User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/July

Coal mining terminology
When we wrote Bradford Colliery, I think you suggested a glossary of coal mining terms would be useful, and since then I've been very gradually compiling one. I have looked at a few lists and just about every one is formatted differently and I have no idea what NOTOC means. Any guidance would be welcome but I did think of a title, Glossary of coal mining terminology. Is it possible to link every term or would I have to do it by alphabetical section? Sorry to be so dim but I've only been here for five years :( J3Mrs (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at how WikiProject Equine set up Glossary of equestrian terms. We're rather pleased with it. Montanabw (talk)  20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTOC means no table of content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Glossary of equestrian terms that Montanabw mentioned looks like a good model to follow. Eric   Corbett  22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at that one, thanks all. J3Mrs (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very useful. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling Eric's stalkers
Hey all you who follow Eric's talk page: I could use a new set of eyes to do a general copyedit at 'Chrome's article - or comment about their observatons at the talk page - before I take it to FAC. I had a good peer review, but only one person, and I feel like everyone else who has helped me watch this article (including me) is bleary-eyed. It came out of triple crown season with over 500,000 hits (whoa!) and as I was updating it almost daily, I think there is now stuff in there that isn't needed any more now that we know how the saga ended (this round, at least until August or September) but I honestly can't decide what. I'd normally request the Corbett review, but as he is clearly a busy fellow, I'm also good with any trusty, reliable sidekicks. Blofeld? You interested? Anyone else? Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks excellent and impeccably sourced at first glance, but I'll give it a full read this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. It is excellent and impeccably sourced (grin), but a couple of copy editors have caught typos, and more to the point, I don't know if it is boring or redundant.   Montanabw (talk)  08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will try to read it later! Too late though by the looks of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't put it up for FAC yet, and informal PR can continue at article talk (and is). If you'd prefer to be an FAC reviewer, that would be OK too.  Whatever works for you.   Montanabw (talk)  21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome
Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Challenge
I guess I took your recent comments on my talk page as a sort of challenge. Anyway, I've expanded Capesthorne Hall and wonder if it is worth submitting it for GAC. If so, would you be so kind as to offer comments, and maybe copyedit? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick look, I would try and see if you can get more of a variety of sources in the article. There's quite a bit of citation bundling in the middle and large portions of text are cited to the National Heritage List for England. I'd mix up your sources a bit as it helps cancel out an errors or POV that can creep into an individual one. The author of "Anon" for the "Guide to Capesthorne Hall" looks a bit strange - we'd probably want to know if that was a good independent source. A couple of the image captions are a bit short and vague, and for an article of 16K you probably want a lead of around two paragraphs, so you'll need to trim down what you've currently got. I think B class is a fair assessment of its current state. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For information, the "Anon" author applies to what was the "official" guide for visitors to the house. Is that not a reliable source?  --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Ritchie333 Many thanks for your comments.  I really appreciate the time and trouble you have taken. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Eric Corbett See what I mean? Don't bother. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've not been around to help Peter. I'll have a look at Capesthorne Hall later. Eric   Corbett  19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric's on a break at the mo. I'm sure he'll help people who genuinely want to improve articles, he always has done, but he can't improve every article everywhere. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Peter was getting at me, rather referring to a discussion we've had periodically about whether it's better to focus on a few GA/FAs or to improve a broader range of articles.  Eric   Corbett  19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the DM sinks to new low depths with this. Clooney calls them "the worst kind of tabloid" and says "They cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting violence."! He might have a point you know.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I take it you've seen the Daily Mail headline generator, Blofeld? Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I like it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A baby on your doorstep...
Mermaid biology is an interesting and seemingly sourced little tidbit, been marked for merge for some time and is orphaned. Some said to merge in 2007 (per archives) but that is too old to consider. The main article Mermaid is a GA (that GA looks weird, I only see one person at nom and reviewer both, but maybe I'm wrong). It is a fairly complete article as it is, so I don't want to go mucking about and diminishing the quality. A merge could be no more than cut and paste with proper attribution. Leave alone and remove merge tag? Boldly merge and redirect? Take it to the talk page and start one more discussion on the topic that others there seem to ignore? A great many editors whom I trust lurk about here, so I hope you don't mind me asking you and your posse. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I am working the 1960s article, which is taking more time than I expected but I'm trying to keep everything bulletproof with sources. It was a very different decade, so the format isn't remotely similar to the 1950s article on manufacturing.  I'm just adding semi-rough prose and cites for now, but there isn't enough there to start the clean up yet, but when you get back, I would appreciate if you could take a look at style and format to make sure I'm not getting off the path here.  I really want it to be special.  Hope you are finding some good use with the time off.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks promising Dennis! Look forward to seeing the final result! One of major reasons why I'm attracted to 50s and 60s American cinema so much is the cars and look of the film!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I need to make time this week to work on it some more. To properly cite it to GA standards from the start takes some effort, although I'm not necessarily going for any pips.  When I was in high school ("79-"83) many of those cars were considered cheap junkers, could be bought for £150-400 all day long, in more or less running condition.  I never got to own a 1965 Chevrolet Impala 2 door, but always wanted one, an SS would have been nice but any would do.  Owed a "68 ($400, clean with 307cid) and "69 ($275, clean with 327cid), both 4 doors. Any of the "65-"69 2 door models would be acceptable.  Just saw a 65 SS in great shape for around $32,000.  Ouch.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, in 1977, my folks got me a 1965 4-door Impala with less than 100,000 miles on it as my first car. Literally had been owned by a little old lady.  A little old lady who had been convinced by the salesman that she needed a "good big engine for the mountain passes" in Montana.  Ah yes, it was, I think, a 325 or 327 (whatever the little number was there on the front panel, started with a 3..., all my friends who got old beater Impalas mostly had the ones labeled 283 or 2-something...  Even though an automatic, I developed a sub-specialty of smoking out of stoplights against the fellows who thought they were hot stuff with their Cameros, Sunbirds and Firebirds...  ah yes... the good old days.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Generalising....
