User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/January

Happy 2015
Best wishes for a productive and dramah-free year's editing in 2015, and health and happiness beyond the encyclopedia. Pam D  15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pam. We'll see what this year brings on WP, another ArbCom case for something or other I expect. Eric   Corbett  17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Article on Alexander Luria
Hello Eric Corbett; Yngvadottir did a really top re-write on Alexander Luria, and suggested you might be able to help the article toward peer review status. Yngvad has put his finger on the main issue which is that there is only one biography about him even thirty years after his death. Luria's research is, however, quoted repeatedly and repeatedly even in current research. Is the current article any closer to inching towards peer review quality? Cheers. FelixRosch  (TALK ) 17:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's really no such thing as "peer review quality", just submit it for a peer review. Having quickly read through the article two things jump out at me though. The first is that some of the prose makes no sense at all to me. For instance, "The 1930s were significant to Luria because his prescient studies of indigenous people opened the field of multiculturalism to his general interests." I have absolutely no idea what that means.


 * The second thing is that the Scientific influence of Vygotsky section is way off topic, and whatever is specifically relevant to Luria ought to be distributed in the appropriate places in the article. Eric   Corbett  17:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It was nice of you to visit the article. I have revised/rewritten the sense of the problem sentence you just pointed out. Also, I strongly cut back the text in the Vygotsky section. Having only the one published biography about Alexander Luria seems to be a possible red herring for nominating the article for, I assume, a GA review. If there are any oversights remaining in the article then let me know and I'll try to take care of them before the next steps of nomination. Cheers. FelixRosch   (TALK ) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That there's only one published biography ought not to be a problem for GA. Eric   Corbett  19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where?
Maybe you should just add where Undine caught her husband in the act of adultery, if it's so important. Was it in the bridal bed? The backseat of her jeep? On top of the washing machine? Maybe it does matter. Drmies (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the castle according to this. Written by Fred of the Fucking Mount Why Mad?. On a very brief scan, it seems that Undine's husband thought she was dead. As for the complainant- if I had blood coming out of my colon, I'd get it checked out. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But where in the castle? Eric   Corbett  13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got it wrong- it appears that Huldbrand and Bertalda had "a confidential conversation" in a "waggon" filled with cotton; Hulbrand dies just before he is to be married to Bertalda, when Undine appears to him. H and B are rescued from the wagon by Undine when it turns into foam, courtesy of her father Kuhleborn, who's the driver. So, Undine doesn't actually catch her husband in adultery. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The adultery bit does appear to be incorrect. Huldbrand's unfaithfulness appears to be his marriage to Bertalda. Eric   Corbett  14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... actually I'm uncertain which Ondine story is being referred to here, but it certainly isn't Fouqué's. Eric   Corbett  16:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As a side note, we went to the woods for Rosie's birthday and played Pooh Sticks. She won. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's Poohsticks, thank you very much. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking through Wikipedia for the White Lady of Avenel I came across Comte de Gabalis (text here, including image of naiad), an article that seems to have escaped the attention of the Shakespeare fascists--by which I mean those who claim erroneously that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, a ridiculous proposition of course. And that article identifies the titular "Count of the Cabala" as Roger Bacon (who is Shakespeare) and then as Saint Germain. If you've read Foucault's Pendulum, raise your hand. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read that, but many years ago now. There's something not right about the way we're telling the story of Ondin's curse that needs to be fixed; Ondine killed her husband with a kiss, not by cursing him, but it may require a consultation with the text of Giradoux's play to figure out where the loss of autonomic functions actually fits in. Eric   Corbett  16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to offer on that topic yet; I've just been finding tidbits of intertextuality (OK, a lot of them). What I see is a lead that needs expanding. As we've seen before, there is kind of a fundamental problem--do you take term X in a definitional sense, forcing yourself to pin it down to (in this case) one particular author and era, or do you take it (as I typically do) broadly, as an idea, or maybe a trope? In the latter case one runs the risk of slight anachronism, but I think that's partly the result of fetishizing a name. The former runs the risk of undue limitation and a fragmentation of what in history, literature, and myth appears to be a pretty continues state of affairs--of a belief ("belief") in a certain kind of creature with certain kinds of qualities. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The description section needs some expansion yet before worrying about the lead. Eric   Corbett  17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, my sworn duty as a Wikipedia editor overrides my desire for comedy. For the full crazy effect, look at this version, longer but essentially the same as the one I just undid. The real shits and giggles lie in the fact that more than a few Wikipedia editors have looked at those versions without, apparently, raising an eyebrow. This includes --but he is, I believe, a Rosicrucian. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What an article! Can't believe I didn't think it was a start (That was an AWB edit, when I got a little overeager with stub tagging). But Bacon's Shakespearean investigations must have created his greatest legacy I am sure? As a true universalist, you cannot deny the importance of complex esoteric beliefs to true knowledge of the world.... Sadads (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it now, and I have become convinced that Ovid was also Bacon. I mean Shakespeare. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bacon and ovid? All-day breakfast at the Swan of Snitterfield? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you read this? I've ordered the book--it has a 42-page appendix on Undine, where she came from and where she goes. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I can read that review. Looks as if the book could be very useful in helping to stitch the various threads together. Eric   Corbett  17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

