User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/June

Request for help
Would you mind looking at the prose at Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4? Although it has been reviewed by several copyeditors, there's a request that you (or John) specifically take a look, as the editor requesting your review believes no-one else is capable of helping, and thus justifies his objection. I am sure you are busy, but I'd appreciate your help here, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that John has already agreed to take a look at the article, and I don't want to step on his toes. Eric   Corbett  21:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  forum

Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 139th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, - thank you for keeping your talk open for An Ethics of Dissensus and for singing praises of the banned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

ps: the image (not worthy to be a FP because a banned editor took it), I reddit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought Gerda you only award "precious" once? Eric seems to get it every other week :-)!♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Like for yourself: on the anniversary ;) -, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's great anyway that you take the time to bother with people and give it, a lot of FA contributors here wonder why they bother at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, actually it's not bothering, but helps to survive: looking at what's good in so many others. I realised that I didn't give you the 2014 repeat, but now you got it. I thought one repeat would be fine, but then came 1 April, and the image got unaligned because of the different font-size (a true April fool), that made me start over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Eric   Corbett  12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Belle Vue
The sentence in which you've now reverted my corrections twice does not make sense as currently punctuated:


 * During the First World War the gardens were used by the Manchester Regiment for drilling, and a munitions factory complete with railway sidings, was built.

The "was built" refers to the munitions factory (and not the drilling), so either "complete with railway sidings" is a parenthetical aside (and thus requires either two commas or none), or you've got a grammatically incorrect comma between the subject "a munitions factory complete with railway sidings" and the verb "was built". Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to keep track of all the changes made to an article, particularly on TFA day, but I think the sentence as presently constructed is just fine. Eric   Corbett  12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave. How about this: "During the First World War, the Manchester Regiment used the gardens for drilling; a munitions factory complete with railway sidings was also built." Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was anything wrong with it in the first place. J3Mrs (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence is just fine as it is now. Eric   Corbett  13:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed: the first version above certainly needed either adding a comma after “factory” or removing the one after “sidings”. The former choice might have been the better in a longer, more complicated sentence, but here I think it’s best to reach “was built“ without pausing. Axl’s version is likewise fine.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB talk page
NYB has answered the question and said he has nothing more to add. Continuing to demand answers from him is not appropriate. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Says who? You? Just who the Hell do you think you are? I'd also remind you that you're now teetering on the brink of a 3RR violation. Eric   Corbett  15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've returned.
I thought I'd let you know. So glad to see you're still around. Best, Lara  04:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Only just, I think I've had two ArbCom trials since you were last here. Nice to see you back, and to see another lady dropping by on this allegedly mysogynist's talk page. If there's any truth to the WMF's claim that only 13 per cent of WP editors are female then how come that 50 per cent of the editors posting here are female? Eric   Corbett  05:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You mentioned two reasons. (I had one trial, it taught me a wonderful lesson: max 2 comments in any given discussion, - a true blessing). "Wisdom is not truth": nice to meet you, Lara, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My explanation is that female editors are more concerned with article improvement than with fighting battles, but they know that if there's a battle that needs to be fought I'll be right beside them. But what do I know, I'm not even an administrator. Eric   Corbett  06:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you heard someone off-wiki say they really enjoyed reading an administrator log? I'm increasingly thinking that those that can do, those that can't become admins. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   08:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm lucky enough to be on good terms with a number of admins, all of whom have been involved in producing content at the highest levels here. So I don't condemn admins as a caste. I condemn the system that promoted them and gives them unchecked power. To which I'll add that even saying that risks the possibility of yet another daft block as some kind of ArbCom enforcement sanction. Trying to do any kind of work here is like working in a gulag. Eric   Corbett  08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just keep doing your kind work, and please don't loose your charme ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just seen your graduation picture on Facebook Lara. Congratulations! I think I have an inkling of what that must mean to you. Eric   Corbett  10:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Eric. It was a difficult journey, but one that changed