I wouldn't assume there'd be a problem with Nuckelavee based on the other and similarity with topic matter. I've found it seems pretty ad hoc which articles one will strike trouble with. e.g. medical articles are a headache but astronomy ones I've found pretty smooth....however Alpha Centauri was one where I was reverted by someone who knows more than me about it but insisted on an odd layout...and will likely require considerable diplomacy in the future if I ever decide to attempt to improve it....aah well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there would be a problem with nuckelavee at FAC, it's a fine article well worth a bronze star. I just can't be doing with what happens after articles are promoted. Eric   Corbett  15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True - the timing of that was a headache for sure. However, that can happen any time to any article. At least with any GA/FA point there is a "stable version" that can be referred back to, so in my line of thinking it drives me to "park" whatever I've spent significant time working on at an audited point somewhere so in the future I can quickly check where the article was when I'd finished with it by comparing that revision with the current and then going from there (though this is the point where the removal or addition of paragraph spacing really screws the ability to compare paras). But yeah I can see the frustration - I can't see it happeneing with Nuckelavee but I guess no-one thought it'd happen with the other. hmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know, FAC is a significant effort sink, not always with a compensating payback. Sagaciousphil and I have set ourselves the ambitious target – perhaps overly ambitious target – of producing decent articles on all of Scotland's mythological creatures, and we need to concentrate on that rather on bronze stars and their fallout. Your comment about audit points is well made, and one I entirely agree with, which is why nuckelavee is now at GAN, as will the rest of our efforts be in due course. Perhaps in the fullness of time we'll move them on to FAC, but not for now, too distracting. Eric   Corbett  21:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know all too well re effort and how things can spin out of control. Good thing about quiet articles is they tend not to erode anywhere near as quickly so one can come back after a time with fresh eyes and generally not have to do much cleaning up, if any. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For you

 * Very kind, but you're more likely to find me in this image. I'm the one in the red cape at the top of the picture. Eric   Corbett  19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus? Nice to meet you. Hafspajen (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus is just another mythological creature as far as I'm concerned. Fervent Christians or Muslims might want to unwatch this page, as I have no time for either. Or even for religion. Eric   Corbett  23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't consider him mythological but then again just another of the tens of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans back in those days, many with the name of Yehoshua. I've heard that roads were lined with such corpses when times were tough. But I can't figure out how anyone has any idea whatsover what this guy looked like. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * pick your choice -> File:CompositeJesus.JPG. Hafspajen (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * …one painted by Henry Ossawa Tanner- never heard of him til just now. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is bad presentation of a good painter, Xanthomelanoussprog, he is much better than the paintings shown there. I had a certain feeling I should be doing something for him - for quite a while now. Hafspajen (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Eric! Hope all's well. Not sure how busy you are nowadays, but if you can find the time, would you mind leaving me some comments for Harry Glicken? It's been a long-term project and I'd like to take it to FAC soon-ish, but I need a little more feedback. If you're too busy, of course I don't mind. Thanks.  ceran  thor 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and listed it at FAC. Would appreciate any feedback.  ceran  thor 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Barton Road Swing Bridge
Question for the floor. This report from Salford City Council states that a footbridge was built in this location in 1761 after the original bridge was blown up to stop the Jacobite army. But the Barton Aqueduct article says that a road bridge already existed at this time when it opened, in the same year, citing Glen Atkinson's Barton's Bridges. One of the sources must be wrong - which? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's much doubt that Atkinson is right. The definitive answer would come from the text of the enabling act of 1760 of course, which Bosdin Leech quotes from in his History of the Manchester Ship Canal from its Inception to its Completion: "[the Bridgewater Canal] may be taken over the River Irwell at or near a certain bridge called Barton Bridge". Eric   Corbett  16:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll go with that. The other evidence I found is contemporary pictures online clearly showing the bridge and the 18th century aqueduct side by side and resembling each other. (eg:, ) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salford Council have pretty clearly got it wrong I think. Eric   Corbett  17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A council gets something wrong. Well I never. Could be a typo for 1751, but to build a wooden footbridge and replace it with a stone three arch bridge all in good time for it to be a well known landmark by 1760 sounds a bit of a tall order, in an era when Trafford Park really was a park by our modern definition. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton
"... because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing ..."
