User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/February

Educate me

General knowledge question: Where would I or how would I find figures to determine the Top 10 prolific members of WER since Dennis created it? Someone is going "around town" making claims that are hard to accept. How does one check the veracity of a fellow editors claims without seeming to be petty or trivial. I may be completely wrong about this (it wouldn't be the first time) but an administrator should be accurate, don't 'ya think? . Buster Seven Talk 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For a given page, select "View History" and then "Revision history statistics" from External Tools. e.g for WT:WER, [1] NE Ent 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ent. Turns out I was wrong. . Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver

I wish the two of you could have a discussion, but maybe she's not ready. How about making your comments on neutral ground, maybe on an article talk page, and then pinging the editors you wish to notify? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's very likely. Eric Corbett 23:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an American. We are eternal optimists. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We have another word for that here. Eric Corbett 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Yes? Do tell... Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm labouring under more sanctions that you could possibly imagine, so I think I'll pass. Eric Corbett 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Maybe we can work together to change that. In any case, I see you've brought some concerns to Talk:Henry Fownes Luttrell and you've helped to improve the page.[2] Good work. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it Viriditas so I'm still going to pass. Eric Corbett 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm trying to work out just which thread of civility is being put forward by someone who views their fellow editors in such terms: "some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems". I'm somewhat saddened (although not surprised) by the "preach and insult" method. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at User talk:Rationalobserver shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're at 3RR. How much clearer does it have to be before you get a clue? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say, How soon will it be before you get a clue? Eric Corbett 00:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, you should post that comment directly on the talk page belonging to the user whom you were actually talking to (if you haven't already). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  Why exactly should I do that? I made my point at RO's talk page, as she was the reviewer. Eric Corbett 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Stops RO from having any more ammunition for dodgy cases. It's up to you though, of course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The last few days have been pretty shitty - so I'm taking a big breath and going and edit somewhere quietly away from drama. Sasata is active in spurts so might ping him and Sagaciousphil onto fairy ring or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some form of virus on here at the moment making a lot of people particularly irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, it's sheer bloody edit-warring at its simplest tit-for-tat form. That's either a gift to those who already want to see you thrown to the wolves, or else it's a reason for those who support you to start questioning why they should bother. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy DIngley, how the heck can someone edit-war on a user talk page? Seriously. A person can be other things, but edit-warring? Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings and best wishes, Eric. Montanabw- I think that the accusation of edit-warring is possibly most revealing. Here we have an assiduous editor, who is still a relative newbie. One on the first thing that they did after signing up was to start copy editing the policy pages. It was a helpful edit but weird behaviour. Any form of constructive suggestion is then seen as a personal attack and a Violet Elisabeth Bott reaction. This edit-warring is the I'ĺl scream, and scream till I make myself sick reaction from someone that has difficulty in interpreting humans. (Asbergic) I am sure the RO will be reading this, so I will say here what I have often said to students- you are totally misinterpreting the body language and intentions of your tutors while your academic work is outstanding. Find someone you trust, and ask their advice when you need to interpret human behaviour they will help you put it in context. There is strength in admitting the problem, (and here you will find more sympathy and like minded souls than in physical life). Given the above, RO the correct response is to reply- Thanks, Eric- I'll consider it. Eric, I think any unpredictable response must be treated as a warning that normal rules have been suspended. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Always find these "newbies" who instantly discover the drama boards to be uncanny in their precocity. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Montanabw has a point, and made me look a bit around. [3] This I don't get. OK, that unblock from indef was made in good fait, but by now ... Also some warnings have been made here already. On same topic... Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• One editor's behaviour does not excuse another's. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  Perhaps not, but it may go some towards explaining it. Eric Corbett 14:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. However we're expected, and even required, to behave better than that. Particularly where it invalidates the argument, "I, an experienced editor, am being taunted by a newbie". Such an excuse carries no weight - ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  You may feel the weight of such a requirement, but I certainly don't. The point being made is that many so-called newbies aren't newbies at all. Eric Corbett 15:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  It's an utterly trivial edit-war, and your chances at ANEW or the other one (Enforcement? AN/Lese majeste?) would be snowball-like. Why give those who would want it such ammunition?Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that Rationalobserver is an irritating sock/returned former/banned user or something of that nature. Doubtless this will eventually be proven and he/she/it will be banned - not for the first time I expect. It is just a great pity that it isn't currently obvious to those running this show, but I suppose that brings us back to brain cells again. Giano (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the dire consequences of "Experienced Newbie". This example still boggles my mind[4]. I'm not saying that admonishment of some kind wasn't warranted, but someone had it in for a Project Coordinator if an IP is taking someone to WP:ARE a month after starting to edit.. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. IPs can be very unpleasant; this one was blocked for three months only the other day. I wish I knew how to change my IP address, there's quite a few things I'd like to tell some people. Giano (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification(s)

