Non-breaking spaces are OK in dates in the text but frowned on in dates in citations. There are so many arcane mysteries here. Eric   Corbett  14:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter I'm pretty sure you've got several hundred articles which could pass GA with little effort. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr B, that's a very kind and supportive comment. I tend to hold back from "exposing" myself because of the grief it sometimes evokes. (I am a little more sensitive to these things than EC, whom I admire in this respect (and others)).  I edit WP for my own pleasure, and to leave something behind me when the time eventually comes that I can edit no more.  My "exposures" tend to be to support the Cheshire Wikiproject, and to spread the word about provincial architects who are IMO under-appreciated.  I must say that I applaud your own enormous output.  Do you ever sleep? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't edit that much these days, although I try to do my part with GAs and reviewing. I'm sure a lot of your Cheshire churches in particular need little. If you ever want anything reviewed let me know, I can't promise anything as thorough as Eric's though but I try to do a half decent review!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion. I'll have a good look through Cholmondeley Castle later this evening and you can sign up for the GA review? Eric   Corbett  20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I had intended completing my input on Copenhagen over the next few days before posting at GAN, but if you don't want to do the review for Peter I'll reserve it, no problems. There might not be much left to complain about once you've looked over it though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you've reserved it. Good luck with that one Peter.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Peter's in good hands. ;-) Eric   Corbett  23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see Worsley at a decent level. You and Parrot of Doom wrote it I believe? Most London districts/suburbs I click tend to be bloated and poorly sourced/written so it's good to click one for Manchester and see quality!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I had very much to do with that, pretty much all down to PoD I think. Eric   Corbett  14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Random London one looks like East Barnet... tagged for 6 years and nobody has still yet bothered to add a single source. Proof enough that tagging is a waste of time and they should have sourced it themselves! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

?
Looks like a combination of Malleus Fatuorum and Crisco ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean. What does? Eric   Corbett  14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric, Happy New Year. I believe he means the user name of the editor in that link. Leaky Caldron  14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user name of the editor in that link. Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly almost the same way I came up with my user name (Malleus Maleficarum, 1486)... didn't you used to be Malleus Maleficarum, Eric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, never. Eric   Corbett  15:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Interested?
If so, I think you'd be a good candidate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting position. Eric, how are you with WP:MEDRS? I don't really understand it, so I wouldn't apply, but if you know how it works you'd probably be the best candidate available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good job for somebody, but not for me. I've got far too much else going on in the next six months. Eric   Corbett  14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a damn shame. We need people with clue in these positions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

