User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Well said

"Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors. There are plenty of articles, but far too few of them are even half-way decent. The new editors who need encouragement are those who pitch in and improve articles, not those who create articles on their newly formed garage band or whatever on their first edit, as I think the statistics clearly show."

— Malleus Fatuorum

I'm late to the party but I just read the above for the first time and wish to show my support! The bit about few half-way decent articles is so true. I spent a few hours looking at new articles yesterday and found an overwhelming amount of low quality shoddy pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at new articles can be very dispiriting. Hardly any are worth spit. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I have recently done a little work at NPP, thinking that it would take my mind off various arguments with Indian caste-ists etc. I very rapidly took the "advice" at the top of the page that requests people to consider starting at the back of the list. Even there, I found numerous soul-destroying moments ... but at least (I hope) a lot of the cruft had been caught beforehand by people more dedicated than me! Inherent notability, in particular, has been something of a bugbear.

And a question for you, Malleus. Should the "that" in my second sentence have been "which"? For reasons unknown to me, I always prefer "which" but here in WP-land it seems to be t'other that is preferred. You are sh*t hot on this sort of stuff, and my copy of Fowler is buried under several thousand other books currently in storage. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fowler says "Relative pronouns are as troublesome to the inexpert but conscientious writer as they are to useful to everyone, which is saying much. About which, in particular, problems are many, and some of them complicated." To cut a long story short, "that" is defining (as in "all the houses that are blue") whereas "which" isn't. (Compare "all the houses, which are blue" with "all the houses that are blue".) My simple rule of thumb is that "which" naturally follows a comma, and unless there's a comma then "that" is probably correct. I wouldn't myself have chosen "that" in the case of your second sentence, as I don't think it could be considered definitional, but that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong". I'd have preferred either "at the top of the page, which requests" or "at the top of the page requesting". Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must copy the above to some place in my userspace, thank you. In particular, it serves as a reminder that some judicious juggling of sentences can often avoid the issue entirely. Of course, neither of us can count: the awkwardness appears in my third sentence. Bugger! I feel that perhaps it is time for me to go to bed. I do believe that we are going to have another of Manchester's multitudinous sunny days tomorrow, and I would like to see some of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

<--Malleus, I was about to ask you for some advice, but now that I see that Fowler is your King James I'm not so sure anymore! Are you sure you're not a Victorian? OK, I'll ask you anyway. I can't figure out what to do with the numbers in the opening paragraph of Beasts of battle. I'm speaking of the trope as a singular, and of the beasts that make up the trope in the plural. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edwardian, not Victorian. Anyway, I think the opening needs to be rewritten, perhaps something like this:

"The Beasts of battle is a poetic trope employing the wolf, the raven, and the eagle, animals that traditionally accompany the warriors to feast on the bodies of the slain. It is found in eight Old English poems and in the Old Norse Poetic Edda."

• Thanks! And I meant "Victorian", as a low blow. ;) Fowler makes good reading, though. I have a reprint of the first edition on my desk. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics

Hi

I was hoping that you might get a half hour or so to look at the Three Laws of Robotics article. I am a little confused as to how to proceed with it.

I put it up for peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Three_Laws_of_Robotics/archive1 after a large amount of editing but, as there was little response, proceeded to GAN. The basic problem, as pointed out by SilkTork during the GAN Talk:Three_Laws_of_Robotics/GA1 at the end of last year, is that they consider the article contains a lot of OR and may need rewriting from scratch.

I considered the article state in this version [1] to be good enough to go to GAN, thought the current state is not perhaps satisfactory due to several chop and change edits to the structure.

How would you proceed? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a worthy subject. If I was tackling it I'd start out by applying a big pair of shears and getting rid of probably about half of it. There's no sense of a coherent story, and it does look a lot like an essay rather than an encyclopedic account, lumping together anything that might vaguely be related to Asimov's laws. I'd also try to work out a better structure for the article, something with a bit more of a chronological feel. I think there's a lot of work needed, but it's worth doing. Chop it back and then guide its growth would be my advice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I learned something new again because of you lol, I didn't realise there should have been spaces between the text and ellipses so thanks for that for a start :¬) I have to go back over my current copyedit and correct them though now :¬(

As for the Three Laws article, I was of the opinion that only the material directly mentioning Asimov and directly related to their application should be mentioned. Some parts of the article appear to be fancruft, some are extraneous and some just not that relevant.

I will try and find if anyone else is interested in working on it first and then start with the scalpel.

Thanks again for taking a look and for making those corrections. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The Three Laws article ought to concentrate on ... well, Asimov's Three Laws; removing some of the fancruft would be a good start. It's a subject that interests me, so I may keep an eye on the article and chip in from time to time. Good luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your comment about my efforts to address your concerns regarding the article Everything Tastes Better with Bacon. I've gone through another pass of copyediting, to address your comments about improving the prose. I'll do a bit more on that now. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the FAC more than is necessary, so would it be OK with you if I pointed out specific things I think need to be addressed on your talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great idea! :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you had some great ideas and suggestions for improvement. I've responded to all of them, noting it each time in the edit summaries to make it clear which user's comments from FAC I had utilized. :) I've noted some more specific responses at my talk page. Do you think it's a bit better now, at a point where you'd be willing to strike your oppose? -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It'll take me until tomorrow to finish looking through. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sure, sounds good. I'll try to be responsive as best I can if you've got any further suggestions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and responded to all of your additional points. I'm hopeful that at this point it's satisfactory, at least enough to strike the oppose? :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flixton, Greater Manchester