There is some discussion that would consider nonsense going on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that I'm certain you zero interest in, but I have mentioned your name several times to I felt like I should at least let you know. No need for you to respond.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, KnowledgeKid77, you've been mentioned as well.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As you correctly surmise, I'm not in the slightest interested in what happens at ArbCom. Eric Corbett 01:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of enforcement request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just contact Sandstein directly? I'm quite certain he'd be only too happy to do the honours for you. Eric Corbett 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• How very droll; Gamliel is a proud editor-in chief of Wikipedia's newspaper. As he scours its pages for subversion there's no risk of him ever becoming a fearless Charlie. This place gets sicker by the moment. Giano (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• PS:I've just seen he even has the audacity to have "Je suis Charlie" on his page: What a hypocrite. Giano (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  I guess that once Jimmy Wales hands you the black spot it's all over bar the shouting. Eric Corbett 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, I think you are wrong. Even the biggest of mouths, bigots and idiots will realise that commenting on this one will smack a little too much of obvious persecution and vindictiveness. Giano (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  We'll just have to wait and see what Sandstein decides to do, as he practically runs the AE show. Eric Corbett 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think I don't know what your game is here, Staler and Waldorf. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you accusing me of now? Eric Corbett 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why not just go away instead of adding more incitement here? Pouring petrol on the fire comes to mind, and it isn't as if your sympathies are not well known. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He is referring to Statler and Waldorf. A U.S. entertainment reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's an American TV show! I thought he was referring to an hotel. We should all brush up on our American as there seems to be so many of them running the show. Giano (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact, the muppets Statler and Waldorf were in fact named after the hotels. Chillum 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the Interactions at GGTF case which amend the scope of the topic bans imposed in the case and the scope of discretionary sanctions the new scope is (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Am I the only person on this encyclopedia who hardly logs in these days because every time they do they hear this constant banging on about a so called "Gender disparity among Wikipedians?" It is boring; it is dull and, personally, I doubt it even exists outside the tired minds of few exceedingly irritating Wikipedians with mammoth sized chips on their shoulders. As many editors don't identify and have asexual names, I don't see how anyone can possibly know what the status quo is. If these bloody people don't soon get over themselves and get a life, we will soon all be on the verge of shooting ourselves. Giano (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• After saying something similar, I just learned the term "shero" for a female hero ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• As you can see from the above Giano, I'm not even allowed to comment on your comment. WP is heading to a very unhealthy place. Eric Corbett 15:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. I said in a discussion that I couldn't add another comment because of my restriction to two comments, and was told that that comment was one too many. Such is the value of arbitrary enforcement. Btw, proud of having Thomaskantor here twice ;) - By the logic of my restriction, - I couldn't add an infobox because I didn't start that article, had to ask Andy anyway which type to use, but he could also not add it, so a third person had to copy from where I mentioned it, - such is the value ..., - at least it increases communication ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• There was even an article in The Times last week about Wikipedia's so called gender disparity as dreamed up in some study by an obscure provincial university in America - a study which proves only that some universities have more money to waste and less interest solving real problems than others. Giano (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• This latest twist seems effectively to be censorship on a large scale. Does anyone in "authority" here actually think any more? Did they ever? Are the current crop worse than their predecessors? And is it really ok for self-declared feminist arbitrators and administrators to involve themselves in decisions that are effectively closely associated and sometimes directly involved with feminism and its objectives? (Obviously, under the new ruling, you can't respond to this last query, Eric. It is a fucking stupid situation.)