& &amp;nbsp;
Not disputing anything, but I wanted to know why you would prefer "" to "M.&amp;nbsp;Daphne Kutzer" (or " Kutzer"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Why are you doing that? Eric   Corbett  00:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a busybody. Could you explain? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Explain what? Eric   Corbett  01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your preference—the subject of this thread. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've yet to explain the problem you're trying to solve. Eric   Corbett  01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem of trying to get a straight answer out of Eric Corbett. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, yet more of these personal attacks. Why not try answering my question? What is the problem you're trying to solve? Eric   Corbett  03:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to've bothered you, Mr Corbett. I won't "personally attack" you  with my questions again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a possible issue would be forcing line breaks after a person's full name would cause some serious whitespace in some resolutions, whereas forcing it only after the first name would have less chance of that. MOS:NBSP doesn't have a firm answer either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco: a reasonable explanation that is, unfortunately, unrelated to the question. While FAC reviewing The Coral Island, I added a couple of &amp;nbsp;s (I didn't replace any templates).  Eric didn't like it, so he removed them—whatever, but the edit comment drew my interest: "I don't like that at all. If you think there's a problem (and I don't) then use the  template".  So posted the above question (at which point I'd noticed in the article there was a "", which is why I used it as an example).  There was no actual disagreement—merely a question.  Why Eric responded so evasively and ended up playing the "personal attack" card is a mystery I can live without solving—it's clear he won't answer the question. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your question is. I prefer nowrap because her name (or whatever in the template) is clearly readable for an editor. The other is ugly, especially if more then two terms should not be separated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to get—whether it was a technical thing, an aesthetic preference, an accessibility thing, or whatever. If it were more than simply an aesthetic preference then I'd like to have been enlightened.  From Eric's edit comment ("If you think there's a problem ... then use the  template") it didn't sound like merely a preference. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that aestethic: it's for clarity. For the same reason I try to get references to a separate section. Another editor can read the text better and can edit the references without having to search for them. For the same reason I like to offer the reader a you-know-what where key facts are easy to find without search ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that your reasons were aesthetic. I was only trying to say that if Eric's reason was merely a preference than I could safely ignore it, but if it wasn't then it would give me something to think about. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A note from another fan of The Coral Island. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More tomorrow
Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the woman who got the coral jewelry. Maybe someone postdated her marriage too. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange. I've just found a paper saying that it was the Duchess d'Aumale, which I just added to the article. Eric   Corbett  16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I noticed your edit, and wanted to give you a wikilink to her article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's obviously the same person now I've read her article. But now I'm wondering who's got the date of her marriage correct; was it 1844 or 1845? Eric   Corbett  17:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would fudge: 1840s. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to give November 1844? Is that the Times obituary?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is from the Times - I can link to it via my library card here or the cite is: The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 08, 1869; pg. 9; Issue 26615 (which I expect you have access to anyway?)   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just had a look through The Times archive and found an account of the wedding published on 6 December 1844, so there can be little doubt that 1845 is wrong. Eric   Corbett  19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how if we make an error like that we're castigated, but not the authors of the academic books and papers we relied on. Eric   Corbett  22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True that. Instead we're expected to either find something conclusive, or leave a little wiggle room when sources disagree. That's more than many "experts" have to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And sources disagree far more often than one might imagine. It took me ages to come with a definitive number for the Pendle witches for instance, so many sources wanted it to be the magical number 13. Eric   Corbett  23:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, humanity just can't overcome its prejudices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric, thanks for handling matters while I was being AWOL, as you said. My apologies. You've done great work. But do ping me next time: I can be scatterbrained on occasion. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Touch wood it's job done now. Eric   Corbett  03:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes. I saw a red link in our article: it's red no more. Feel free to add a plot summary to The Gorilla Hunters. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You knocked that up pretty sharpish! Before I could write a plot summary I'd have to read the book, but I don't think I'd enjoy it, so it's unlikely that I will. Eric   Corbett  14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my problem too. One reviewer on Goodreads said a similar thing--apparently they enjoyed it as a child but could never read it again. I found a few more articles in JSTOR that talk about the book and will continue to work on it some (certainly for DYK, but probably not for GA): it wasn't meaningless. Ha, I thought the same thing when we were working on The Coral Island as I'm thinking now: there is so much material in those articles for juicy sections in our articles on Victorian culture, but we're separating history and culture a bit much in important articles. Enjoy what's left of your weekend, Eric. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope you enjoyed today, old person. :) Drmies (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Went out for a nice meal with friends. Eric   Corbett  00:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm five chapters into the monkey book; so far it's exactly as you'd expect. I linked some free versions in the EL section but am reading another, from somewhere else. Please feel free to improve the article: it should be easy. I'm nominating it for DYK shortly. In the meantime I got all these references that also mention a bunch of his other books. I'm thinking of churning out a bunch of stubs. Or, thanks a lot for adding some Scottish dude to my workload. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never any shortage of things to do. I've started labouring through Enid Blyton now, there's a heck of a lot of work needed there. Getting back to Ballantyne(ish) I'm surprised we don't have an article on coral jewellery, given its popularity in Victorian times and that there's an article on the Coral Jewellery Museum in Naples. Eric   Corbett  17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My grandmother had some; for my mother's generation it was already seriously old-fashioned. "Bloedkoraal" it was called, for the deep, dark red. She died last month; I wonder what happened to it. It probably went to my aunt Alice, the oldest of many--they were good Catholics--and the only one who stuck to the faith, and to the dress code of the previous era. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew you couldn't leave those boys and me to our own devices, in the jungle. Thanks for your help. In the meantime, there's been an elephant hunt and a beautiful black beauty was saved from the "horrible superstitions" (the phrase occurs very frequently) of her tribe, who were about to execute her. Does this sound familiar? Three boys helping a civilized pair of natives (one of whom speaks English) to escape death so they can get married? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds very familiar, The Coral Island in a different setting. Eric   Corbett  16:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have been fair to leave you and the boys to your own devices, as I know how you struggle with formatting citations. ;-) I've started work hacking away at Enid Blyton, whose books I loved as a kid. In fact when I came top of my class at primary school, aged seven, I was allowed to choose a Noddy book as my prize, and I think I may even have it somewhere still. Her story is rather a complicated one though, and after I'm done with my hacking there's quite a bit more material that needs to be added, so I'm waiting on a couple more sources. Why did I go looking for work? I don't need to go looking for work, I could just go around tagging articles as needing more citations like the other lazy beggars do, instead of trying to fix them. Eric   Corbett  17:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on promotion of the Coral Island article. (I will take payment in euros, yen, bucks, pounds, I don't care.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Your input certainly helped to improve the article, so thanks for that. Eric   Corbett  20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Chetham Society
Sorry, in the process of revising the Chetham Society page I think I've undone some of your changes? I realise that I am new to Wikipedia editing, so you may be able to help me with why it's not possible to add a simple 'Organization infobox' to the Chetham Society page? The Burgon Society and some other societies have an identical Infobox and both are Societies and both are registered charities - so I'm not clear on why it's not possible to have a Chetham Society Infobox. Also, I've always understood that 'single quotation marks' are for quotations whereas "speech marks" are for speech, hence I think I also corrected what I thought was a mistake.