me. Now if I can just get a job, that would be the tops. :) As for admins, I think I was a good and productive one (not without my mistakes, of course). I may have forgotten how to edit, but I didn't forget the dark underbelly of Wikipedia that adminship gained me access to, until they snatched my bit. Speaking of that, how's the BLP situation these days? Lara  14:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've got no idea, I avoid BLPs like the plague. I graduated in psychology as well, but I never really intended to try and find work as a psychologist. For me, having a degree removed a mental stumbling block, and I subsequently went on to work in IT for the next thirty years or so. But if I hadn't had that degree (could have been a degree in anything, the Ministry of Defence wasn't fussy, only wanted graduates) then I wouldn't have got my first job. Eric   Corbett  14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In the 90's, I could have done anything with this degree. Not so much right now. Thus, graduate school is in my future! I just have to figure out what I want to do and with what degree. Choices, choices. Lara  00:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My wife has a PhD, and she has utter disdain for masters degrees. Just saying. In fact I think they're awarded from Oxbridge automatically over here a year or so after you get your first degree. I often wish I'd learned a proper trade like plumbing or brick laying instead of poncing about at university. Eric   Corbett  00:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

My block log seems a little lightweight
Does the block log not get transferred when there's a change of user name? I note with some amusement that I first posted under this user name on 18 May 2013, and at about the same time administrator WilliamH blocked me for one second, "for posterity". Is that kind of thing really allowed? It's not the first one-second block I've received, but what's supposed to be the point of them? Eric  Corbett  20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your block log would only be transferred if your account was renamed. Since you created a new account, as yours was not able to be changed because of the number of edits, your block log still sits at your old username. As a rule I wouldn't think that for posterity would be a valid block rationale.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't create a new account. And I've started a discussion about these one-second blocks at WP:AN, which I hope you'll take part in. Eric   Corbett  20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well looking into it, a new account was created by someone in 2012, it was blocked as a sockpuppet/troll, and then Usurped to to make way for a new account called Eric Corbett (created by WilliamH it seems) for your use. Dennis then moved your Malleus Faturom user and talk pages over to this username.  So in answer to your original question, because your account was not renamed (for example your edit history under this username/account only goes back as far as 2013), your edits and block log from before you started editing under the username Eric Corbett are still found at . --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In answer to the one second block question, I am in agreement, I don't see any use or benefit--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC) to them.


 * I'll be happy to add some weight to it. What would you like to be blocked for? Yes, I guess I never paid attention to it, and I should have. You'll not find anything in the policy anywhere that says that this is something that should be done when an account is renamed--and I find it a particularly shitty thing to do, this "reminder", or scarlet letter, if you will. WilliamH is now retired and I doubt he'll come back to explain his actions, but I for one think it was a crap block, one that says "hey asshole, we know who you are". Sorry Eric. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was also this link in the edit summary. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me though. Eric   Corbett  21:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, noted above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case, the link was to the old account that was usurped, ie: showing his work. It wasn't about you at all, and he didn't link your old account.  I did that when I blocked Malleus.  Posterity of the old account.  Anyone looking for the old account named "Eric Corbett" now has a link to where that account was moved to.  Necessary?  I don't know, I'm not a crat and usurps aren't that frequent.  Vengeful?  I would bet a weeks salary against it.  I know William fairly well, I don't think he would have done it unless he thought he was supposed to for the purpose of linking.  I actually miss him a fair amount, to be honest.  You and he both are responsible for what little I know about "being British".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're a far more forgiving person than I am Dennis. Eric   Corbett  21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that, but in this case, it makes perfect sense since "Eric Corbett" wasn't a new name....you "stole" it from a vandal, remember? He just changed the vandal's name, gave you the vandal's old name, but then linked.  I seriously do not think there was any ill will.  Will never said anything ill about you to me, and he and I spoke frequently.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * His wasn't the only one-second block I've received. Eric   Corbett  21:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the details on the other block, just the general, which I commented on at ANI. I've always said that a few seconds of block "to make a point" is dickish.  As for this one second block, I probably know better than most simply because I'm the one that initiated the new name and usurp and know the crat that did it very well.  You would have to compared to other usurped accounts, or ask a Crat.  They have rules we don't think about since they aren't things we think about daily.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at both block logs, and the closest I could find is a ten-second block for personal attacks and harassment by Georgewilliamherbert in 2009. The next shortest is three hours for telling someone to fuck off.