V
Eric, what do you think about these edits? - article before. What I think it was odd that this user removed a referenced entry, with an odd comment. Now I noticed he is edtiting her article too, removing big amounts of info. Also this. Looks like NPOV edits too me. Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, to take things in order, I've never thought much of categories, so I wouldn't be concerned about altering them. Vanna Bonta is probably famous enough to be included in that list, although I don't think that section should be written as a list anyway. The last edit I don't see as being problematic, just removing some clutter. Eric   Corbett  13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree about the last one. What worries me the editors edit summary: (removed non-famous owner of a chow-chow) and that he -she goes editing the article removing quite large bits - souced too. Hafspajen (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant ...was not the dog article ( might not made myself clear enough) but it was the actual Vanna Bonta article edits, that worries me. LIKE THIS, that was what I wanted to ask you about what do you think about those edits. rather a lot of them.  It was only trough the dog article noticed the editor. And actually he was back again to the dod article tagging the entry as better source needed. like this one Is this a good enough source? Hafspajen (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The material that was removed is a bit overly gushing for me, so I probably agree with its removal. As for IMdb, you can't use that as a reliable source for anything. Eric   Corbett  20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK then. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Eddybox
Stefan2 has "commented out" the image you suggested because of WP:NFCC. Any suggestions as to how to get around this? Buster Seven   Talk  13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You could try this one Eric   Corbett  14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. If I get the bio, this Sunday. If not, Sunday following. Buster Seven   Talk  15:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank You. Buster Seven   Talk 

Books and Bytes - Issue 9
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 9, November-December 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
 * Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Capitalisation of Scheduled monument, Ancient monument etc - are they proper nouns?
A comment at Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset/archive1 has asked about capitalisation of "scheduled monument" (and by implication Ancient monument). They are defined by the law Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 does this make them "proper nouns" or not? Any advice or contributions to the discussion appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it does, and in fact the text of the Act refers to "scheduled monument" and "ancient monument", which I think is the clincher. Eric   Corbett  18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I understand from a mutual friend that you seconded my nomination for "Editor of the Week", that was very kind of you. I feel rather guilty as I have wound back contributing quite a lot recently. I do like the Bongs' miners. J3Mrs (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I hoped you might. Eric   Corbett  20:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You, me, and your nominator Sagaciousphil are little more than occasional visitors here now. so no need for you feel guilty. We are after all only easily replaceable units of work. Eric   Corbett  00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Eric!
 Some Chocolate Cake and a pink Birthday Party Poodle for 2015. ..

...with much pink feelings..... Best wishes from Haffy for a happy and healthy 2015 Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very kind of you. Eric   Corbett  13:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday, seek delight! (I know, not exactly your topic, but written/expanded on my mom's birthday thinking of that, - my poodle) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda. I used to think of poodles as toys, girl's dogs, but I've come to realise that they can be really big bruisers as well. Eric   Corbett  13:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially the Pink Vegetarian Male ones... Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)==Happy Birthday Eric!==


 * Thanks, that's very kind of you. Eric   Corbett  13:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday, seek delight! (I know, not exactly your topic, but written/expanded on my mom's birthday thinking of that, - my poodle) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda. I used to think of poodles as toys, girl's dogs, but I've come to realise that they can be really big bruisers as well. Eric   Corbett  13:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially the Pink Vegetarian Male ones... Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Many happy returns :) J3Mrs (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I've got older I've usually tried to avoid birthdays, but the Internet has made that virtually impossible today. Eric   Corbett  15:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So do I but I'd be mortified if I wasn't taken out for a meal. I'm about, but busy, dogsitting today, not sure who's in charge but a long walk has worn him out and he's chewing a huge marrowbone. Otherwise I'm plodding on with little enthusiasm. J3Mrs (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The meal has been organised, no worries on that score. Eric   Corbett  16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you got any Chocolate cake to your meal in real life? Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No chocolate cake, but I did get my favourite ice cream, Neapolitan. Tomorrow I may push the boat out and go for a banana split, but I'll have to starve myself first. Eric   Corbett  21:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, if that is your favorite ice cream, and you like beer, perhaps you can try this one--it actually tastes and feels sort of like all three at once. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I might give that a go. As a kid I loved ice cream in lemonade. Eric   Corbett  02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday! --John (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Eric   Corbett  21:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Many happy returns :) J3Mrs (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I've got older I've usually tried to avoid birthdays, but the Internet has made that virtually impossible today. Eric   Corbett  15:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So do I but I'd be mortified if I wasn't taken out for a meal. I'm about, but busy, dogsitting today, not sure who's in charge but a long walk has worn him out and he's chewing a huge marrowbone. Otherwise I'm plodding on with little enthusiasm. J3Mrs (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The meal has been organised, no worries on that score. Eric   Corbett  16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you got any Chocolate cake to your meal in real life? Hafspajen (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No chocolate cake, but I did get my favourite ice cream, Neapolitan. Tomorrow I may push the boat out and go for a banana split, but I'll have to starve myself first. Eric   Corbett  21:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, if that is your favorite ice cream, and you like beer, perhaps you can try this one--it actually tastes and feels sort of like all three at once. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I might give that a go. As a kid I loved ice cream in lemonade. Eric   Corbett  02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday! --John (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Eric   Corbett  21:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop responding to provocations
Don't let JW play you, Eric. You know what he's up to — just back off and let other people take care of it. Don't be a moth to his open flame... Carrite (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Simpler: don't edit on Monday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda, just because it's Monday doesn't make it open season on me. Eric   Corbett  22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had successfully not looked at that page for weeks, but Floq's statement made me curious. Arb sorrows pending again, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't take much interest in what happens in arbitration cases, even in my own. Eric   Corbett  23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind for myself, thanks to your unforgotten encouragement and later talk about dignity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Wales is no flame and I'm no moth, but he does have serious questions to answer nevertheless. Eric   Corbett  22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Sebald's Austerlitz I have started thinking about moths quite differently. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment from Mr Wales ought not to be allowed to be buried


He knows very well the regard, or more accurately the lack of it, that I hold him in, but the difference between us that I don't keep trying to provoke him into some kind of sanctionable offence. What would be the point anyway, as he's unsanctionable? Eric  Corbett  00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Notice will be served. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let it go, Eric. There is no good outcome for you, politically speaking, going toe to toe with The Co-Founder. He chips at you, he looks petty, you look like a good guy for staying away, and slowly the dynamic changes... Carrite (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no good outcome for him in going toe to toe with me, so why does he persist in doing it? Eric   Corbett  02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we've gone from a block of Jimbo being an embarrassing error by an admin ha ha (akin to deleting the main page), to something that is almost a matter of time. How the mighty are fallen, and by their own fingers, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Time will tell I suppose. Eric   Corbett  02:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a pattern of closing down discussion on Mr Wales's talk page whenever an issue inconvenient to his disciples is raised. It's really difficult to see how that can be interpreted as being healthy. Eric   Corbett  02:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is priceless, coming as it does from the crowned emperor of personal attacks. Who true to form is now making himself scarce until the obnoxious comment on his talk page is archived and, he hopes, forgotten. Eric  Corbett  12:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your encouragement and talk about dignity (a word that not everybody can use) is not forgotten, see just above, and I found it interesting to follow a link to 2013, - not much changed, but Ched is more active again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've completely dialled out from Jimbo and what he says now. This is 2015 now, nothing good is going to come of it. Given that he knows that what he says about you is going to provoke a reaction I'd ignore him, but that's me.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As they say, DFTT.  Montanabw (talk)  22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If I was going to FTT, I would slap uw-npa2 on his talk. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DO IT Ritchie333!  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo it seems will always hold a grudge. It's common on here though. Sandy Georgia for whatever reason has always been that way towards me, in fact I don't think I've ever encountered a single situation on here in 8 years with her which has been a positive one. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh profanity
I thought some of the people here might be interested in this one, should it be deleted? The AFD needs some wider input. I reckon it should be deleted asap, words like "амбас " might reduce the 13% female to just one. :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Eric, at the risk of sounding like a grandfather, please don't comment in that WER thread anymore--the point was valid and has served its purpose, but someone is going to read it all wrong and throw you in front of the bus. And poking Jimbo is poking the bear; y'all should just stop poking each other altogether. He may be an oxen and you may be a gadfly, but if his big ole tail swats you we're all worse off. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Someone" may do as they please. Eric   Corbett  19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fundamentally opposed with every fibre of my being to these prohibitions on discussing certain issues that ArbCom has become all too ready to hand out for the sake of a quiet life. So "Someone" will just have to live with that. Eric   Corbett  22:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Retention discussion