As I say, I'm relatively new to editing, but I don't think a combative statement like 'if I say there's no Infobox there's no Infobox' is very helpful in explaining exactly why there is this inconsistency in policy concerning Infoboxes. Sorry if you have found my changes to this page problematic in some way, but I'd appreciate more of an explanation as to why these changes have been made. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1j2h3g4i5d (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You might wish to refer to a fairly recent Arbitration Committee case on the use of infoboxes here. The situation right now is that you want an infobox and I don't, so there is no consensus to add one.
 * The Manual of Style makes it quite clear that single quotes are only used within quotations. Eric   Corbett  15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I was unaware of any controversies/arbitration cases - apologies for not knowing about any of these debates, sorry for adding one to the page - like I say, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia. Sorry also because I wasn't aware of the Manual of Style details. I hadn't considered the Infobox a huge issue - I don't mind whether there is one or not in this case (there is no consensus to add one: absolutely fine, I'll not be reinstating one) but what I would like to know is why not? Simply saying 'because you say so' is not a sufficient explanation so I'd be grateful if you could please explain and justify your decision. Will you be removing the Burgon Society Infobox, British Academy Infobox, and those from all other charities too or do you only object to this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1j2h3g4i5d (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling, I won't be either removing or adding infoboxes to any article, unless I've written it myself from scratch and have decided that either adding or removing an infobox is appropriate; to do anything else would be wikisuicide. In this specific case I simply don't see what value it adds to repeat the details given in a very short lead in a box to the right. Eric   Corbett  17:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Fair enough point about repetition, but my intention had been to establish the Infobox first - with only a few details listed - to which I was hoping to add further details later, such as a society logo, etc. No problem though - I can come back to this another time as/when ready to add further society details. K1j2h3g4i5d (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

?
Looks like a combination of Malleus Fatuorum and Crisco ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean. What does? Eric   Corbett  14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric, Happy New Year. I believe he means the user name of the editor in that link. Leaky Caldron  14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user name of the editor in that link. Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly almost the same way I came up with my user name (Malleus Maleficarum, 1486)... didn't you used to be Malleus Maleficarum, Eric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, never. Eric   Corbett  15:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Interested?
If so, I think you'd be a good candidate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting position. Eric, how are you with WP:MEDRS? I don't really understand it, so I wouldn't apply, but if you know how it works you'd probably be the best candidate available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good job for somebody, but not for me. I've got far too much else going on in the next six months. Eric   Corbett  14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a damn shame. We need people with clue in these positions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

& &amp;nbsp;
Not disputing anything, but I wanted to know why you would prefer "" to "M.&amp;nbsp;Daphne Kutzer" (or " Kutzer"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Why are you doing that? Eric   Corbett  00:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a busybody. Could you explain? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Explain what? Eric   Corbett  01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your preference—the subject of this thread. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've yet to explain the problem you're trying to solve. Eric   Corbett  01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem of trying to get a straight answer out of Eric Corbett. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, yet more of these personal attacks. Why not try answering my question? What is the problem you're trying to solve? Eric   Corbett  03:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to've bothered you, Mr Corbett. I won't "personally attack" you  with my questions again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a possible issue would be forcing line breaks after a person's full name would cause some serious whitespace in some resolutions, whereas forcing it only after the first name would have less chance of that. MOS:NBSP doesn't have a firm answer either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco: a reasonable explanation that is, unfortunately, unrelated to the question. While FAC reviewing The Coral Island, I added a couple of &amp;nbsp;s (I didn't replace any templates).  Eric didn't like it, so he removed them—whatever, but the edit comment drew my interest: "I don't like that at all. If you think there's a problem (and I don't) then use the  template".  So posted the above question (at which point I'd noticed in the article there was a "", which is why I used it as an example).  There was no actual disagreement—merely a question.  Why Eric responded so evasively and ended up playing the "personal attack" card is a mystery I can live without solving—it's clear he won't answer the question. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your question is. I prefer nowrap because her name (or whatever in the template) is clearly readable for an editor. The other is ugly, especially if more then two terms should not be separated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to get—whether it was a technical thing, an aesthetic preference, an accessibility thing, or whatever. If it were more than simply an aesthetic preference then I'd like to have been enlightened.  From Eric's edit comment ("If you think there's a problem ... then use the  template") it didn't sound like merely a preference. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that aestethic: it's for clarity. For the same reason I try to get references to a separate section. Another editor can read the text better and can edit the references without having to search for them. For the same reason I like to offer the reader a you-know-what where key facts are easy to find without search ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that your reasons were aesthetic. I was only trying to say that if Eric's reason was merely a preference than I could safely ignore it, but if it wasn't then it would give me something to think about. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A note from another fan of The Coral Island. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cholmondeley Castle
Eric. Many thanks for the improvements and the review. I wish all reviewers were as helpful as you. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I've been told that I am "at best a D-grade GA reviewer, with little interest in article quality". It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Eric   Corbett  21:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And you say you never hold a grudge against anybody or are bothered about things which happened in the past...♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comment amuses me still. And if I'd held a grudge against you, would I have helped with Tiruchirappalli when you asked me to, for instance? Eric   Corbett  13:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was judging based on the extent of the coverage of Jutland horse which is rather shorter than you'd expect for a GA on a major horse breed, but the quality and the review is fine of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded that you tried to delist that the day after I'd passed it. Eric   Corbett  13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was rather mean, but I've supported you on countless occasions since when I needn't have, and I believe you've also done the same in terms of helping with articles... If you still have a problem with it/me from that one incident then I'm sorry you feel that way. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem at all, and I think we've subsequently developed a good working relationship, which I hope will continue. Eric   Corbett  14:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We have indeed. We've all done things on wikipedia in the past that we'd probably do differently today which we'd rather forget about rather than be reminded of... It was wrong of me to conclude that of you based on my concern with the coverage of one article and obviously you know that it couldn't be further from the truth, but I just didn't like seeing you bring that up again, as amusing as it may now be. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum
Please update your user page to explain your latest name change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read my user page? I don't feel the need to explain anything beyond what I already have. Eric   Corbett  15:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That name change was quite some time ago (in fact, almost 14,000 edits ago) and is fully explained in "About Me". If you wish to make such requests, please do the groundwork first and phrase your remark nicely. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tyntesfield
Hi Eric,