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So do you think a 10-second block is OK? Eric   Corbett  22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think a ten-second block is OK. Even without knowing the background behind the block, I see no benefit that it would have had. A ten-second block would not prevent anything as it would be too short to have any effect, short of adding another line in your block log. I also don't consider telling someone to fuck off a blockable offense. On a related note YOLO swag has four one-second blocks in his/her block log, mainly for notation.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, my familiarity was with Will's block, which I still think was for bureaucracy's sake. What would I do if I saw an admin give a 10 second block to a user?  Not sure, it is hard to generalize, so it depends on the circumstances.  If it was obvious vengeance and a block of the admin was truly needed to prevent further disruption, I'm not afraid to block an admin.  I would be dragging them to Arb regardless.  But it has to be rather fresh for me to be able to take action. I do think the environment is less tolerant of that now, compared to 5 years ago.  Not perfect, but less tolerant of excessive tool usage. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis, you can have no idea how much I despise WP's governance and those who are part of it yet dare not speak out about its corruption and corrupting effect. Present company excepted of course. Eric   Corbett  22:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not as big a fan as you might think, I'm just a bit less verbose and working on the problem from the other side of the fence. I've continued the questions at WP:AN, as I assumed it was to link the usurped account but Writ is saying no.  He is new-ish, maybe rules have changed, maybe Will was mistaken, I don't know.  I admit an affinity for Will, but still, I don't suggest jumping to conclusions.  Will left in part from being fed up with the same system.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will was an administrator, he lived in a different world from the likes of me. Eric   Corbett  22:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On a related note...
Eric, I was wondering if you remembered where it was you heard that your old account couldn't be renamed. As I've found out in researching the question since becoming a 'crat (it's come up for other users' requests), there's actually no such restriction. The belief that there was--which I would presume to be an honest one, though mistaken--appears to have come from this page on Meta, which formerly included the text "Any local bureaucrat on a wiki can change your username if you have fewer than 50,000 edits.". After looking through the code for renaming users, I found no such restriction and thus removed that bit. It had been inserted back in 2011 by a user who's not active on enwiki, so I don't think there's really any question of malice; just a mistake. So yeah, not to stir anything up or anything, but I was just wondering if someone had told you that you couldn't be renamed; if someone did, they appear to have been honestly mistaken. Too late to do much of anything about it now, I suppose. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dennis knows more of the detail than I do, but I believe it was WilliamH who decided that a rename was impossible. I'd have preferred to be renamed, as I was subsequently accused of trying to hide. Eric   Corbett  22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but such accusations don't mean shit, not to people who matter, like you and me. WK, thanks for your fact-finding. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have heard that 50k limit before and just assumed it was correct. Crat policies are just not something regular admin think about, it is outside of what we work with regularly.  I assume that 99.99% of all renames are editors with less than 50k as well.  If memory serves me, William was ready to move, then came back and said he couldn't because of that limit.  I'm not sure, it was a while back.  I do know that William very easily could have just said "put in a request in the regular venue" but he didn't and handled it all without being prodded.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, 'crat policies still scare me shitless; as you observed above, I'm still fairly new to them in the scheme of things. But the point is that although renames of accounts with a lot of edits can cause issues--it's taxing on the job queue and should only be done at low-traffic times--there's no hard limit on account renames; we changed DIREKTOR to Director without too much trouble while they were at 52k edits or so without anything exploding too badly. Director's request was what drove me to research this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had getting on for 100,000 edits more than DIREKTOR at the time of the rename/usurpation, so maybe there was some technical limitation. Eric   Corbett  00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request
Out of respect for victims of abuse, would you please consider striking or rephrasing this? The analogy is logically sound but insensitive. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Eric   Corbett  00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , it is an analogy of a general nature - sadly with several perpetrators and many victims - to a number that means that it is not singling out anyone. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch
I just sent you a PDF, but after looking at it myself I see there's little value to it. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a read through it anyway, there might be something we can use either in the blue men or another article in our Scottish mythology series of articles. Eric   Corbett  17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Yes, I do think there's a lot there to be used elsewhere. Fascinating stuff, Eric. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been rather surprised at just how poor many of our mythology articles are, so Sagaciousphil and I are trying to set a new benchmark. :-) Eric   Corbett  18:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever thought of doing an article on Robert Kirk's The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies? It looks like it could be just your thing after the excellent job you did on The Man in the Moone. There is a full copy of it here. Richerman    (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that later, thanks. Eric   Corbett  13:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Quarter million hits in May