 * Thanks John. What's happened though is pretty much what I thought would happen with that "broadly construed" nonsense that ArbCom is so fond of, which is why I've been declining invitations to get involved with articles on female subjects. It's just manna from heaven for the Sandsteins of this project. Eric   Corbett  17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement request notice
I have made an enforcement request against you at AE - Eric Corbett. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. Hopefully it will result in you being banned. Eric   Corbett  00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|43px]] I do not often get to demonstrate how much I am in your corner. I add my hope to your hope. I live for the day LB would fly away on her broom. (Have I said lately I am a female editor...?)  All the best,  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The strange thing is that I've collaborated with loads of female editors on articles, probably more females than males, yet not a single one has ever complained about the the way I've treated them or interacted with them. The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across and I wouldn't know from Adam. Eric   Corbett  18:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What you're going through at the moment, is something I've been through. Your best course of action, is to remain silent on the events. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I guessed that Fylbecatalous was a female editor who loves cats ... but there's another prominent editor I have worked with who could either be female or gay male, and whose topics of interest and style fits both profiles pretty equally. And frankly I don't care which as long as they can write articles. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I love cats myself, I have two of them, and I'd kick the shit out of anyone who tried to give them a hard time, male or female. Eric   Corbett  21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a course of action, but is it the best? What happens if we're all silent? Silence is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Eric   Corbett  17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you're under an Arb restriction, you're generally viewed as guilty until proven innocent. Best to let others defend you at times like this. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're generally viewed as being guilty, full stop. Eric   Corbett  17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention
I didn't see your name on the members list. Believe me when I say that one of the individuals who offers the most help for newer reviewers would be a very welcome addition. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a joiner John, and given recent events I'll not be doing very much more helping. Every day it's just more and and more provocative BS, even from our God king himself. Eric   Corbett  23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember you're talking to a guy who retired from the project a year ago here as a result of dealing with someone who even the arbs in the relevant case called a serious SPA issue (having edited a total of 3 closely related articles in 8 years) and indicated was a serious POV pusher, whom I have basically been stalked by since then. And I obviously agree that the comments made by others there were themselves more than a bit out of line - Buster seemed to say the same thing in his comments. But, as a former Biography project A-Class reviewer, I know that there ain't that many good reviewers, and good reviewers are one of the things which probably help keep editors who get their articles reviewed around. We could definitely use some knowledgeable input in that regard. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go so far as to say that the lack of good reviewers at all levels is a significant factor in editor retention. We all know how it feels to work your butt off on an article, submit it at GA, and then see it ignored for months. Eric   Corbett  23:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not usually a fan of cups and contests on here, but the GA Cup has been reasonably well behaved and helped reduce the backlog down a bit, so hopefully it's got better. The worst thing about working on an article then submitting it to GA is keeping it at GA level in the queue while a horde of rampaging IPs come along and try and bugger it up - for music articles this usually involves "in popular culture" or musical genre warring. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a widespread problem, not unique to music articles. Consider that flytrap Notable persons section in pretty much every township article for instance. Eric   Corbett  17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this drives me up the wall, bad source, wrongly formatted, trivia, wild speculation, off topic, largely irrelevant ... but by the time I get to it other editors have "helpfully" done really important things like make sure a web link starts with http, repair disambiguation links, and other stuff that ignores totally whether the edit was useful or not, and making a straight "undo" impossible, requiring me to pick apart the original edit or resign myself to having a "GA" that doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. Sorry, I need a lie down now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey, Eric. I'm recently looking at improving some of the Chinese Food articles that are relevant to my interests. I know that one of the B-class requirements is for an article to have "coverage"; this is easy for foods with extensive history, but relevant information can be harder to find for some traditional "folk" dishes that has nothing to note other than perhaps that millions of Chinese people ate them for some centuries.

I just want to know: in your experience, how much - and what kinds of - information would be required before a food article would pass B-class, GA, or FA status? Especially for folk food without lots of history or notability in western culture?

Thanks, and apologies for the trouble.

<font style="font-family:script;font-size:16px;vertical-align:top;position:relative;top:-13px;">&#8610; Remor A &#8611; 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you tried looking at other B rated food articles to compare with? That is usually pretty helpful.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me, but given the way I've been treated here over the years, and am still being treated, I'm in no frame of mind to help anyone with anything. Perhaps might care to help?  Eric   Corbett  23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Cassianto: I've tried, though the number of food GAs are pretty scarce and most often are people, types of ingredients, or general categories. I guess my difficulty is that content for specific dishes are relatively difficult to find (as opposed to general things like rice or maize).