  With every decision like this, the politicisation of WP becomes more evident and, in conjunction with that, the project itself less worthy. We are operating in an environment that is increasingly more about control, social engineering and soapboxing than knowledge. I despair. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a hypothetical. If Sagaciousphil makes an edit I subsequently revert or amend am I in any way abusing her? Or vice versa? Eric Corbett 20:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sadly it's no surprise to see Jimbo Jong-un's lackeys kowtowing to the Supreme Leader by forcibly eliminating outspoken dissent from whatever happens to be the idiotic propaganda du jour. Power corrupts, etc. The word "arsecom" springs to mind. Time for intelligent editors to fork off? Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100 Pages of Archived Talk
		Congratulations on reaching 100 pages of archived talk (truth be told: I lost count after 60). You have achieved a milestone that very few, if any, editors have been able to accomplish. The fact that very few editors would want to achieve this milestone should not dampen your enthusiasm. Even though the Wikipedia Community uses your page as the town dump, we thank you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your extensive collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100 Pages of Archives Award.

. Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: HA! I'll be sure to use that in the future :P --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 03:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Complete non-drama

Did you know? ... that Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey win horse races with Kittens?

• Not a GA yet, but a touch of wikignoming is welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hey Eric, I wasn't going to message you since I think that Graham Beards linking your name served as a ping, but I figured this wouldn't hurt. Graham recommended you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2 as somebody who could possibly give the Josh Hutcherson a good copy edit. I know you're always busy on here, but if you have any spare time and think you could help me out with it, I'd really appreciate it. Gloss 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I'm about to be blocked again, so I'm afraid I won't be able to help. Eric Corbett 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Again? Sheesh. But understandable, thanks anyways. Gloss 19:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that I've been given a temporary reprieve, until the next vexatious complaint. So as the subject of your article isn't a female I'll take a look and see what I can do. Eric Corbett 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Eric. Graham Beards (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was hoping you might copy edit one of my ancestors, she's been dead an awfully long time, and won't cause any trouble - I promise. She was quite a feisty, game old girl - quite ahead of her time. Giano (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  It's not the dead that cause me trouble, it's the living. Eric Corbett 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Try editing only during the hours of darkness. Giano (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'm running short of home soil though, and the Sun is getting ever so much brighter to my eyes. I'm now wondering if even mentioning the word "female" isn't in breach of my ArbCom sanction, so I think I'll wait until I see what chief-enforcer Sandstein thinks. Eric Corbett 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do we know if Sandstein is a Mr, Mrs or Ms? I've never really like to ask him/her/it. Or is that a forbidden question which can be construed as outing? This place is so difficult these days, one hesitates to pass wind let alone comment. Giano (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  I have a very firm opinion about what Sandstein is, but obviously I'm not allowed to share it. Eric Corbett 19:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's probably Herr! Giano (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just seeing your reply now. Thank you, Eric! Gloss 21:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm signing off now, but we should be able to finish this off tomorrow. Eric Corbett 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. Gloss 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There you go, all done now I think. Good luck with the FAC. Eric Corbett 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I do have one question for you though. The second sentence in the lead says "A native of Kentucky, Hutcherson began his acting career in the early 2000s, and appeared in several commercials and minor film and television roles before landing his first acting role in 2002 in the pilot episode of House Blend." But wasn't he acting in those commercials and minor film and TV roles? Do you mean something like "major acting role"? Eric Corbett 14:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, and yes major acting role would fit in better there. If you didn't change that yet I'll go do it now. Gloss 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to sort that out, as you obviously know better than me what it was you meant to say. Eric Corbett 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "aged eight, …" - feel free to send over any more concerns though, I certainly don't mind you being picky. Gloss 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Gamaliel

Whenever an administrator is shown to have been behaving less well than one might expect, the evidence is deleted.[5]