California Chrome runs for the Triple Crown in the Belmont on June 7. Article had over 270,000 hits in May alone. All hands on deck for vandalism this week from well meaning newbies and a few trolls (got 50K hits Preakness Day, May 17 and an idiot who erased half the article right in the middle of it). Eric, (or one of Eric's fine TPSers) if you are inclined to do some copyedits on an article that is going to be high-traffic and that I'm taking to FAC after the dust settles (regardless of outcome), I would be appreciative. Montanabw (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of hits. Before you go to FAC you need to make your accessdates consistently formatted though. Eric   Corbett  18:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think someone just went through and got those; the beauty of posting anything on your page, there ARE Good Wikifauna about.  Montanabw (talk)  20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Insofar as it would prevent instances similar to the one during the Preakness, I am not sure semi-protection would be a bad idea from Saturday to Monday or so, but I'll defer to you on that, . Either way, I have the article watchlisted.  Go  Phightins  !  20:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd very much want semi-protection, preferably as of NOW through Monday, actually. Can you pop on the lock?   Montanabw (talk)  20:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I will note that potentially, if someone was bent on screwing with the article, they could become autoconfirmed by Saturday if they started today and thus could circumvent the protection, but I highly doubt that will happen. Either way, between the extra eyes and the semi-protection, that should cut down on most of the vandalism. Great article!  Go  Phightins  !  20:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thinks. Yeah, I doubt a troll will be that good at advanced planning. But eliminate the random IPs, well-meaning and otherwise, and we'll be down to just watching a couple of established drive-bys who might make a hasty edit in an attempt to be helpful, and many of those have helpful potential even if they require a bit of reformatting or something. Montanabw (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The temporary semi is doing what it's supposed to do; NO TROLLS! So grateful to everyone for their help!  79,000 hits today Wow!   Montanabw (talk)  06:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * not much trolling yet for my songs, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Requires a different class of troll I suspect.:) DBaK (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Does this mean I can go and vandalize it now? ... And sorry it didn't win - actually I nearly put some money on, so I am quite relieved now that I failed to do so. DBaK (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To the talk page stalkers
California Chrome will need serious vandal patrol due to the 2014 Belmont Stakes for a period from about 4:30 PM Eastern time (I think that's -5 GMT) until about 7:30 EST on Saturday. Actually, keeping eyes on it all day Saturday would be much welcomed. The article isn't perfect, but other than typo and other minor fixing and entering stats when the race is done, I'm hoping we can keep it, um "stable" for the next 18 hours. It's had over 350K hits since it was created, and 19K hits just on Friday. Huge traffic for something I've worked on. Montanabw (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's high time the powers that be here on WP looked at ways of preventing vandalism instead of reversing it if it's ever noticed. California Chrome was already on my watch list anyway. Eric   Corbett  13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When an article is an easy target, is a GA or better, and the risk of vandalism is real, many admin will be very quick on the trigger to semi or full protect an article. Technically, policy doesn't allow us to do anything until there has been at least some vandalism, even if just one instance (normally takes 3 or so). The policy that says we have to wait and can't preemptively protect...that isn't decided by admin or the powers that be.  That is decided by the community.  BTW, semi-protection is more or less 99% effective with preventing vandalism.  If you want preemptive protection under certain circumstances, change the policy.  I see pros and cons to the idea.   Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The "anyone can edit" mantra, often interpreted as "anyone can edit anything" is at the heart of the problem, even though it's a blatant lie. The community can't change that crazy idea and the WMF won't. Eric   Corbett  14:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering actually whether there is a slowdown or less complete pickup of vandalism emerging over the past wee while - just a couple of things I came across uncorrected. Might start a discussion about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the vandals are becoming more sophisticated? Eric   Corbett  14:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seen a few - just blocked one the other day. Opened it up at Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Vandal-reversion is not usually my thing but I've been wondering about maintenance-fatigue and maybe if we get consensus that it is becoming more and more arduous we need to look at some other options. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be an interesting discussion to have. I'm reminded of a statistic I saw quoted a few years ago claiming that most computer programmers were only really productive for about three years. After that they become more and more involved in maintaining what they've written. What I think will block any change here on WP though is the article of faith that the newest IP editor has just as much right to edit today's main page featured article as someone who's written forty of them, but equal rights without equal responsibility is a nonsense. Consider the way that IPs are treated compared to registered users for instance. Very little point in blocking an IP address for more than a token day or so, but registered users too often get indefinitely blocked at the drop of a hat, sometimes even on a whim. Eric   Corbett  14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing - how do you scale - restrict to experts, none of these things ever gets off the ground and never will - open up to all and it makes a massively messy yet fertile mess we've spent the more recent half-decade on wikipedia buffing and tidying up. Key is when do we think about moving more to maintenance phase - I don't know. I must admit I've never felt great about WP:OWN and wondered about tweaking it. Most of the stuff I edit is esoteric, so I don't really see the article erosion, but common/broad articles it's a real problem. For lack of anything else, at least FA status defines a point that can be referred to, though that can be difficult too. I recently tried to tidy up green, which I've been meaning to continue, after buffed it to GA many moons ago - check the edit history and talk page. And that is not even getting to red, yellow, blue etc. I guess it is a problem when you come across folks who mean well but do not agree with some widely-accepted practices/sourcing/rules/etc.....


 * You mention IPs, well how about blocked users? This one came back and lit the fuse to the powderkeg that is bird capitalisation here, which eventually led to a showdown after a standoff of several years' duration. I support a Manual of style but the vitriol that resulted and came to a head here, leaving a bunch of bird editors feeling like they'd been shat on wasn't good and now a bunch have retired, with a parting shot or so. This actually really sucked - not sure how it could have gone differently but anyway....debrief over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever is done, it should be less clunky and troublesome than pending changes. I have two articles with PC on my watchlist - Knight and Harold Godwinson - and they are a pain in the ass to figure out every single time I have to deal with a change - it's a clunky interface and counter-intuitive. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally take articles with PC enabled off my watchlist. Eric   Corbett  16:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good discussion. 'Chrome is protected based on past editing history, and PC sucks.  Montanabw (talk)  17:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PC is a waste of time - someone makes an edit...and then disappears - generally leaving the reviewer with the last of finding a reference for the added material most of the time. I liberally use semiprotection. Life's too short. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another problem I think is that editor's time is considered to have no value. Eric   Corbett  22:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although bots are generally good, I agree that as editing becomes more specialised, it takes longer to get people new to the system "trained up" as it were, and hence there is an investment in ensuring their time is used productively, which is an issue not considered a priority. This was part of my drive with the core and stub contests, which was to explore articles that had not been buffed for DYK/GA/FA, and confirm my suspecions that many just lie fallow for years since initial expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would echo your comments on PC and using semi-protection liberally. Sometimes I think we worry too much about not hurting IP's feelings and not enough about actually building an encyclopedia. ie: shifting more towards a social media site.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PC is such a pain in the arse, as described: I've also got a couple of pages with PC on my watchlist, and my experience is the same as Cas Liber's. Trouble is, I do want at least one of those pages with PC on my watchlist... Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Bristol
I have been doing some work trying to get Bristol up to the standard for a FA nomination. User:Folklore1 from the Guild of Copy Editors has done some great work on the prose over the last couple of weeks, but if you had time to give it a look over as well that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 19:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * City articles are always really hard work, but I'll take a look. Eric   Corbett  19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've just pinged you, I was not comfortable about Ashford, Kent sailing through an extremely lightweight GA review. Since green blobs are not cash redeemable, I have restarted the review with Blofeld at the controls. It has been a long slog already. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   20:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Enid Blyton
This is a note to let the main editors of Enid Blyton know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 24, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 24, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Enid Blyton (1897–1968) was an English children's writer whose books have sold more than 600 million copies. She wrote on a wide range of topics, but is best remembered for her Noddy, Famous Five, and Secret Seven series. Her first book, Child Whispers (cover pictured), was published in 1922. Following the success of her early novels such as Adventures of the Wishing Chair (1937) and The Enchanted Wood (1939), Blyton went on to build a literary empire, sometimes producing fifty books a year. Her work became increasingly controversial from the 1950s onwards because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing and the themes of her books. Some libraries and schools banned her works, which the BBC had refused to broadcast from the 1930s until the 1950s because they were perceived to lack literary merit. Her books have been criticised as being elitist, sexist, racist, xenophobic and at odds with the more liberal environment emerging in post-war Britain, but have continued to be bestsellers. The story of her life was dramatised in a 2009 BBC film, Enid, featuring Helena Bonham Carter; there have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Image parameter