 * @Eric: I definitely don't blame you after what had just happened. Though it is unfortunate, since even though I'm new and most of my edits are minor, you were one of the reasons I decided to signed up and try to contribute in the first place.  Thanks regardless, and best of luck with everything.  <font style="font-family:script;font-size:16px;vertical-align:top;position:relative;top:-13px;">&#8610; Remor A  &#8611; 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's rather a revealing report, but why are you telling me? I can't take part in it even if I wanted to. Which I don't. Eric   Corbett  20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Point taken, I understand you are upset but rather than just moving on the comments here continued to stack up. I agree you are improving but the comments here aren't helping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your watching this talk page and then reporting transgressions you perceive as such isn't really helping either. I was about to give you the same advice NE Ent posted here. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your GGTF topic ban, as discussed in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  18:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) <p style="line-height: 90%;"> Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * I think you ought to extend your block to 72 hours, as I don't edit on Mondays. Eric   Corbett  18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't strike me as a reason that would justify extending a block.  Sandstein   18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anything ever strike you? Eric   Corbett  18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would consider the block to be inappropriate, given that far more admins voiced dissent against the block than supported it. Obvious supervote is obvious. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has no "supervote", he just thinks that he does. His next step of course will be to restrict access to my talk page. That might be a mistake on his part though, because there's always the possibility that I might launch into a profane and vitriolic attack on him and anyone who believes that he is anything other than what I believe him to be. Eric   Corbett  19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that there is an agenda at work here.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not permitted to say what I think about Sandstein, although he's permitted to propagate whatever lies about me that pop into his head. I think that tells us all we need to know about WP's chaotic model of governance. The reason that Jimmy Wales wants the WMF to ban me as soon as humanly possible is because he knows that I'm right, and he's afraid that too many others might realise that as well. Eric   Corbett  19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see Sandstein's logic on this one, and had the comment clearly been meant in bad faith I might have supported a block, but this seems completely out of proportion to the alleged offence. That said, I think it's grossly unfair to accuse Sandstein of having an agenda. I have criticised Sandstein in the past for his overly literal interpretation of remedies and the lack of proportion in subsequent sanctions (as indeed have plenty of arbitrators over the years), but he takes this approach across the board. I've seen nothing at all that suggest he has an axe to grind—against any editor—and would appreciate it if people would refrain from making such suggestions unless they have evidence. It is important to remember that it is possible for somebody to take an action you disagree with in only the best of faith, and that it is possible to disagree with that action without suggesting that the person who made it had an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * His "approach" has been to punish one party whilst letting off the other. That, to me, points to an agenda.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a basis for sanctions against the other party, there isn't an applicable arbitration remedy. We can and often do scrutinise those who come to AE with unclean hands to request discretionary sanctions, but we don't have the same latitude with specific remedies like topic bans, and Sandstein has only evaluated things from the perspective of arbitration enforcement (which is also something for which he has a reputation). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So what's going to be next Harry? Am I even allowed to mention the existence of the GGTF? This very much reminds of one of those five-steps-removed from shows. Can anyone point to any female editor that I've abused in the way that I'm being continually accused of? Eric   Corbett  21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on this block, I would say no, you won't be able to. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically I'm forbidden to edit any article to do with females? Why didn't ArbCom just say that? Eric   Corbett  22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So Eric can't edit Ika Hügel-Marshall (well obviously right now he can't but you get my drift) to give it a good copyedit and beef up the sourcing so it can be a GA? Who else will do the work? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far. It just looks to me like ArbCom wants you, Eric, to simply avoid even seeing the acronym GGTF, let alone mentioning it or responding to someone else who has the audacity to bring it up in a discussion that hadn't involved them previously. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This block was against a clearly forming consensus and contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am far too involved to entertain any unblock request but as on outside observer I would probably grant it(oh, I just noticed it is a special kind of block where I could not anyways). Just because someone technically violated the rules does not mean the community cannot have a consensus to not act, there was such a consensus and it was ignored. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">Chillum</b> 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have never understood the "broadly construed" ArbCom mantra, but c'est la vie. It now seems to me to being stretched to the point of ridicule, but I doubt Sandstein will care about that, as it gives him the opportunity to wreak his vengeance. Eric   Corbett  22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just Sandstein doing what Sandstein does; probably nothing against you specifically. A while back someone wrote something like "if there was a group of people running from a burning building, Sandstein would be the policeman calmly standing at the curb writing them tickets for jaywalking." But I've never seen any evidence that he's partial in his actions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Sandstein is an equal opportunity abuser? Eric   Corbett  22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said on his talk page, yes, I'm afraid that's the case. It's not that you're blocked because you're Eric Corbett(TM), but because you broke The Rule #418 §13, fine print. No such user (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I broke no rules. Eric   Corbett  23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I have the time (a self-imposed 3 day holiday to honor a friend), I was strolling around one of the old pastures behind the GGTF Building and found this olde Cow Pie. Careful! It stinks! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks a lot, Sandstein. Great job adminning; you've clearly allowed Lightbreather to breathe more freely and make even more quality contributions. Eric, I came by to ask you if you could have a look at Ploughing in the Nivernais for me, which I just wrote up, on request. Turns out it was quite a bit of fun, and I was reminded of why I joined Wikipedia in the first place: to learn stuff. Anyway, I got plenty of real-life work to do, so I think I'll join you. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Count me in. (Had one only, brief interaction w/ LB, in good-faith and also at WT:WER, ending in her artificially blaming me as "part of the reason" for her resignation from the Wikipedia. So zero faith she wouldn't & doesn't attempt to scapegoat others for whatever her hostile GGTF agenda is.