 * My first instinct on reading the FA today was to change "alleged" to "allegedly". The latter would be more conventionally "grammatical," but the former somehow sounds better to part of me, so I didn't make the change. Your thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (watching) I am not good in grammar, but my instinct tells me that the adverb "allegedly" would have to go with a verb, not "nature", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Conventionally, an adverb is used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Here, "alleged[ly]" is modifying the adjective "unchallenging." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Learning, - I didn't know that adjective thing, interesting aspect. - Different topic: we are approaching the anniversary of me being welcomed to the club of infobox warriors (26 June), - the latest topic on my talk, quite enjoyable so far ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, both seem arguably "correct" to me. I do have a preference for alleged though, which in the sense it's used here I'd say is a past participle rather than an adjective or adverb, and therefore perfectly OK as it is. Eric   Corbett  15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Learning more grammar, I think it is not used as a past participle here ;) - I would probably try to escape by wording something completely different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to think of a example: "her alleged long history" might question that there was a history (never mind long or short), while "her allegedly long history" might question the length of a history not in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now should it be on the background of my alleged long history or allegedly long history as an infobox warrior? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it "allegedly long", implying that it might actually have been short, or is it that your long history is alleged, and may even be non-existent? Eric   Corbett  22:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that - in other words - what I tried to say above? (alleged relates to "history", allegedly to "long") And now to the question: is my history short or non-existent? I don't remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty much exactly what you were trying to say above. What's being alleged? That you have a history or that it's a long history? Eric   Corbett  22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I was admonished to better conduct myself and not use WP as a battleground, but they didn't tell me how. I know that I earned the title for Sparrow Mass. I said that I didn't think that I deserved it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it, who really cares about admonishments? Or even knows what they're supposed to be? You go around expending a lot of effort in trying to support other editors, but maybe you should spend a little bit more time on yourself as well. Eric   Corbett  23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I don't care, I actually came to love a restriction to two comments, it should be handed out more generously. - I still wonder, however, how I got that label. - Be assured that I don't do a thing here that I don't do for myself and my dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's all good then. :-) These kind of restrictions don't always work in the way that they're intended to I don't think. I'm still restricted from taking part in any threaded discussion on any RfA or RfA-related page, which means that I can vote or say whatever I like but then don't have to respond to the screams of outrage if I should oppose a popular candidate. Not that I bother voting at the popularity contest known as RfA any longer, but you get the idea. Eric   Corbett  11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the idea ;) - I haven't formally thanked the arbs for their collective wisdom, next week, there's music in the air first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kelpie:  precious  again, and two more in the pipeline! - recommended Sunday listening: Psalmen Davids, cleverly published (on the same page later today), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What a refreshing change to have an article like Kelpie as TFA for once!♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How refreshing to chat in a moss, compared to ACE ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Today: "... a jolly little article on one of the most prolific and perhaps most incompetent British ..." - thank you, Eric! What would Wikipedia be without you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're obviously about to find out. Eric   Corbett  14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is a discussion at ANI involving recent edits by you. Lightbreather (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to be more about you and your prissy militant feminist friends. Eric   Corbett  13:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let it go, Eric. Here, take this unloved article about something near you and help improve it a bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should I let it go? This is by no means the first time I've been accused of misogyny by the female militants so intent not on equality but on reversing what they perceive as inequality in their own favour. IIRC the first time was by the recently sanctified and her supporters, for having the temerity to write on a subject she disapproved of, wife selling. Besides, I've done my shift with Barton Aqueduct and Barton Swing Aqueduct. Let someone else have a go and see what they can do.  Eric   Corbett  21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much left to say. I'm offended by the very idea that to create equity, we must treat women differently.  Not only is it counter to common sense, but it is insulting to women everywhere to say they are incapable of working on a level playing field.  Ideology like this never goes far.  I probably got more bent out of shape than I cared to, but I've seen too much real discrimination and ideas like these have only make for more discrimination, not less. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite the bad press I'm receiving I've collaborated very successfully with many female editors, most recently with on a Scottish mythology series. I very much doubt that any of them would accuse me of misogyny, harassment, sexually-oriented personal attacks or failing to treat them as at least equals. It's certainly true that I make no allowances for gender or nationality even when I'm aware of it, but neither do I think I should; we're either all equal or we're not.  Eric   Corbett  21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see WT:GGTF), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s. Far from being collaborative, it will end up being divisive. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Time will tell, I suppose, I have no interest in investigating. It doesn't sound like something that is improving the articles on the encyclopedia, but I will reserve judgement at this time. I will say this, the very name of that group implies it has some kind of authority; "task force". Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I think I've said on several occasions - and if I haven't then I should have - Eric is a pleasure to work with and, to be frank and probably at the risk of laying myself open to being accused of all sorts, I have seldom seen so much rubbish being spouted as I have read on those AN boards today, areas that I usually avoid like the plague. It is mutual respect that counts, whether you are male or female doesn't come into the equation. Civility is subjective - I can, and as Eric knows have ;-), been far more upset, hurt and frustrated by comments that probably would not be defined as 'uncivil' yet were (in my opinion) dis-respectful. Perhaps detractors should spend more time trying to create quality content ...  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  22:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) PS: however, I will admit that when a bit younger I was never above using my female ploys by fluttering my eyelashes, shifting into dizzy blonde mode to get mechanics to check oil, change tyres etc etc. - worked every time! ;-)