Let me spell it out for for you Gamaliel. Tomorrow ... well not tomorrow as that's a Monday, but Tuesday, let's see who contributes more to WP articles. Eric Corbett 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I defended you in the last couple of AE requests against you. Given your comments here I am not going to defend you again. Chillum 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I give a shit? Eric Corbett 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to give a shit, I tried to salvage you as an editor. It is clear you are not going to allow that. Chillum 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, you know much I despise you. I couldn't care less what you think about anything. Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what has Gamaliel done today? Eric Corbett 18:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review

My very non-girly topic is ready for uninvolved eyes, if you're interested in taking a look. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I think it's the most ambitious topic I've tackled so far...which means it's really long :( Any advice you have is very much appreciated. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Another fine article

I do like your new Bile Beans article, its title is nearly as good as the last one I created. I've seen the sign a couple of times. We have a friend who photographs these old painted on signs so we keep an eye out. I also met a man with a collection of bricks but I do know some other people with less eccentric hobbies. J3Mrs (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I really ought to finish that off, as I think the story of the legal actions isn't quite right. Eric Corbett 20:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been amazed at how much information there is to be found on patent medicines such as Bile Beans, much of it from JSTOR. I'll really miss that resource when my free subscription expires. Eric Corbett 19:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You've created an awful lot of articles J3Mrs, but were you thinking of Damhouse? Eric Corbett 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant Sitlington formerly known as Shitlington, I came across it in connection with some colliery stuff. I was going to start another yesterday but my I keep losing my broadband connection. I must get it sorted out. I had a summer job at William Edge/Roberts Croupline in Bolton in my student days. They made patent medicines and laxatives, perhaps they deserve articles. I like JSTOR too and the BNA. J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have articles on all the patent medicines and their manufacturers. Eric Corbett 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of US public and academic libraries supply JSTOR access to library patrons through their web sites: maybe there is some similar arrangement in libraries where you are? Or WP:RX might be able to set you up with something. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR through a deal JSTOR has made with my old university - I don't know how many such deals there are but let me know if I can help on a literature search for you, Eric, once your existing arrangements expire. Bencherlite^Talk 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My existing JSTOR subscription has got another four or five months to go I think, and I'm optimistic that it will be renewed when the time comes. I could get access through my old university as well, but only onsite, not remotely, so as it's about 200 miles away not much good to me. Eric Corbett 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to know that you still refer to "miles" in the UK. Not that I object to the metric system in any way, but the old ways still work fine as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you need to be kept in line by Lightbreather