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Me too. One exchange with LB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, not really an interaction. There seems to be some difficulty in grasping my idea that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities. - Watch AE for more entertainment, we have the approach that suggesting to generally replace a template by a better one leads to "removing and adding" an infobox and thus is a violation (which prohobits "removing" and "adding". I would not be surprised if it ended the same way. - Thank you, Chillum, for giving me the term "best interest of the encyclopedia", - the interests of arbitration enforcement may be different. - I was cited there because I restored an article after an edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * some flowers also for --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * + 1. Just because an Arbcom gag order can be enforced on an utterly trivial and extremely tenuous technicality it doesn't mean it has to be, and any admin who gets their jollies by enforcing it that way is clearly an abusive one whose action deserves nothing but the contempt of "teh communiteh."  And in this instance the contemptible action was performed at whose bidding? Lightbreather's, for fuck's sake. An insult so pointed that it's hard to believe it wasn't deliberate and malign. Writegeist (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully. Eric   Corbett  18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to but in here in the middle of this, but whatever conflicts that occurred it isn't fair that should leave and should be chased of. I know how that feels, I was there myself a couple of times myself. It is not exactly editor retention... if now we are discussing that one so much. Now if any of you (Ä, except Eric of course  )  would go over and revert him, that would be nice. I bet he doesn't have a Phil who could do this for her/him. Or I will do that. Hafspajen (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I did it myself. Kinda ironic that all this went out of a discussion about wikiproject editor retention... Hafspajen (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein? Eric   Corbett  20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this latest block was meant to achieve, but "Ours not to reason why" I guess. Eric   Corbett  18:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way. Think of the sheer joy felt by those who dislike you.  The block may have been pointless, but at least something good came from it.  Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting your recent violation of ArbCom sanctions
Please consider this a formal notice that I have reported your recent violation of your ArbCom sanctions at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that, I suggest that you canvass Sandstein ... Oh I see you've already done that. Eric   Corbett  22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just when you hope this place can't get any more ridiculous...it does. Intothatdarkness 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not terribly recent. Only after not gaining any sort of consensus at User_talk:Cassianto for their POV. NE Ent 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In what world is a few hours ago "not recent"? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This one, in which Rationalobserver made numerous edits before filing the AE request -- as has been noted by the responding admin at AE. NE Ent 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FTR, I first brought this to Sandstein's page, and I brought it to AE only after he advised me to. You are helping them turn this on me, which is why this place is so dysfunctional. If calling an editor "filth" isn't an insult, then I don't know what is. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rationalobserver, since you clearly despise Eric so much that you will run to dramaboards at the drop of a hat with evidence that is at best flawed, why are you still keeping this page on your watchlist? Oh, yeah; so you can bait him into being blocked. That doesn't help you, Eric, or anyone else. How, exactly, is Eric supposed to improve with people like you biting at his ankles every step of the way? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I shouldn't have underestimated the amount of support that EC has for his style. I'll take your advice and unwatch this page, and hopefully I won't have to interact with him again any time soon. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Owing to their filthy analogy towards me, they have been described as the noun alternative. It's not difficult to understand, but then perhaps for you, it is.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your talking about, but you win. I'll try to avoid to guys from now on. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to see you here ever again Rationalobserver. Is that clear enough? Eric   Corbett  23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And if RO continues this vendetta, I'll be asking for sanctions against him her at ANI. I really don't care if they don't actually pass now, but at some point the number of incidents will be too much for anyone to ignore.  The moral of the story for the RO,KK,LB of the world; The fact is a lot of us like him writing stuff and he can't do that blocked.  And he is less likely to be blocked if you stop counting the ways to be offended and/or poking at him.  Just ignore him.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Harassing me is allowed, I'm surprised you haven't noticed. What's not allowed is for me to object to that harassment. Eric   Corbett  02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've noticed. Let other's object on your behalf, though you could do everyone a favor and try not to take their bait.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ping me any time, I'm just looking for excuses to avoid my dramas and take on someone else's. I'm also more than willing to tell trolls they are trolls and to suggest that particularly annoying people go commit the infamous anatomically impossible act. (I also am always on the lookout for colorful euphemisms that provoke a SCOMN response from the reader!)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ya did the right thing in keeping away from that second AE report. In the past, on 2 (or was it 3) occasions, I had an involved editor (the same editor each time, I believe) drag me off to AE, for the weakest reasons. Ain't nothing more frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Help
Eric and company, I could do with some help. I've been looking at Lips Are Movin and couldn't leave this GA alone. I have come to believe that this should not be a GA but I don't wish to go any further without some solid advice from some legitimate GA writers and reviewers. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That song is neither "bubblegum pop" nor "doo wop." It is saccharine-sweet hip hop. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the genre warring! <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Trainor stated that the clip did not only comprise of a story and theme " and "the lyrics tell off a cheating, lying, boyfriend" tell you all you need to know about whether or not this is a legitimate GA. Eric   Corbett  10:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That last one is mine: an obviously failed attempt to make something out of nothing. "Lyrically, the singer tells of a cheating, lying boyfriend while asserting Trainor's physical assets." That actually suggests the singer is singing about Meghan Trainor. BTW, the "physical assets", that's some cute phrase from I think a Billboard review (cited here in our voice)--the reviewer means "the singer says she has a great ass". Anyone remember the famous "I Like Big Butts" paraphrase wars? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the "tell off" I was complaining about. Eric   Corbett  18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, I didn't even notice that! Sorry. I made thirty copy edits to that article yesterday and only scratched the surface. In the meantime I wrote up Talk:Lips Are Movin/GA2, and found confirmation that the article lacked #4, neutrality, as well. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, both "tells of" and "tells off" are correct in context, although the latter is a bit informal. I would suggest going Joycean with "tell of(f)". MastCell Talk 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But "tells off" means to scold or reprimand, which I don't think is what was meant. Eric   Corbett  19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I guess I'll have to go listen to the song a few dozen more times to settle this... :P MastCell Talk 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try at some point, given my younger daughter is an avid top-40 music lover and commandeers the car radio regularly....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Eric, I delisted it. Can you or any of your talk page stalkers see if I filed the paperwork (on the talk page) correctly? The GAR instructions told me to change an Article History template, but there was no such template, so I found a GA delisted template--but that AH template looks better to me. Anyway, thanks for y'all's help, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sha na na a GA?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mailing lists and conspiracies