This edit might have restored the similar version again, but I've fixed it here. Actually I am accessing all the pages that come under this category, Category:Infobox book image param needs updating, any imbalanced infobox that is having issue with the image parameters will be automatically added to this category. There are over 14,000 pages that have been badly edited in terms of selecting the image parameter. So if you see any, just add a separate "image size" section, and place the preferred size.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks fine now, but your previous edit made the image appear too big. On the more general point my interest in infoboxes is approximately zero. Most are very ill-considered and far too intrusive, so I won't be joining you on your campaign to "fix" them. Eric   Corbett  09:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got you.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Delius
It is a featured article, but you think that if birth/death dates can removed from the first line?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read your userpage, nice! But I had 1 thing to note. "Surviving CSD requests" Is not working anymore because it is outdated.
 * Discovered 2 new tools from the userpage.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No I don't think that birth/death dates can be removed from the first line, FA or not. Why do you ask? Eric   Corbett  08:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, about 8/10 featured articles included it. I saw you've removed link.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please tell me which biographical featured articles you have found that don't have the birth / death dates in the first line. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't saved or remembered but there was one incorrect name on the FA that I had saved some days ago, it is Antoine de Beauterne. You may want to remove. Thanks  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I might want to remove what from what, and why? I don't understand what you're saying. Antoine de Beauterne is not an FA, nor is it linked from any FAs. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Had a few windows opened, them having a similar name. I confused with another article. My bad :-) So I just agreed that similar set of dating pattern can be implied to all articles. can you or Eric redirect me to the specific guideline that is good enough for backing up these editing patterns? Thanks a lot. I guess there are thousands of articles that may require such improvement.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:OPENPARA. Pam  D  22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 23:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi
wanted to look something up here on wiki ... and thought I'd drop by and say hi. "Hello" Eric. Hope life is treating you and the Mrs. well. All my best. Ched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.99.132 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything's hunky-dory Ched, nice to hear from you again. I hope you won't be a stranger. Eric   Corbett  15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Views sought on sources for the Reculver FAC
Hello Eric (and esteemed stalkers), any chance of commenting on a discussion about possible use of primary sources and/or OR at the Reculver FAC? This question has arisen through a source review kindly undertaken by hamiltonstone, who has suggested I ask around for the views of others. Whatever your views might be I'm keen to get this wrapped up, one way or the other. The discussion begins at "* Footnote 77 - is a cite to Access to Archives", and (as I write) it's towards the end of the FAC. No worries if not. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything that Wikipedia doesn't want, that's me
I'm a white, male, graduate European and apparently therefore worth nothing to the WMF. Easily replaceable. Doesn't bother me though, because my opinion of the WMF is that it's even more easily replaceable by a tribe of monkeys. Eric  Corbett  20:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey! That might be offensive to monkeys. They have standards, you know... Intothatdarkness 20:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am not much better, just a woman, otherwise same. I remember Trotz today, having performed it for the first time, Giano helped with the related church article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But you're a woman Gerda, you're worth far more than I am. Eric   Corbett  20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what Trotz means, and you know who defines worth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hundredth monkey effect? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about women in general, but I'm close to crone status and we clearly are as worthless as can be. Remember the 9 million of us burned at the stake in the 14th century... wise women are a dangerous thing .... muahahahahahahaaaaa!   Montanabw (talk)  21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a common misconception that all witches were women, but take a look at the Paisley witches, and see if you can read the account of those two brothers asking to hold hands while they were being garotted without it bringing tears to your eyes. In England there were only about 500 executions for witchcraft – 500 too many I agree – but nothing like 9 million. Eric   Corbett  22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 14th century? Remember Grace Sherwood? pardoned 300 years later, in 2006 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Who could forget Grace? Eric   Corbett  22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not me. In our town, witches (= single wealthy woman) were burnt in the 17th century, sadly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * this article explains it pretty well. England was relatively enlightened, all told. The 9 million figure is no doubt high, but it factors in all of Europe for about 500 years, and add in the heretics and other victims of rhe inquisition and it may not be as far off as one might think.  