 * Personally, I've never had issues editing with most folks on Wikipedia, especially not with Eric. I'm female and really haven't had any issues that related to me being female - I do think that some subjects often of more interest to women are under-represented on Wikipedia, but I've never really had to deal with crap because I'm female (now... I do get crap for holding up Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and NPOV and undue weight - and get flack for being supposedly an ignorant American (see Talk:Middle Ages)) but... no one's ever dealt with me other than straight up on gender issues. And I find it rather condescending and demeaning that someone thinks that I need special treatment as a "special flower" in order to succeed at editing Wikipedia. Heh. I must have imagined those 50+ FAs and 100+ GAs... I obviously need help to get editing! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I am a little concerned at the tone on both sides. I consider myself someone who has had no problems collaborating with Eric on issues, I respect his knowledge, and know to take his occasional snark and thin-skinned attitude with a grain of salt - if he gets pissy, he's always over it in a few days, and if he's discouraged by the constant attacks by people who take his pissiness as a character flaw, he also recovers and is back in a few weeks.   I remember that when I first encountered him, though, I too didn't initially understand that his snottiness is just a personality thing and he doesn't actually have a mean spirit.  BUT I am also a person who probably leans toward the "militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s" because many of the problems that gave rise to second wave feminism still exist.  It does no good to attack feminist editors for being feminist.  We can waste a lot of bandwidth here discussing things like the relevance of the Civil Rights Act and the creation of protected classes of people, but I'd prefer we didn't.  I'd also prefer that we don't attack feminists.  I am one, maybe not of quite the same subspecies as the folks who have come of age in a different place and generation, but I don't care to see an ideology attacked just because a few people lean on it too heavily here.  Folks like Lightbreather just don't know the whole background.  From any other editor but Eric, calling someone the "c-word" would have my blood boiling and I'd be to ANI faster than Lightbreather.  But not in this case. So let's not stir the pot by bashing back.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CMDC has made a very serious charge of systemic bias and she is wriggling around requests from various people that she substantiate her allegation. Those requests for substantiation are entirely reasonable. Being a real-life activist (as has been documented on her user page in the past) and a woman (self-admitted in the thread) doesn't give her some sort of right to avoid scrutiny. An entire wikiproject is being corralled principally by her and principally with that charge at its heart. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's remind ourselves of the basics Montanabw. Who was called a cunt? The answer of course is that nobody was. And just sitting back and allowing these strident feminists to run riot isn't the answer to anything. Eric   Corbett  11:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone really is running riot. There's been a lot of hot air, wailing and teeth-gnashing on the dramaboards over the last few days, but so what? That's nothing new. Unless there's real hard evidence of articles being degraded, prose getting more unreadable or facts becoming questionable, I would just ignore it. Any sufficiently large pile of bullshit will decompose naturally by its own means. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I am sure, and I've had it with yet again being called a misogynist by these bloody people. Eric   Corbett  12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will never attack a feminist for being a feminist, only for pretending to be one while actually hurting the cause of equality for all people. I don't like to see someone walk on the backs of others to support their individual cause or selfish needs.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the cause of equality, but that's not what's being demanded here. What's being demanded is some kind of 1984 scenario in which all editors are equal, but female editors are more equal than males, and that simply can't be tolerated. Eric   Corbett  12:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with attacking an asshole for being an asshole. And anyone who hides behind a worthy cause and uses its trappings and language to further their own exclusionist campaigns is certainly an asshole in my book. But I'm a mere content editor, so what do I know? Intothatdarkness 14:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for a personal attack
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for for an uncivil comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales, accompanied by a blatant personal attack in the edit summary. You have been blocked on many previous occasions for this form of conduct, so I have placed a longer block than would be applied for a first or second offence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the discussion at ANI, I have unblocked and closed the discussion regarding this block. Please review the full wording of my close on ANI (yes, it took place over 2 edits ... sorry)  the panda ₯’  14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I see that you've now got Jimbo and his disciples on your back. Honestly, I'm quite used to being blocked, it's really no big deal after the first dozen or so times, so I won't be at all upset if you feel that restoring the block would be the prudent thing to do. Eric   Corbett  22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar question
Regarding this edit, in U.S. usage the apostrophe needs to be there because "being" is a gerund&mdash;if a pronoun were substituted, it would be their being found, not them being found. Does current British usage differ in this respect? If so, I'll make a note of it; I write perhaps half my articles in British English. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's got nothing to do with gerunds or differences between American and British grammar, of which there are rather few despite the impression one gets from that being so frequently used as an excuse here on WP. Would you, for instance write "the children being found" or the "children's being found"? I would also point out that in the context of the relevant sentence – "Fokke Sierksma commented in 1960 that the evidence of fires, plus pottery fragments and the figures being found together" – it would make no sense at all to substitute "their being found " for "the figures being found". Eric   Corbett  17:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it were a gerund: "The children's being found outdoors, alone, at that time of night was concerning", US grammar would require the possessive. If it were a present participle: "All the bodies have now been accounted for and labeled in place, the two children being found together in their bedroom and of the three adults, one in the hallway and two in the den", the apostrophe would be incorrect. The possessive with gerund is required by correct grammar but widely disregarded in common usage, which is why I ask: some such things have actually been abolished, or were never enshrined as rules, in British English.