Apparently User:Guerillero thinks that Lightbreather should be your personal monitor. Take a look at this stating | "the removal of her from DR pretty much allows Eric to do what he pleases" and he apparently considers her a "saint". So in essence when you are hounded endlessly until she manages to get you banned her is the mandate from Arbcom. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Does User:Guerillero actually say that? Admittedly, I have only scanned the page fast, but although I seem him recommending her for canonisation, I don't see him saying she should be Eric's mentor. That would be blatant provocation of Eric, and I doubt Guerillero would be so stupid as to give those of us who think that Eric is being deliberately provoked ammunition. Giano (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Monitor, not mentor. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see now what's being said. This place is declining rapidly; if everyone Lightbreather takes one of her dislikes to is to be hauled into every Arb discussion, then there's not much hope for the project. Personally, I am not at all convinced that there is a huge gender gap, but saying so brings out shrieks of misogynism and seems to be as virtually risky as questioning Mohammed. It's all quite concerning as the Arbcom seems to be quite happy with the situation, but then I suppose they would be. Giano (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from it, EC. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That said, yes, there is a gender gap and it is at its worst at AfD, Gamergate, and whenever the TFA for Valentine's Day is debated. But EC is not apart of any of that crap, and he is not the problem here. So indeed, WP:IGNORE is well-advise. Anyone here needs a person who self-identifies as a feminist AND usually supports EC, ping me with links to the trouble spot. If I think it's worth the bandwidth to weigh in, I will. That said, I wish like heck that whole thing would just go away. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm less sure than you Montanabw that a gender gap exists. If is it does, then it's being grossly exaggerated and used for nefarious purposes and settling old scores. Its current advocates are doing it no favours at all. Before this blatant persecution and paranoia of Eric became so obvious, I was prepared to ignore it - even when I was told that GorillaWarfare was using Wikipediocracy to accuse me of attacking her because of her sex (My analogy to her (posted openly on Wikipedia) was actually don't behave like a pathetic fool if you won't be regarded as one). My experience of women on Wikipedia is that they are quite equal to men in every way, but as with male editors, one meets the odd irksome one too; I'm not expecting that to change whatever the gender gap warriors achieve. Giano (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever nonsense Lightbreather comes up with is taken as gospel by the more gullible members of ArbCom. Eric Corbett 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Be careful. Even mentioning anything directly or indirectly on your own page, is risky. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I realise that, and no doubt some will even now be trying to wikilawyer how it might be that just mentioning LB is a breach of the ArbCom sanctions, but thanks for the reminder. Eric Corbett 16:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that there IS **a** problem with systemic bias, and there is a gender gap, but this is not **the** problem. The problem is not the illustrious Mr. Corbett. The problem is stuff like the trolls at Gamergate and the AfD's of articles on women and people of color, particularly historic figures, on grounds of "not notable' because they can't be found in Google. Giano notes accurately that there are some using the subject for settling old scores, and that is not appropriate. It doesn't help solve the actual problem. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate (the settling of scores, that is), but it is happening and will continue to happen. It happened before this and will continue after it. Such behavior, after all, is one of Wikipedia's core attributes. Intothatdarkness 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably ought to hold this conversation elsewhere, since Eric isn't supposed to comment on the gender gap. (Although I do agree with you, Montana, but then again, I'm another of those women who has been successful here and is thus not "normal". ;) ). Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say Karanacs, I'm forbidden to comment, but I will nevertheless, in the interest of free speech. It's a great pity that this divide has opened up, leaving many male editors including myself very reluctant to participate in articles on females and so-called female topics, when we could be so helpful. I recall that you and I have worked on at least one boddice ripper novel together. If what I've just said results in another AE sanction then so be it, I really couldn't care less. Eric Corbett 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OOOOOPs! Eric, you the grammarian, know better: Make that "Articles on women and so-called women's topics (or, if you insist on the adjective and not the gerund, 'female topics')." As was pointed out to me recently (still not sure I agree, but) 'women" is a noun but not an adjective, while "female" can be either. My "female is biology but women are humans" protocol still holds for the noun form. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't choose this fight. Eric Corbett

You're right, Eric. I'm done here. Don't want to get you in hot water. Sorry to stir the pot. I just wish people wouldn't lump all feminists into the same pot, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's OK that I'm not even allowed to address your point? What kind of world is Wikipedia? My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes. Eric Corbett 06:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dysfunctional. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Primeval. - Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a woman stubborn enough to stay anyway, sometimes frustrated, - but then I see you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I love women Gerda, I think they're very interesting. Eric Corbett 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."

This is the most perceptive sentence I can remember you writing recently, Eric, though I haven't read everything you've written and there may have been something better that I missed. I truly hope that no one tries to argue against your right to make such a broad and wise statement. Hey, I will disagree with you when I choose, forcefully at times, and don't much like some of your cultural residue. I am a jerk myself sometimes, and welcome well-aimed arrows and barbs. It's not always easy to respect the totality of your work here, but at this moment, I choose to do so openly. Very well said, Eric. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Very well said, Eric. It's not supposed to be a war. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange that some females would choose to reject the help of what they believe to be 90 per cent of the editing community, but there you go. Eric Corbett 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I've noticed the efforts you've made to show a kinder and gentler side of yourself. I never doubted it was there, and obvious to those who would look deep enough; but it is nice to see you sharing that so openly. Thanks Eric. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pussycat really, but like all cats I have sharp teeth and claws, and I'm not afraid to use them. Eric Corbett 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A corndog for you!

	Corn dog
	I would like to show my appreciation for you, Eric, by offering you this classic American treat. I hope all is well in your life, and I wish you good health and prosperity. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, the corn dog and prosperity go together, but good health?? =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I need a little admin help

After watching a fascinating programme on TV last night about the history of endocrinology I decided it would be good if we had an article on organotherapy, which I just started. But I got a warning before saving it that a previous version had been G11 deleted. Obviously I've got no idea what the previous version looked like, but before I carry on with the article could anyone who can see what it looked like have a quick butchers and reassure me that I'm unlikely to go down the same path?