Fancy helping me get this to GA? Parrot of Doom 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not. A quick question: do the village and the ward have the same boundaries? Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Around here people would say no. If I mention Flixton village (where I live, coincidentally), people will expect I mean somewhere around the western end of Church Road, where it meets Carrington Road and Flixton Road. The wider Flixton extends across a much wider area. For convenience, unless a source that explains it all is found, for boundaries I'd recommend sticking to the ward right now. Parrot of Doom 18:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Trafford boundaries are a problem, to say nothing of the not infrequent changes to them. I had the same problem with Stretford in spades (is Old Trafford in Stretford or not was one recurring discussion), but I took the view that sticking to the boundaries of the town/borough rather than the much smaller ward was the way to go, so I'd be arguing that the article ought to be about the village, particularly as the ward would only have existed since 1974 and Flixton is much older than that. But of course it's your call. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I had similar issues with Radcliffe, which has unbelieveably convoluted history in that regard. I just settled for calling wards ward, towns towns, etc. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

help the 330

It's a nice Aussie kid writing the article. It's got a LOT of decent content. It needs a little work on prose logic...agreed. But Sandy has her hatchet out readuy for it. And that flies in the face of something I read in 2009, where she said she looks out for content, not just style.

So...give it a hand man.

I'll take the ban. I don't belong here.

But those kids are nice guys...and it is going to break my heart if they get sidelined when it is NOT even a bad FA, just an under-reviewed one.

Come one, man...I know you have a kind heart for the kids.

I will make it up to you. Name the price. Whatever...TCO (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1952 Winter Olympics

Nice one, appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sshhh. Don't tell anyone, I've got a reputation to maintain. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're an old softie at heart, Malleus. Me, some guy keeps appearing to tell me that three editors will appear to me, one blocked in the past, one in the present, and one in the future, but I take a stiff glass of Jameson and nothing seems to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That story (the original one) has a happy ending, but mine is just a tale of bitterness and resentment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for copyediting the Winter Games. I meant to go through myself & completely forgot until I saw Dweller's comments today. I was on my to the page when it started popping up & I thought I'd leave you to it because you're better at copyediting than I am. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I just had a quick first look Truthkeeper, there's still much to do, so have at it! Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could carry on. Two problems: I'm very familiar with the subject so the prose doesn't really bother me, and real life is slowing me down a bit. If you can't finish, I'll get to it on Friday or Saturday, if someone else doesn't get there first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any great rush, and I may never finish. My biggest concern right now is the overall flow, as my question to H1nkles below. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to sort it out, but will need a chunk of time to twist the flow. It's not pervasive, I don't think, only the first few sections need work. When I read it, I zoomed through it, but I think that's because I know the history; I can see how it's difficult for readers who don't. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right; when it gets to the individual events it's not bad, but the introductory stuff needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Scrub that, the whole article needs a good seeing to. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the flurry of edits. It is a credit to the project that people are willing to help out strangers for the betterment of the whole. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when I copyedit I do tend to do it in a flurry of edits, which I know can unnerve some people, but that's the only way I can do it. While you're here, I think there's a bit of a problem with the overall flow of the article, which is a bit like this happened ... then that happened. Some of the parenthetical observations, like "After the 1936 Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) opted to separate the awarding of the Winter Olympics from their summer counterparts" could usefully be moved to footnotes – how do you feel about that? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I find the claim that the 1952 Winter Olympics used a computer to be rather unbelievable considering that the first modern computer was built only three years earlier, and a computer at that time was as big as a bungalow and very far from reliable. Added to which the cited source makes no such claim that I can see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I got pinged as well, ok, might leave you to Norway and take a journey on hte airbus maybe...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged, I only noticed the article as I was looking through the older FACs. I think it needs a lot of work. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the work, I haven't used footnotes because it's somewhat arbitrary as to when to use them vs. keeping the content in the body. Do you have a rule of thumb that you employ in your writing? You can find the reference to computers under "all facts" in this link [2] the title of the entry is "Scores in a second". I see your oppose on the FAC and I assume your concerns relate to the presentation: the flow of the article noted above and the need to move parenthetical refs to footnotes is that correct? Is there more I should work on? Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 03:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've found the quote: "In figure skating, in order to give the results immediately, computers were used to calculate the scores awarded by the different judges for the compulsory and free programmes." That's not even remotely credible. More than one computer? In 1952 there were very few computers in the world, and none of them were in Norway. At that time the term "computer" was still used for people who performed calculations, rather than machines. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I took it at face value but your point is well taken, I'll check it out and make fixes if necessary. Britannica says computers made their Olympic debut in 1964 so I'll go with that as it fits better with technological advances at the time. I've removed the information. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 06:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To be

This is precisely the kind of edit my dissertation director would have made--and he wrote TO BE in the margin. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Less is more. I find that many have a tendency to use two words where one would do, but I like to see surgical precision. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I resemble both remarks. Oh, I just started The Force That Through the Green Fuse Drives the Flower. I italicized the title analogous to Easter, 1916, which was the first (short) poem I could think of, but MLA style dictates quotation marks. What do we do here? I can't find it in the MoS, at least not quickly. BTW, look at the Dylan Thomas bibliography--no articles. Where are the Welsh editors? Drmies (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the length of the poem apparently. If it's a short thing then it's in quotation marks, but if it's an epic then it's in italics. Don't blame me, I didn't invent the rules. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought, but "Easter, 1916" is hardly an epic, and certainly not long enough to be published independently (the MLA criterion). And I'm not blaming you for that, no! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are many Welsh editors. Or at least many interested in Dylan Thomas. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently arbcom-l does leak

Over at WE your request of earlier this month for a cleanstart has been revealed. Good old iridescent, eh? 58.163.175.132 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)