It looks like you've been involved in edits to the Tyntesfield article for some time - and have opinions about what needs to be done, anything you'd like to share would be helpful.

I've completed the initial cursory review and before I get into a much thorough review of the content and references, I thought I'd check in to find out what would be a good time for you. I plan on putting the article into for that period of time.

Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whenever you like, as I'm just about to hit the sack. Eric   Corbett  03:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance awareness day
You were supportive of the idea that Jehochman proposed: "A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media. We're an encyclopedia. On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy. That will send a strong message, and help educate people. It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish."

Since this proposal received so much support, I and several others have done our best to begin the process of implementation. That said, the proposal is very controversial with Main Page insiders who have, understandably, objections that boil down to WP:NOTADVOCATE.

It's valuable to have feedback from people who oppose any deviation from the status quo, but we really need feedback from people who understood Jehochman idea, supported it, and could tell us whether we're succeeding in "implementing the vision" that Jehochman laid out and how to improve the proposal.

If you have the time, would you lend your view over at Surveillance awareness day. If you want to see a list of custom content that could be available, we have a Arbitrary mockup #2, that shows lots of proposed content on one page.

Your feedback is most appreciated. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a silly idea, and I'm not interested in tilting at windmills. Eric   Corbett  23:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Brunswick Theological Seminary GA Review
Eric--just wanted to thank you again for helping out at the NBTS article with your copyedit and comments on the GA review. Between 's review, and your additional comments, I'm confident to say the article is in very good shape. I appreciate your help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see it's a GA now, so well done. Eric   Corbett  16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Thank you again for your suggestions and help. In the next few months, I'm going to get NBTS read for FAC (I have a few articles in queue for FAC), so I started a peer review to give a few ideas on what could bring the article up to FA quality. I'd venture to say it's a lot closer now, because of your commments and the work of on the GA review, but if you have some additional thoughts, the peer review is located here: Peer review/New Brunswick Theological Seminary/archive1. I appreciate all your help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck, but don't rush to FAC, it's quite a big step up. Eric   Corbett  20:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would need a lot of work I think. There's no rush to do so...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton
Could you please take a look at Enid Blyton? People have made it full of cites to the Daily Mail and the section on dated attitudes and altered reprints seems to have been hijacked by Daily Mail readers. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid that is so right wing as to be almost comic, I wouldn't call it a reliable source on anything. Susan Grace Bellerby (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add: the Daily Mail is a tabloid-style newspaper (distinguished from a tabloid-format newspaper like The Times [of London ]) so is doubly unreliable. Susan Grace Bellerby (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I live in the UK, so I'm quite familiar with the Daily Mail. Blyton's article certainly needs an awful lot of work, but I don't see much reliance on the Daily Mail. In fact the sourcing overall looks pretty sparse, and of generally low quality. Eric   Corbett  13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the section about dated attitudes that seems to have been written by people that read that paper. There's too many attempts in that section to defend Blyton and not enough balance about the revisions. There's a cite to the Mail in that section ("Row faster, George! The PC meddlers are chasing us!") which cannot stay as the Mail does not meet reliable sources. I have my mother's 1970s Blyton reprints and there are already substantial revisions even in them to reflect "progressive" attitudes. It's not a new millenium thing to change the texts. Susan Grace Bellerby (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If I was thinking of improving that article, I'd start by completely ignoring it and writing my own, from scratch. That's a view I formed only 5 seconds after looking at the current article. Parrot of Doom 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Parrot and Eric, it's poor quality and would be best nuked and started from scratch. An author like Enid Blyton should have enough decent book sources to avoid using sources like the DM. I see quite a few newspaper sources though but I also don't see this overreliance on the DM.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I might try rewriting at least a part of it and see how it goes. Eric   Corbett  13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

28,000 odd hits a month, it would certainly be worthwhile.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not familiar with sfnp, what's the difference? I've finished with Blyton for now. Still needs a lot of work but it's at least improved for the time being.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly a lot better than it was only a few days ago. sfnp puts the publication year in brackets. Eric   Corbett  14:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Phew, I think that's enough for today, all yours now until tomorrow! Her output was staggering, in the early 50s she must have penned a book every week or two. And if you also consider how many publications she also contributed to. OK the Noddy books aren't much. but the Famous Five books and many of her others were decent sized books which you'd expect would take months to write. She must have had an extremely rare talent in which the books practically wrote themselves. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