You may possibly not have noticed, but there's been a lot of talk of mailing lists, and secret plots to drive you off lately. I have a problem believing in the conspiracy theories because conspiracies require clever Machiavellian people, and I have seen precious few of those sallying against you, and while Sandstein has his faults (as we've seen over the last few days, he's not Machiavellian and I think he's basically honest, if easily led, frequently obsessive and mistaken. However, there is no doubt that some mailing lists have been rallying against you, and as they are offshoots of Wikipedia, we all have a right to know, which are these lists and which users subscribe to them - so lets have some names for these lists, details of what exactly are they saying and their membership. For the benefit of the shy, my user-email is working and discretion is assured. So let's get this cloak, dagger and stiletto stuff out in the open before the next poor wretch is set upon. Giano    (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The only relevant WMF mailing list I'm aware of is this one. Eric   Corbett  19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm subscribed to that one but don't participate. The periodic squirts of venom and eruptions of bile seem to be useful indicators of the intentions behind some of the shenanigans here. The list provides valuable context. I recommend joining it. Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't be joining it, not even if I was paid. I think it's a shame that so many female editors have recently decided to tarnish the reputations of all female editors, but that's obviously not a battle I can fight. Eric   Corbett  20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (inserting) In England I sometimes used to read the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Torygraph. (Reading the posts on the list serves the same purpose for me.) Eventually I could no longer stomach their poisonous political claptrap and I stopped. The same may happen with the list, although my interest might survive longer as the contributions can be unwittingly very funny. I totally understand your position. Writegeist (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you rephrase that as "a very small cabal of editors who claim to be female ..." then I'll give it the nod.  The problem is that I think some of these "women" actually aren't.  (and not just the one whose name begins with T and who was outed on Wikipediocracy as a guy.)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, Montanabw. They certainly seem have some among their number who are remarkably adept at shooting the entirety in the foot, which would fit this sort of pattern. To AGF or not to AGF, that is the question. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're quite right Montanabw, I didn't mean to tar all female editors with the same brush. The irony is that I've loved working with female editors, and none of them seemed to have a problem with me: you, Sagaciousphil, Karanacs, Sandygeorgia, J3Mrs, Ealdgyth ... and so many others. Eric   Corbett  22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for you, Eric that all these people are trying to game the system and get them banned. Although tiring by now, I hope that you take their attempts and dismiss them--They want you to leave, so leaving the encylopedia will get cries of joy from them. Tutelary (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just shrugging my shoulders and ignoring it. ArbCom invited this kind of nonsense by accepting the GGTF case, but of course they won't accept responsibility. Eric   Corbett  22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (after ec with EC] I admit I'm baked, and not in a good way, but it's time to point out that, while he is not Wikipedia's champion of mincing words, I have never seen Eric try to drive anyone away from this project, certainly not another editor whose primary concern lies in mainspace. On the contrary, he's most receptive toward those who seek his assistance in improving articles, including people he might have initially tangled with (or they might have tangled with him). It's depressing enough to see some people watching Eric-in-a-fishbowl's every edit and waiting to pounce (same goes for edits by other prolific editors who improve the encyclopedia while perhaps not meeting some people's expectations toward Wikipedia as a social medium), to additionally have to read how these others obsess over Eric off-Wiki is too much to ask of anyone. Eric-detractors, please find something else to do. This is an encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is a venomous environment led by a toxic personality. Is there anything more that needs to be said?  Eric   Corbett  23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitush is in hospital? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am out now, thanks, and looking forward to the next instalment of my surgical saga. As with a few others who have emailed me, I just cannot be arsed doing much here while this POV-pushing, pseudo-do-gooding political farrago continues. Let the DYK die a death, and let's hope that the community comes to its senses and begins to react to the real troublemakers who seem so keen to claim a faction exists but not to acknowledge that they are certainly part of one. I have read with interest the various user talk page responses to an invitation to this effort, of which the one here seems to be fairly typical. I am a Wikipedian first and, in a very distant second, a man. But I am fed up of the bullshit. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to touch anything to do with Lightbreather until I've fixed up a few articles on this list (as I feel the best response to somebody saying "well you improve these articles then" is to actually do so), though I can only find primary sources for Carolyn Gallaher and I think it's only inherent notability through WP:PROF that stops the bio going to AfD. Still, if another person sends that Kaffeeklatsch stuff to MfD, I will not shed tears. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all eight editors who have sent me mailing lists to look at - amazing how the same names appear time after time, perhaps they don't get much mail in RL. From what I've read, so far, it looks like this is probably jut two silly editors constantly exciting each other to greater and greater acts of stupidity - of course that's assuming that they are two separate editors. Giano    (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Without even seeing them, I suspect who the gruesome twosome are. The conduct of one stinks so bad, I sometimes think she transposed the letters of her username.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 09:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think,, that you accidentally forwarded something to me instead of to your sex kitten mailing list--"Hello I'm Sara,i saw your profile and i became interested in you,i will like to know you more,honestly dear friend i will be glad to receive your conversation responds to my mailbox, so that i will give you my pictures and also tell you more about myself. Remember the distance, colour or language does not matter but love matters a lot in life". I mean, you know I'm married, right? Drmies (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different....