Montanabw (talk)  22:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the numbers, so I may be talking out of my anus, but if you factor in heretics then 9 million may not be so wide of the mark. But that's a remarkably well-balanced article you've linked to there Montanabw. Eric   Corbett  22:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread is displaying what is for me a very typical experience. About half of those commenting here are female, which is pretty much what I find when I'm collaborating with other editors. I just can't see this 13% female stuff at all, seems to me that most of the good stuff here is at least 75% female. Eric  Corbett  22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the 13% is more reflective of how the "in-crowd" views women...or the percentage of said crowd that is actually female? Intothatdarkness 22:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course 75% of the good stuff is female, we do twice the work for half the credit! I think the 13% number is low, but I don't think we are above 25-30% just looking at overall contributions and the systemic bias issue.  Also, where there is drahmahz, most women tend to avoid conflict as opposed to wading straight into it the way I do...   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's not been my experience at all. SandyG for instance didn't hold back. There seems to be some kind of idea that females are interested in different things than males are, but I really can't see that medieval bishops, collieries, or Scottish mythology are obviously girlie topics. Eric   Corbett  22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, we girlies are not all pink ponies and magic unicorns, but you might note that most aren't particularly fond of the type of conflict that flourishes on the WP drama boards tended by the little boys who live in their mummy's basement. As for me and SandyG, all I can say is that you are correct, but it also must be noted that two queen bees in one hive does tend to not end well.  ;-)    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I’d like to know how the statistics are produced—from surveys? What proportion of users is identifiable as to sex from a template or category? (Certainly some insist on being referred to with epicene pronouns.) How many of those here who self-identify ‘conversationally’, or by using an obviously gendered handle, would be found in a database query? Is there a difference between the respective proportions of men and women who identify themselves?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If I recall, I think it was a survey that generated the 13% figure, so a self-selection bias existed (and I don't recall participating in said survey, FWIW).  A database search would definitely leave out people such as myself who deliberately chose a non-gendered user name and though I don't hide being female, I don't really advertise it either.  Nonetheless, I don't get the impression that women's participation is close to 50-50.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, it was a survey; it was conducted in 2008 and reportedly had some 175k respondents. (I just happened across an old Signpost article mentioning it, “Gender gap and conflict aversion“ so thought I’d link it here, JFTR.)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not difficult to feel undervalued on wikipedia no matter who you are. I don't disclose my gender, although it's probably known and I don't seek drama but sometimes it finds me. I classify editors by capability and helpfulness, not by gender. I no longer attempt to take articles to GA because, ....well let's say I no longer take articles to GA. I'd rather write something better than a stub without the hassle. I started here five years ago to improve something that nobody else was likely to and I value myself for what I add because I don't expect anybody else to. Eric you are valued by people who matter, content creators like yourself, maybe not so prolific, but editors who do the research and the writing and who can rely on you to help when they need it. WMF, wtf do they do to create content, nothing, but they should support the content creators which is what this place should be about. And by the way, my particular witch was a man. J3Mrs (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the two WP witches I celebrate with every Precious I pass are also men, - I am surprised that it is not refused more often by people who don't want to be associated with the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Kelpie
This is a note to let the main editors of Kelpie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 29, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 29, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Kelpie is the Lowland Scottish name given to a malevolent water spirit or demon inhabiting the lochs and pools of Scotland. It has usually been described as appearing as a horse, but can adopt human form. Some accounts state that the kelpie retains its hooves when appearing as a human, leading to its association with the Christian idea of Satan as alluded to by Robert Burns in his poem "Address to the Deil". Almost every sizeable body of water in Scotland has an associated kelpie story, but the most extensively reported is that of Loch Ness, first recorded in the 6th century. The kelpie has counterparts across the world, such as the wihwin of South America, the Scandinavian bäckahästen and the Australian bunyip. The origin of the belief in malevolent water horses may lie in the human sacrifices once made to appease the gods of water, but it also helped to keep children away from dangerous stretches of water and to warn young women to be wary of handsome strangers. Kelpies have been portrayed in their various forms in art (painting by Thomas Millie Dow pictured) and literature, most recently in two 30 m high steel sculptures in Falkirk, The Kelpies.