More tomorrow
Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the woman who got the coral jewelry. Maybe someone postdated her marriage too. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange. I've just found a paper saying that it was the Duchess d'Aumale, which I just added to the article. Eric   Corbett  16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I noticed your edit, and wanted to give you a wikilink to her article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's obviously the same person now I've read her article. But now I'm wondering who's got the date of her marriage correct; was it 1844 or 1845? Eric   Corbett  17:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would fudge: 1840s. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to give November 1844? Is that the Times obituary?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is from the Times - I can link to it via my library card here or the cite is: The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 08, 1869; pg. 9; Issue 26615 (which I expect you have access to anyway?)   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  17:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just had a look through The Times archive and found an account of the wedding published on 6 December 1844, so there can be little doubt that 1845 is wrong. Eric   Corbett  19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how if we make an error like that we're castigated, but not the authors of the academic books and papers we relied on. Eric   Corbett  22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True that. Instead we're expected to either find something conclusive, or leave a little wiggle room when sources disagree. That's more than many "experts" have to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And sources disagree far more often than one might imagine. It took me ages to come with a definitive number for the Pendle witches for instance, so many sources wanted it to be the magical number 13. Eric   Corbett  23:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, humanity just can't overcome its prejudices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric, thanks for handling matters while I was being AWOL, as you said. My apologies. You've done great work. But do ping me next time: I can be scatterbrained on occasion. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Touch wood it's job done now. Eric   Corbett  03:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes. I saw a red link in our article: it's red no more. Feel free to add a plot summary to The Gorilla Hunters. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You knocked that up pretty sharpish! Before I could write a plot summary I'd have to read the book, but I don't think I'd enjoy it, so it's unlikely that I will. Eric   Corbett  14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my problem too. One reviewer on Goodreads said a similar thing--apparently they enjoyed it as a child but could never read it again. I found a few more articles in JSTOR that talk about the book and will continue to work on it some (certainly for DYK, but probably not for GA): it wasn't meaningless. Ha, I thought the same thing when we were working on The Coral Island as I'm thinking now: there is so much material in those articles for juicy sections in our articles on Victorian culture, but we're separating history and culture a bit much in important articles. Enjoy what's left of your weekend, Eric. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope you enjoyed today, old person. :) Drmies (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Went out for a nice meal with friends. Eric   Corbett  00:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm five chapters into the monkey book; so far it's exactly as you'd expect. I linked some free versions in the EL section but am reading another, from somewhere else. Please feel free to improve the article: it should be easy. I'm nominating it for DYK shortly. In the meantime I got all these references that also mention a bunch of his other books. I'm thinking of churning out a bunch of stubs. Or, thanks a lot for adding some Scottish dude to my workload. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never any shortage of things to do. I've started labouring through Enid Blyton now, there's a heck of a lot of work needed there. Getting back to Ballantyne(ish) I'm surprised we don't have an article on coral jewellery, given its popularity in Victorian times and that there's an article on the Coral Jewellery Museum in Naples. Eric   Corbett  17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My grandmother had some; for my mother's generation it was already seriously old-fashioned. "Bloedkoraal" it was called, for the deep, dark red. She died last month; I wonder what happened to it. It probably went to my aunt Alice, the oldest of many--they were good Catholics--and the only one who stuck to the faith, and to the dress code of the previous era. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew you couldn't leave those boys and me to our own devices, in the jungle. Thanks for your help. In the meantime, there's been an elephant hunt and a beautiful black beauty was saved from the "horrible superstitions" (the phrase occurs very frequently) of her tribe, who were about to execute her. Does this sound familiar? Three boys helping a civilized pair of natives (one of whom speaks English) to escape death so they can get married? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds very familiar, The Coral Island in a different setting. Eric   Corbett  16:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have been fair to leave you and the boys to your own devices, as I know how you struggle with formatting citations. ;-) I've started work hacking away at Enid Blyton, whose books I loved as a kid. In fact when I came top of my class at primary school, aged seven, I was allowed to choose a Noddy book as my prize, and I think I may even have it somewhere still. Her story is rather a complicated one though, and after I'm done with my hacking there's quite a bit more material that needs to be added, so I'm waiting on a couple more sources. Why did I go looking for work? I don't need to go looking for work, I could just go around tagging articles as needing more citations like the other lazy beggars do, instead of trying to fix them. Eric   Corbett  17:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on promotion of the Coral Island article. (I will take payment in euros, yen, bucks, pounds, I don't care.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Your input certainly helped to improve the article, so thanks for that. Eric   Corbett  20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations once more
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of The Coral Island to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. I have a rough idea about the chances of you nominating something at TFAR (flying pigs not voting for Christmas over your dead body, or something like that) but I hope there's no harm in reminding you, and your TPSers, that TFA needs something every day... BencherliteTalk 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats Eric! Well done! Drmies (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done Eric and Drmies, a great novel and article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping Eric and/or TPSers
A very good FAC by User:Mike Cline needs some solid reviewers: Rainbow trout. I peer-reviewed the article, so I'm too involved to be a reviewer. Montanabw (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC
Eric, if you have time and will, could you take a look at my latest FAC? It's Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Since it's a small article, I doubt it will take much of your time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral
Hi, Following your oppose a couple of weeks ago on Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1 a lot more work has been done on prose - both your examples and many others. I wondered if you had the time or inclination to take another look and see if you feel it has improved?&mdash; Rod talk 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As Rod says, much has been done. I've made as many edits (both good and evil) as my meager skills will allow.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't think the article has improved very much, and in some respects has even gone backwards. Take this for instance: "The tower was later braced internally with arches by William Joy. Did William Joy simply build the arches for someone else to install, or did he install the arches? And for reasons I'm sure you're aware of I decline to take any further part in the review. Eric   Corbett  16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES
I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know why this has all that detail that it shouldn't. I'm not anywhere near being an FA editor. A year ago, I cleaned up this article from a very bad state, took it through Peer Review, GA Review and A-class review. Along the way, many, many people in those reviews offered a lot of opinions/suggestions as to what was needed. It was confusing to me, but it passed all those reviews. And through all that, I was dealing with one of the most prolific disruptive editors I've ever come across. Whatever it is at this point, I don't have the eye to correct the flaws. That's why we're asking you. For me personally, I give you a free hand to do whatever you think is necessary. And I sure hope you do. The subject matter should be FA, but I'm not the editor who can hone it to that level. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two things: (1) Please let me know if there is anything, now or in the future, I can do for you in return for your help on this. (2) Would you be the one to nominate this for FAC? I've never been through the process. — Maile (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to nominate an article at FAC, and Sandy will be able to guide you through the process if you need help. Eric   Corbett  02:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Just please let me know when you've done all the editing you think you can do to the article. — Maile  (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably going to be a few days yet. Eric   Corbett  12:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way Maile, but in my opinion there's nowhere near enough coverage of his film career to constitute a featured article and I'd oppose it if you nominated, even if the coverage of his military career looks very good.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to make the same point. Masses on his military career, probably too much, but hardly anything on his film career. Eric   Corbett  12:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because the film career is a separate article, which happened a year ago. — Maile (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'd do Maile is create a Military career of Audie Murphy and move it there. Then work on cutting down coverage in the main article and then build a fairly comprehensive film career section to balance it all out.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofeld, maybe one or both of you could take this where it should be. My talent is smaller. Audie Murphy filmography, at the moment, is GA and about to appear on DYK tomorrow morning. At least one time, Audie Murphy will make it to the front page of Wikipedia. Audie Murphy honors and awards is currently at FLC. And the last year has followed a disruptive editor pattern on the main article, so you know it's lurking out there. As soon as the article reaches another level, that editor comes in and tries to take it back to the level it was pre-improvement in 2012.  The why of that is on the talk page of the first article that user ever edited.   — Maile  (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy filmography looks too long to be a "filmography". I think it should be moved to Film career of Audie Murphy. Most people looking for a filmography simply want a list of films so it's a bit misleading. By the looks of it your "filmography" article has the sort of content which needs to be added, although like the military career a bit too detailed for the main article. I'm rather busy right now but if you hold off on the FAC I'll try to see what I can do in a week or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny you should bring this up. GA and FLC talk pages discussed whether it was a list or an article, and Film career of Audie Murphy was discussed as a possible title. As long as the DYK happens tomorrow, I'm in no hurry about the rest.  I'm going to email you right now so you will also have that contact info on me if you need it in the future. — Maile  (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's funny or a coincidence Maile that others brought it up, it definitely has too much prose to be a list and should be moved to film career if there are no objections.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine there would be any objections. Does there need to be a talk page notice about the proposed move, or just move it? I'd rather wait until after the DYK runs tomorrow. — Maile  (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for the DYK and when it's over just move it. Eric   Corbett  15:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's becoming very clear that this article needs a good deal more than just a bit of copyediting. Eric   Corbett  15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably. I've been trying to find Admin-level guidance on this article for the last year.  — Maile  (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By and large, with rather few exceptions, admins don't know any more about article development than you do. Quite possibly even less in fact. Their job isn't to develop content but to discipline us unwashed masses. Eric   Corbett  15:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, well. Live and learn. — Maile  (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I moved it before realizing it was in the DYK queue. It's probably not too late to quickly change the links though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worry. Minor thing. I already changed the link on DYK. — Maile  (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should have come to see the Dr and I sooner. Eric   Corbett  16:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That much is obvious right now. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's going to take a while to get Audie's article in shape, so I'm afraid you need to be patient. Eric   Corbett  20:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pass on Murphy I think, good luck with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agapemonites
Hi, I know in the past you have taken an interest in some of "quirkier" articles on wp and I wondered if I could ask you (or your talk page stalkers) to take a look at Agapemonites. As you know I write a fair amount about buildings (particularly those in Somerset) but this story also involves sex, religion and law - which I'm less comfortable writing about.&mdash; Rod talk 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting, I'll certainly take a look at that. Eric   Corbett  15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for input
You previously reviewed HubSpot at Talk:HubSpot/GA1.