This just arrived through ILL. Mwwwwhhhaa... I can cover your (possible) ancestors.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My wife's family has been able to trace their ancestry back to the Anglo Saxons. I'm quite clearly a Norman though. Eric   Corbett  01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What, you're not a Viking? ---Sluzzelin talk


 * Nothing like as far back but one of my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers was Johann Nikolaus Ganson/John Nicholas Ganson, a missionary in the Moravian Church who hopped through Greenland to Antigua, had a son in Barbados and died, aged around 79, in Qom in 1820. That was quite a big move, bearing in mind he was certainly in Barbados in 1817. There are several letters around, including the excerpt printed here. But why do I know he was there in 1817? Well, he is listed as an owner in the Barbados Slave Register for that year. So, not only am I male but I am also a descendant of a slave owner. I am most probably damned in the eyes of some Wikipedians now that I've said it. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One of my ancestors failed to get back in the sea, like it should have done. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Slavery - even in native cultures - was pretty much universal in this world. Meaning essentially everyone is likely a descendant of a slave-owner and of a slave.  Both.  IIRC, all of the Jewish tribes were "enslaved" as just one example.   What would make a difference is how the former slaves of such a person regarded him or her - and for that we have very little ancient evidence, and very little more modern evidence. Collect (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done as much genealogy as I can...my only claim to fame is that Kirsty Wark is something like a seventh cousin......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike my fellow Antipodean, the interlocutor supra, my ancestry is very boring. Not even an interesting trace of the Convict Stain. It seems that during the time of the Australian "Gold Rush" some illiterate peasants in the most backward parts of Ireland, England, and Germany heard that the entire population of Australia were prisoners. With the prospect of a great improvement of their quality of life, they embarked on voyages to the Great Southern Land, and on arrival duly presented themselves at the nearest HM Prison, in keen anticipation of "three hots and a cot". Much to their dismay, they found out that they actually had to be convicted of a crime to enjoy the fruits of the reformed Penal System of Her Majesty, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India. My ancestors were honest. Profoundly stupid, but honest. Pete "profoundly stupid, but honest" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Possessive form of Louis
Could you (or one of your talk page stalkers) advise on the possessive form of French Prince Louis? At Talk:Magna Carta/GA1 a reviewer has commented on the use of "Louis's" which is used three times in the subsection "Great Charter of 1217" of Magna Carta. Any advice appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 13:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a talk page stalker: I would say it's Louis' palace at Versailles, and Lewis's semi-detatched in Wolverhapmpton. Giano    (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Giano. "Louis's" only really makes sense if that final "s" in Louis is pronounced, but it isn't. Eric   Corbett  13:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - changed.&mdash; Rod talk 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Belated talk page stalker Hmm: Googling suggests that "Louis's palace" is much more common than "Louis' palace". Given that "Louis" is pronounced "Looie", and that you'd talk about "Looiez palas", phonetically speaking, I'd have thought that the "apostrophe ess" would be added after this silent "s". According to Wikipedia (!), "The English possessive of French nouns ending in a silent s, x, or z is rendered differently by different authorities." (Apostrophe). There are 18k ghits for "Louis's reign" and 14k for "Louis' reign", but the first page of ghits for the latter seems to include many occurrences of the "Louis's" version.  Pam  D  23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the Oxford Guide to Style here on Googlebooks supports "Louis's". Pam  D  00:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I said at the review my grammar is not good enough to make valid arguments on this one (and I'm not sure the English grammar purists would put much weight on ghits). The query was raised by User:Tim riley and once User:Giano and Eric (all much more expert on grammar than I am) had commented all with the same answer I changed it in the Magna Carta article. It has now passed GA but if you'd like to put the potential options (or any other queries) onto the talk page that would be great as we already have a "Further development" section for "nit-picks" as we are hoping to move it forward to FAC before the anniversary.&mdash; Rod talk 08:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)