 * I'll have to check the source, because if what was meant was "that they were found with pottery fragments", that's what the sentence should say. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Then it sounds like the standard of teaching in American schools is lamentable. And the fact that you're uncertain now what the sentence actually means is rather telling. I bet you were even taught that it's "i before e, except after c". weird, just weird. Eric   Corbett  18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am unable to see the source. Presumably could. The version after his last substantive edit was this; with the next or the next-but-one edit, I tweaked the sentence to supply a plural subject for "make" in the quote. So I've now fixed that problem a little less elegantly and put back his wording. Pity - I suspect "found together" and "male and female" are the same point and if so, would have liked to simplify that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction of usage - sorry if my examples are less than clear, but your response tends to confirm that it's not a distinction made in British usage, which was my question :-) (The spelling rule of thumb is a useful one but have no fear, I was also taught to watch out for the words for which it is invalid.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it would be be quite common to see a phrase such as "the children's swimming". The difference here is quite simply that the figures (or whatever is actually being referred to in that sentence) in no sense own "being". But this is just pissing in the wind compared to all the other problems with that article. For instance, what's the evidence that the timber from which the figures were carved was chosen "carefully", as opposed to just chosen? And how could the figures result in any theories? Eric   Corbett  18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Its having been carefully chosen was taken from the cited source; don't blame me for what academics write '-) ... I presume the fact we have the figures has given rise to theories; there you may well wish to rephrase. Hope that change I made helps. Unfortunately I didn't originally write that sentence and Google won't show me the cited passage. Them's the breaks. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because someone has tenure at some kind of academic institution doesn't guarantee that they're playing with a full set of marbles. Eric   Corbett  19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * children's swimming seems quite unusual to me as it requires swimming to be a noun-verb, but I suppose nounification makes sense in a "habitiual action" sense ("the children's swimming was always boisterous"). My reading of the original edit is certainly that the fire, pottery, and the figures were all together, not that the two figures were together unrelated to the fragments or fire, but without the original source who knows which is correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But a "noun-verb" is exactly what a gerund is. Eric   Corbett  19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of gerunds.....the fun one is asking fellow doctors at work to tell me what the noun(s) are in the sentence, "Seeing is believing" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nuckelavee
The article Nuckelavee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nuckelavee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Eric on another great article, very well deserved. I simply don't have the patience for GAN these days. J3Mrs (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand that. For me it's just about drawing a line under something; in a sense it's finished, or at least it's good enough for now and can be parked for a while. As for the nuckelavee, Sagaciousphil really deserves all the credit. She's the one who does all the heavy lifting, I just come along at the end and steal a bit of her thunder, misogynist that I am. Eric   Corbett  14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 7, June-July 2014 by, ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
 * TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
 * Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
 * Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

old diff
I'm not sure this helps you on general civility, but it does show that you seem to use this as a general purpose insult (or better, response to the idea of NPA) and not in any sort of gender targeted way. Although I think you were (and sometimes are) unnecessarily rude, I was not honestly offended and I certainly did WP:POKE you somewhat later (for which I apologized, and you did not accept, alas.)

More importantly in the current context I think the risk of equating offended with civil is likely to lead to fereinheit 451 style censorship especially with such issues as pictures of Mohammad etc which are deeply offensive to some. ("Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchant, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy ")Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I make it a point never to accept apologies, so nothing personal. Eric   Corbett  21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, if you don't accept apologies.... I apologize for using too many commas. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave up with you and commas long ago Ealdgyth. I just quietly remove them now. Eric   Corbett  22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's lay off the feminist-bashing, it isn't helping. The "easily offended" come in all sizes, shapes, genders and so on (usually it's men dragging Eric to the drama boards, anyway). I consider myself a feminist and I am not among the "easily offended, " though I will jump on people who don't "get it" about bonafide sexism and bias. I usually get along fine with the illustrious Mr. Corbett, whose primary fault is impatience and a sharp tongue that occasionally slices and dices noncombatants, which, Eric, I think you DID do to Lightbreather. But this crime needs the occasional WP:TROUT. That said, it would be useful if you would quit saying "cunt" no matter how it's used in the UK. Heavens knows you have an adequate vocabulary to be more creative and entertaining if you must dish out insults. We'd all be blocked in an instant for calling someone an asshole, so let's just not describe people by their orifices, period. Not piehole, not asshole, not cunt, none of it. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, have you called anybody a cunt recently? --John (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't, neither here nor in real life, but I reserve the right to do if I should consider it appropriate. Eric   Corbett  21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought so. So this recent campaign is basically a bunch of your old enemies trying to have you blocked for your supposed misdeeds from the past? What sad wankers they must be, and how jealous. --John (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've looked at any of the myriad threads you'll see quite a few names you might recognise, I certainly do. This all started because of a question posed by about setting up a new civility board, which I poo-pooed in a manner and using language she took exception to. Now the spin is that I called her a cunt, which is absolutely untrue.  