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)
My traditional congratulations (FA congrats) on the promotion of another article to FA status (Kelpie) coupled with my traditional invitation to use TFAR to nominate it for a main-page appearance as and when you wish, or when icicles form on the boilerpipes of Hades, whichever comes first. Yours, BencherliteTalk 23:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to my co-nominator to decide whether she wants to go for a TFA or not, but probably everyone ought to go through it once. Eric   Corbett  00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eric - Gerda nominated it.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You cats are awesome. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Water bull
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha!
Been looking for months for the photograph of you and. Ah, to be young again. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually that guy on the left does look a bit like me when I was younger. Except for the haircut, the clothes and the face of course. Eric   Corbett  13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So they captured the punk attitude exactly? ;-)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, this would be a closer approximation, although in my time we were obliged to wear crash helmets. Eric   Corbett  19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

horses, by definition, can't carry out "manual labour"
Good point (though to be fair they can't normally stretch their backs, glue little kids to themselves, transform into naked sexpots or talk either). Did you see my suggestion/question on the talk page? Belle (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I did, and my first impression is that the engraving looks nothing like any description of kelpie that I've seen. Eric   Corbett  11:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True enough, but it is a horse spirit/demon and commonly used (yes, yes, citation needed, let me get in there before anybody else). At the moment the article is quite clear that the kelpie is a horse spirit and if it does take human form it is almost invariably that of a man, but then has illustrations of women draped languidly over rocks. ("Kelpies traditionally look nothing like these images" might be a good caption). I do appreciate it is a bit of a rock and a hard place situation ("stuck between no illustrations or tangential illustrations" doesn't quite have the same ring to it) and I expect you've already looked for free pics of weed-draped horses with their hoofs on backwards. Shut up, Belle, you are just being annoying now. Belle (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A fundamental problem I have with this image it that it shows a creature that's half man half horse, whereas kelpies appear either in human form or equine form, not some mixture of the two. I expect that Sagaciousphil will have a view on this as well though, and she may well disagree with me. Eric   Corbett  12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An orobas is not a kelpie - it is something entirely different and has no connection to it whatsoever.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And also, for something completely different, great work on Enid Blyton! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was hard work, but it goes to show that men like Dr. Blofeld and I are quite capable of writing decent articles about women, doesn't require a woman to do it. Eric   Corbett  01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I wouldn't have pulled that from it, but sure! Seriously, again, congrats to you and to Ernst too. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rather fed up being regarded as of less value than a female editor simply because I'm male. And I've yet to see what subject areas would be enhanced by the attention of more female editors. I've worked with female editors on subjects ranging from mining and industrial archaeology to cannibalism, and they seem to think about stuff in just the same way that I do. I'm not saying that the demographics of WP editors doesn't need to be addressed, but I don't see gender as being the most important of the necessary corrections. Eric   Corbett  02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, nicely done, and do stop whining about the girl thing. ;-) You aren't part of the problem, with articles like Blyton, you are part of the solution. ;-)  The systemic bias problem on wiki has nothing to do with content creators, and it has a lot to do with idiots who insist that we need articles about every guy who ever played cricket in Sri Lanka but question if an Olympic equestrian competitor is notable.  Recentism is also a problem, just saved a 19th century steeplechase rider - and a guy, to boot - from an AfD brought by someone who felt the fellow was getting insufficient hits from Google...  :-P    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Enid Blyton:  precious  again! Dr. Blofeld and you are quite capable of writing decent articles, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to see it on the main page, a pity there's not a free photograph of her or one of her more notable books though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Eric, if you have some time to spare would you be able to give Rape during the Rwandan Genocide a bit of a polish please? I was asking Drmies about the reviewer for GA vanishing and it was recommended I ask you to tidy it up, as I suck at grammar. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time. I'm going to have very little time for WP over the next week or so, and may not even have Internet access. Eric   Corbett  22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, whenever you have the time, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)