2nd ongoing review at Talk:HubSpot/GA2.

I'd like to get your take at Talk:HubSpot/GA2 on your thoughts on the article now versus your recollection of it when you previously reviewed it?

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts about this? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a substantial improvement over the version I declined to list, but I don't think it's quite there. Consider this for instance: "Under 'Weaknesses' the reviewer said 'it has more breadth than depth.' It said the lack of customization and design tools can be limiting, in which the reviewer is suddenly being referred to as "it". Or this: "HubSpot customers install a piece of JavaScript on their website". So all of Hubspot's customers share a single web site? Or "The grading tools are written mostly in PHP, but as of 2011, it was being increasingly transitioned to Python. What exactly is the "it" referring to there? And why would anyone except an employee be interested to read about the bonuses on offer for referring a successful applicant? Overall I think it needs some tidying up, and I still wouldn't list it in its present state. Eric   Corbett  15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your input, I'll take it under strong consideration. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Manchester
Hi Eric, I don't know if somebody's already mentioned it, but there's a meetup in Manchester on Sunday (the 26th), at the Waterhouse (Wetherspoon's). It would be good to see you—your last appearance is still something of a "did you hear about...?" among the Manchester crowd. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I might well pop along to that. Eric   Corbett  21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope old will be well enough to attend. Unfortunately I'm in church this Sunday, or I would join you all. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you stream it live for those of us on the other side of the pond? :-D   Montanabw (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, I'm getting you a pint, so be there if you can. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Very generous, but I'm afraid I won't be able to make it after all. Maybe the next one ... Eric   Corbett  21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing serious, I hope. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no, just something I'd forgotten about. Eric   Corbett  21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shame you couldn't make it. The next one is likely to be mid-March (the exact date will be sorted out closer to the time). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out for that. Hopefully Sitush will be back to something like normal then as well. Eric   Corbett  21:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Commas...
Eric, if you've got a moment, I'd value your opinion on this edit. We've been debating elsewhere whether the commas are correct - and if memory serves, you're pretty good on British English and commas. What I was checking was whether these commas are now all correctly present? My instinct was originally that they were unnecessary/superfluous, but I may well be wrong! Many thanks in advance, Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've replied on your talk page. Eric   Corbett  15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated - thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Only a Brit can do this justice
Hey Eric and all TPSers of Eric. Just put up Thunder (mascot) for GAN. Given that this article touches upon the Super Bowl, I think a reviewer who doesn't give a flying rip about American football should do the review. Any of you Brits would probably do nicely. Just saying. Yes, of course it's about a horse. It's one of "my" articles. LOL! Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * American football is a complete mystery to me, I've never been to a horse race, and betting is even more mysterious to me than American football. So I probably wouldn't be your ideal candidate. Eric   Corbett  20:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Luckily, this one has nothing to do with betting or horse racing. It's a sports mascot.  But a feel-good story about a fuzzy animal, so maybe you are too curmudgeonly to be tempted? (LOL!)  Montanabw (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Am I curmudgeonly? Yes, sometimes. But did I come here to write about American war heroes or sports mascots? No. Eric   Corbett  22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, it's just a GAN review. Figured that if you DGAF, that's as good as neutral. ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Among or amongst
Seeing as I defer to you on points of grammar, whuch is correct here I wrote 'amongst' but I am often reverted around the place, so perhaps I need some clarity. Personally, I think amongst sounds right, but what do I know?  Giano  10:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Either is correct, but unless followed by a word beginning with a vowel, such as in "amongst us", among is more usual these days. The logic I believe that it's slightly easier to say "amongst us" than it is to say "among us". So in your example I'd have a slight preference for "among". But whichever, there's absolutely no difference in meaning, so it doesn't really matter much. Eric   Corbett  12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

weaned me off using amongst and whilst a while back, he'd be a good person to explain..♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think I shall always say amongst before a vowel, but I think I always say it in speech too, but now I've started to think about it, I can't be sure if I do or I don't. Funny that.  Giano   12:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)→

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.217.115 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So I was edit warring but you weren't? How does that work? Eric   Corbett  12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the claim you attribute to me; it seems you've not read my comments, in this case at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Eric_Corbett_reported_by_User:86.141.217.115_.28Result:_Stale.29

However, I followed normal protocol to attempt to resolve the problem you had with my edits, despite my ignorance of Wikipedia procedures. You refused to follow normal protocol and just carried on reverting without engaging in the discussion I had started.

DR

Once more, I urge you to engage in discussion, which is on-going at:

Talk:Manchester_Mark_1

86.141.217.115 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't read your comments anywhere, as I have absolutely no interest in anything you might have to say. Eric   Corbett  14:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making your position clear. I shall attempt to follow established procedures in dealing with this situation.


 * 86.141.217.115 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pity you didn't attempt to do that in the first place. Eric   Corbett  15:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Following established procedure in dealing with your repeat reversions is exactly what I did do in the first place. Unfortunately, you decided not to engage in the discussion I initiated on the relevant talk page.


 * 86.141.217.115 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You have a singularly one-sided view of the situation, and I really don't think there's anything to be gained by you continuing to post here, so please don't. Eric   Corbett  15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for making your position clear. I wish to resolve our dispute in a civilized and courteous fashion, and I'd like to do so without personal remarks.