Eric   Corbett  22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well...you know wikipedia. The fantasy land where truth<verifiability. So if they repeat the false accusation often enough it becomes verifiable, and thus true in their twisted little world. It even prodded Wong from his enchanted slumbers... Intothatdarkness 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Scottywong has publicly stated that his mission is to see me booted from WP, so no surprise to see him trying to stick the boot in. Eric   Corbett  22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What, no ping? Are you talking about me behind my back? Just kidding.  Anyway, I've changed my mind about you.  I don't want to see you booted from WP.  I do, however, want to see you behave in a socially acceptable way that is conducive to a collaborative social environment. This would allow you to do more of the great work you do here, with less interruptions. I'm not talking only about civility, but about having a general respect for the social construct (i.e., the rules relating to interactions with other editors) of Wikipedia.  I'm fully aware that you almost certainly couldn't give a rat's ass about what I think about you, but I thought I'd let you know anyway.  Also, I believe I asked you to not post on my talk page in the past.  If you'd like to do so in the future, I'm ok with that.  Cheers.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#774477;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#224422;">| communicate _  01:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've just nailed the very important difference here - you seem to see this site as a "social enviroment" with a "social construct" first and only secondarily as an encyclopedia. Some of the rest of us ... see it as an encyclopedia first ... and the social aspects of it as secondary. So, of course, interactions are going to be more important if you see it mainly as a social thing than if you see it as an encyclopedia. Silly me, I think the actual content is the important part. I also understand that not everyone has the same expectations of things and am willing to tolerate a lot ... especially from folks from other cultures. I've been around enough English to know that their usage of words is totally off from Americans ... and that's a good thing. If we were all alike, boy things would be boring. Stop trying to change everyone to fit your own culture and just get on with the work of building an encyclopedia. (There, my preaching is done for the morning). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that WP is primarily an encyclopedia, not a chat room. However, it is an encyclopedia being simultaneously written by thousands of people.  Therefore, managing the social interactions of those people is important.  This is not unusual.  The primary purpose of the company you work for (assuming you work for a company) is probably not to be a social construct for its employees, yet if there is a social problem (employees not getting along, employees not acting collegially with one another), then that company will take steps to deal with the situation, so that it can go on with its primary purpose in an efficient way.  Imagine if everyone writing the encyclopedia were allowed to be as rude and crass as they like.  Eventually, the only people left writing the encyclopedia would be the few people who can tolerate constant hostility and turmoil. I don't believe that asking people to be polite and collegial is pushing my culture on other people. Being civil is part of existing within a civilized society. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444477;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772222;">| speak _  14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Right. Another example: one arbitrator spoke plain simple English about an accusation: He isn't an arb any more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You pinged. Do you want me to respond to something, or did you just want me to see what you said? If you have a question for me, I will answer it, though I've made several detailed replies elsewhere. Lightbreather (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply didn't want you to think I was talking about you behind your back. Eric   Corbett  22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the easily offended are out in force yet again but of course it's much easier to be easily offended than write an article. John is right, jealousy is at the bottom of it all. Why do the easily offended idiots stalk you? I think most of them lack basic comprehension skills, they read what they want to read, not what is actually written. And as for feminism, don't get me started. J3Mrs (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was my accusation of militant feminism that probably prompted one or two of the AN/ANI reports. But I stand by everything I said. Females don't gain equal rights by trying to grab more rights than men. That's not equality. Eric   Corbett  22:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh the Freudianisms of it all: Poor old BHG - who would not love to have a "moist" employer? Now, interestingly "moist" is a word I never use because it sound naff and twee - anybody else think that - or is it just me?  Giano    (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Moist isn't a word I'd often be inclined to use myself, for the reasons you say. You do sometimes come across it in cleaning instructions that refer to a "moist cloth", but I'd always say a "damp cloth". Eric   Corbett  22:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You read cleaning instructions? That is impressive J3Mrs (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Boy, the feminists really are pissed off! Cassianto talk 22:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't "get" feminism, never have, never will. I don't like being told what I should think or do and am appalled by the idea of positive discrimination so jump on me, not that it makes any difference. As Eric didn't call anybody anything, I don't know why you appear to be implying he did. J3Mrs (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You apparently have never been told that not getting a job you were qualified for was a good thing because it meant you could stay home with your children? I have. Apparently you also have not been passed over for a job in favor of a decades younger male applicant with less than one year of experience? I have. And I can guarantee you that you haven't been in a job interview where the question "can you coach our football team?" was asked for a job teaching history in a high school). I have. (Should have answered "yes" to that one just to see what they'd do.) So, to use the tone that Corbett likes to use, do pull your head out of the sand.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , don't make assumptions, you have no idea what I have and haven't been through job-wise. And for the record I ran an under 10 rugby league team with my female colleague. I fight my corner on my own merits, not as a feminist. J3Mrs (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you aren't a feminist, then you are standing on the shoulders of the giants who earned rights that you take for granted and not acknowledging what they did for you.: do read this if you think we don't need feminism.  06:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But I never said I wasn't a humanitarian and who knows, 100 years ago I might even have been a suffragette, but I'm not a feminist in the way its used on here, I believe in equal rights for everybody not positive discrimination for women, end of conversation. J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't aware I was bashing them? It was meant as an illustration for what has (or hasn't in this case) gone on over the last couple of days; but thanks anyway for showing what it's like to have a complete sense of humour bypass.  Cassianto talk 12:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You intended humor and probably meant no harm, but a joke made as the expense of others is implicit bullying that group and not funny except to those who intend to bully. You can rib Corbett for creating his usual tempest in a teapot without being that way. I'm personally only mildly annoyed, but if I had a daughter in that photo, I'd probably be seriously pissed.  Simply using a stereotypical phrase like "the feminists" to caption a photo of ordinary young women in an ordinary campus protest was the equivalent of using any other stereotype.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * wtf!? Frankly, I couldn't care less if you were pissed at me for causing you offence at a photo where your daughter was. That kind of coincidence is even too great to imagine, and I would like to think that you would realise that. Having said that, I apologise for being offensive to at least one of your relatives in that photo. Cassianto talk 00:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything to Lightbreather, and I don't appreciate you and she continuing to propagate the lie that I did Montanabw. I'll maybe start to take your position a little more seriously when I see you campaigning for either the removal of WP:DICK or the addition of WP:CUNT. Eric   Corbett  12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could. Where do I sign up? Seriously, Eric, would YOU support the removal of WP:DICK?  If you did, I'd back you 100%. Let's do it.  (I'd also buy lots of popcorn because it would be a great show!)  Interesting that men do refer to one another by both words in various nations all in good humor, while women are criticized for using the first in any context (full disclosure:  I have and I was) and we rarely use the second in humor, even to joke with each other.  But though I dispute the "equally offensive" comment as a false equivalency, I'd be OK losing both.  I've never seen the invocation of WP:DICK help de-escalate any situation.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support the removal of WP:DICK. And it's not always used in good humor, incidentally. I've seen a fair number of fights start because one guy called another guy a dick. Intothatdarkness 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I find it fascinating that one word will get so many people upset while another word (which can be equally offensive) is enshrined in an essay and tossed around as policy. Utter horseshit. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, spot the occurrence of "Between you and I" in your last contribution. :) Also, J3Mrs, I'm a card-carrying feminist: if you really don't get it, I'll gladly beat you up with my bumper sticker. Also, I wish Eric hadn't used the c-word--not cause it's necessarily so wrong or whatever (and I agree it wasn't aimed at anyone), but because its use is simply highly controversial and little good comes of it. Some people take righteous offense at its use, some take unwarranted offense at its use. Some don't care. I'm a liberal and I think it's important that we get along. I learned only later what "calling a spade a spade" really means, having learned the expression from a white (Yankee) student (a great fan of My Fair Lady, incidentally), and while I like the idea of shooting straight, there is no benefit in using such a loaded expression. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to write an essay on why DICK is indeed the Ultimate Signifier. Eric, please accept my apologies for lecturing. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What did you learn the "spade" phrase to mean? I know a great number who think it has racist background (similar to Eeny, meeny, miny, moe) but at least our own article on the topic shows otherwise? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the alternate version – calling a spade a fucking shovel – makes it very evident that there's no racist overtones. But no doubt that won't satisfy Jimbo's civility warriors. The list of forbidden words here is growing quite rapidly. Eric   Corbett  16:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While it may have started as a shovel (or a fig, or whatever) it is now, at least in the US, the only place I'm likely to ever use the expression, quite widely considered to have racial/racist overtones. That's a good enough reason for me not to use it. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's not a good enough reason for me. Why not let's cut to the chase and mandate the use of WP's version of Newspeak? Eric   Corbett  16:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would never suggest some mandated form of language. Unfortunately, though, we all reap what we sow, and since you're typically under a microscope, this was to be expected, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about any of it, since I prefer it when people speak softly, stick or not, and I see everyone lose their patience, on all sides. (You know I'm a great fan of singular they, but do not wish to mandate it.) So I'm taking the coward's way out, or to put it in BrownHairedGirl's terms, I stick my head in the sand. Here I am practically lecturing you, and I really have no standing from which to criticize you, while at the same time I'm apparently part of a corrupt admin corps that is essentially sexist, or something like that--I'm being accused, with a bunch of other enablers, of the most repulsive -ism I can think of (and Sitush, "feminism" is not a bad word...). There is no enjoyment in that for me. So I'm going to log off, pay Dirk's five dollars, and enjoy their beer tasting. Happy days to everyone, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me give you just one example from last night. That kind of thing is rampant and unchecked all over the project, yet I get ten days in the slammer for basically nothing. No wonder the credibility of the admin corps is at an all-time low. Eric   Corbett  22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it's high time it wasn't considered "highly controversial". It's just another word after all, and words can only have the power you give them. I'm rather fed up with all the middle-American prudishness around here, and I will kick against whenever I feel like it. I'm reminded about some objections to the use of the word slut in a quoted translation in an article I worked on recently. Fucking ridiculous. Eric   Corbett  16:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My mother used sluttish and slatternly interchangeably. It's a shame perfectly good words take on these politically correct overtones. J3Mrs (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “&thinsp;‘Bad words’&thinsp;? Bad thoughts, bad intentions maybe—and words.” (George Carlin, in the Seven Words sketch)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in this album, which is titled from Acts 26:14 but somehow I doubt has anything to do with planting seeds and encouraging horses. And that mention of horses reminds me, has anyone heard from the lady in the New Forest recently? She was having some off-wiki problems but used to appear here regularly. Another example of your complete indifference to the gender of contributors, of course. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Pesky's health issues (spinal/nerve stuff) combined with her losses (toddler grandson to cancer) (note. she mentioned both on her talk) have minimized her online time; we're facebook friends, and I seldom see her post there, either. BTW, she was great for deescalating everyone. A true loss to "teh wiki".   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Eric, I will clarify - I agree that when you first used the "c-word" in the context of Lightbreather's edits, your context was clearly NOT intended to be directed at her personally or as a woman (heck, I didn't even realize she was at first, either), but it was akin to saying to someone, "don't be an asshole". Then escalating it with "you and your prissy militant feminist friends" WAS mean-spirited, inflammatory and you do know this, I think. Your edit summary comment about brains that got the unwarranted block was rightly reversed, but you DID deserve a WP:TROUT. Those of us who value your editing skills do often sigh and wish in our deepest hearts that you could resist falling on your own sword with these self-inflicted injuries all the time; I agree there are bullies who lay (lie?) in wait for you, but you help them out so often. Now, be pissed at me if you want, I know you'll get over it in a few weeks. And say hi to the kitten for me (I guess she's now a cat); I know your gruff curmudgeon persona is not your core nature. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonce (slang). approximately synonymous with "idiot", eh? "Oh do shut up, you're being a real nonce!". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sign of a fundamental problem?
JSTOR have very kindly offered 500 free accounts to WP editors, and I'm looking forward to mine being activated this week hopefully. Anyone who's used JSTOR knows how incredibly useful it can be in providing access to journal articles in particular, which I've had to pay for in the past and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Yet rather than being swamped with applications the take up has been surprisingly slow, which I interpret as a sign of the diminishing number of active editors who actually write content as opposed to pursuing their vendettas across multiple forums. Eric  Corbett  22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are already 377+6 approved accounts, including many names we all recognise. I suppose rather more than that have access already through universities etc. Something like 1000 regular content editors have access - seems about right. Not all en:wp of course. Then there are the medical/scientific offers, newspapers etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I get JSTOR through university, plus some other stuff as well. Just waiting for the BNA to be activated and am salivating at that..but yeah I do worry about numbers of content editors too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still here, it's just that right now, I only have time for basic reversions. I still have a half-finished article on Baby farming to complete. Parrot of Doom 23:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully Eric doesn't mind this space being used for adverts, but: there are a number of other database accounts being offered for free through The Wikipedia Library. I know OUP and BMJ are into waiting lists now, but HighBeam and Credo and Cochrane all have spots left, and probably a few more too. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I must get a Cochrane...don't think uni covers that......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * anyone resident in the UK can get the OUP stuff for free via Manchester Libraries' online system. They don't have to be in Manchester. I've had WP JSTOR access for a year now - although I can get that through Cambridge Uni alumni, theirs is a cut-down version and it is cut down just where I seem to need it most! BNA is very useful but also incredibly distracting: I end up reading entire pages of newspapers from 100 years ago, and they're free of chip fat. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, OUP stuff (including OED, ODNB, Grove, etc) is available not just from Manchester but most or all UK public library systems: just find your local library service home page and look for something like "Online library", and get ready to enter your library ticket number and PIN. Brilliant service which a lot of folk don't know about - but Nikkimaria does, see OUP where one of the requirements is to not have access through public library etc. Most libraries also offer The Times archive 1785-1985 and BL 19th-century newspapers. Pam  D  18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All public libraries in Kent allow access to the Times archive, and as Pam suggests I suspect this is nationwide. Online access is generally getting better, the London Gazette archives are online, and so is the Parliamentry Hansard (great for who said what where and when). I had a BL reader's ticket but it's expired and the 90 minute lead time for getting documents is just something I don't have time for these days. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In these times of "austerity" my county library service has this year drastically reduced the archive services we previously enjoyed access to. Of those that remain, the better has been made accessible "in library" only. I did complain to the Stock Manager - who was responsible for the decision to cut the services - who informed me that price rises in the region of several thousand pounds combined with "relatively low use" and "considerable pressure to reduce costs" led to the withdrawal. Apparently I live in a dumb county that is only going to get dumber. Keri (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just registered membership at Manchester's City library, however, to restore access to the Graun archives. Thanks for the tip, Sitush! Keri (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Relatively low use" they said, did they? Well, tell all your friends and neighbours about the services available and encourage them to use them. So many people don't know about the availability of these brilliant resources (including Jimbo as shown in some stuff on his talkpage a few months back). Pam  D  12:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)