 * Once again, I urge you to engage on Talk:Manchester_Mark_1


 * 86.141.217.115 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added my support for Eric's version (more or less), but then I thought "hang on if I could do that in five minutes, it would take Eric, what, one or two tops, since he did the FA for it." Would at least stop the ANI peanut gallery turning up. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've lost interest in the article, and the silly comparison of the Mk I's use of its magnetic drum with virtual memory. I'll probably look for another early computer article to waste my time on. Eric   Corbett  15:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * PDP-11 might be a worthy candidate - it claims to be C class but has two tags in the opening paragraph, and there a bunch of general "history of computing" books online that fact check it.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty yucky article that really needs a complete rewrite. Think I'll leave that one alone. Eric   Corbett  16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Technical gobbledygook, yeah. Still, it's easier to understand than a lot of the mathematics articles we have.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see a decent mathematics article. Eric   Corbett  23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty good at maths at school even though I disliked it but most of the articles on here I really struggle to understand anything written in them. They're impressive technically, but if they're meant to be teaching ordinary people they're really way off being informative and encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the things on my bucket list is to write a comprehensible maths article. I suppose it'll be a battleground for some, but perhaps a wake-up call for others. Eric   Corbett  00:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out Discrete Morse theory for instance... What makes it even more amusing is that it tries to claim it makes sense and is simple by saying "The division here makes sense". Sure it does.... To 0.0001% of the world population maybe.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as other computing articles go that might appeal to some of you lot, there is the concept of a data structure which contains a string with its length prepended and a null character appended, which I have seen quaintly referred to (possibly within internal Microsoft development) as a FuckedString, but I don't think there are enough proper sources to make an article out of it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   07:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Never heard the term fucked string before. Strings with a length prefix were called Pascal strings in my day, and commonly used in IBM datastores since at least OS/360. In fact we have an article on them here. No point I can see in having a length prefix and a terminating string though. Eric   Corbett  10:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's two reasons. Firstly it was the only way you could put a Pascal string in the original K&R C at compile time (ie: ) - the compiler wastes a byte putting the null character in without you asking for it, so it's "fucked". Secondly it allows backwards compatibility - the BSTR type used in Visual Basic up to version 6 (and still extant as VBA in Excel) is a fucked string that gives you a pointer to the character buffer (with the length held before it in memory) so you can call Windows API calls that expect C style strings easily.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not really good reasons for doing it though, as one of the potential problems that length prefixes are intended to address is that the string can't contain whatever delimiting character is chosen. Eric   Corbett  11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have one of those on an old guitar of mine, the G string just won't stay in tune!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I tempt you?
Hi Eric, I decided to move from interesting-but-uncontroversial events into something much more controversial, and I've just re-written Operation Flavius (you might remember Death on the Rock, which I'm also working on). I've opened an A-class review at MilHist to get some feedback and then I'm planning to take it to FAC I wondered if you fancied having a look. Any input on the talk page, the ACR or the eventual FAC would be really appreciated (input from TPSs also very welcome)—because it's a potential hornets' nest, I'd really like as many neutral pairs of eyes to read it as possible. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HJ, does that shell garage have a QRpedia code on the petrol pump LOL?♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no great regard for MilHist or its A-class reviews. Eric   Corbett  22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it's something the Gibraltar government would consider putting up the codes for given the nature of the content, but it's perfectly legitimate. It looks a commendable expansion to me HJ. Obtaining photographs for such articles would really help it though, but finding free ones is surely near impossible.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd estimate I've spent more than 75 per cent of my time here on WP contributing to articles I have no interest in whatsoever. I've got no idea whether Operation Flavius is in that category or not, as I haven't looked at it, but I need to be allowed the space and time to do what I want to do, not what others would like me to do. Eric   Corbett  22:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very reluctant to get involved in any article involving the IRA, so kudos to you for being braver than me. But let me ask you one question about "enquiries from keys found on Farrell led authorities to a second car". In what sense can you interrogate a key? Eric   Corbett  03:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Enquiries leading from keys? (a bit clunky) I suppose these days the chip would be read and checked against a database (driver drops their key and the chip pops out- a passing dog licks it up- the driver is now forced to drive around with a strange dog in the passenger seat). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not just "keys found on Farrell ..."? Eric   Corbett  10:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes- further down the article it refers to enquiries made after the keys were found- there's no detail as to how the enquiries were carried out. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks gents, I've changed it slightly. Eric, no worries—I thought it might be something you might be interested in is all. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll make one comment - the article doesn't say anything about whether Death on the Rock had any influence on the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the demise of Thames Television as a licensee. Opinions can range from "none at all" to a conspiracy theorist's field day, but at least there should be some mention of it. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ritchie, I've seen this mentioned in passing, but nothing to suggest that Death on the Rock contributed to it (Thames' then-Director of Programmes said somewhere that Thames cocked up the bidding process for the franchise, and Roger Bolton, editor of This Week wrote in his memoirs that he didn't think Death on the Rock contributed to it directly). I'm working on that article at the moment, so I'll look into it some more. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)