I'm not trying to promote anything, just cover the early history of endocrinology. Eric Corbett 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted for not having enough content. This was the extent of it: "Organotherapy is a therapeutic method consisting in the stimulation of a specific organ in the body from a corresponding organ of a healthy mammal by triggering the creation of antigens in the host.

From: Dr. Mariano José Bueno Cortés, BIOSALUD-Institute of Biological and Anti-Ageing Medicine" I honestly don't think it should have been deleted, but yours is better. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I feel more comfortable about carrying on with it now. I thought the endocrinology article might have covered it, but it doesn't. It also contains the longest sentence I think I've ever seen, the entire first paragraph of the lead! Eric Corbett 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all quite interesting - I never knew that. However, if you are developing an interest in editing medical pages, for your own safety please do avoid gynecology. Giano (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be careful. My interest is really only in quack cures though. Eric Corbett 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

... but now you come to mention it, I'd need to cover the Brown-Séquard Elixir, extracted from the testicles of dogs and guinea pigs. Obviously male dogs and guinea pigs, and then there's the question of the castrati – again obviously male – and the treatments for hysteria in females. I wonder if that comes under the general rubric of "gender-related"? If it does, then I'm not sure how it's going to be possible to continue contributing here. Which is maybe the idea of course. Eric Corbett 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to avoid all "hysteria in females." Giano (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that'll be possible in this particular case, as treatment for hysteria generally involved removals rather than additions. It's the more general "gender-related" restriction I simply don't understand. Eric Corbett 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the article will be fine and I for one will support seeing you work on it. I am watching what's going on with the ArbCom review of Andy's infobox restrictions, though. If logic prevails, it will bode well for you as well, but if the pitchfork brigade wins, then I would advise you to be cautious. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For those who want to see that longest sentence Eric thought he'd ever seen, it's in this version, before he started to tidy it up. PamD 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But at about 79 words (I don't know what Word's word-counter does with the greek bits etc), it's a minnow compared to the whales described in Longest English sentence: any advance on 13,955 words? PamD 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I bet Lightbreather's "Readability" meter[6] would put that at about a PhD level! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not tempt fate by mentioning LB on Eric's page. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Eric, would you be willing to take a look at radiocarbon dating? It's probably the next article I'm going to take to FAC, and it's a departure from my usual topics, so I'd really like someone with a good eye for poor phrasing to cast an eye over it. I am still tweaking it very slightly, but I doubt I'll be adding more than one or two more sentences, so I think it's ready to be looked at. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, maybe not until tomorrow though. Eric Corbett 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- whenever you can get to it is fine. Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You've been busy

MediaCityUK popped up on that red box notification thingie when I logged in so I looked to see what you were doing. Am I right in thinking I need to relearn how to cite references? I've noticed a couple of things you've changed in the past and having no interest in such things I have to declare myself baffled and somewhat disgruntled. I think it a pain, you do it and then something changes and you have to do it again. Why do we bother? Talk about wasted effort... but you have kindly put it all right. Thank you. (I shall use this page as my exemplar until it all changes again.) J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. All the citation templates have been rewritten in Lua, and "updated" over the last weekend. Sadly, {{citation}} in particular no longer works properly for web citations, and I suspect it's only a matter of time before it's nominated for deletion. Eric Corbett 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And they wonder why editors leave. I'm fed up with relearning stuff I never wanted to learn about. I hope that whoever rewrote it is going to rewrite all my citations, there are quite a few! Shouldn't editors be informed? J3Mrs (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about editors? Eric Corbett 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs. Why do "they" have to make life difficult for editors like us. Why cannot {{citation}} do for everything? I've used it for virtually everything. Why do we have to have cite this, cite that, cite the other, when one comprehensive one could (if the "experts" agree) cover everything. We simpletons get fed up. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

From reading the various citation talk pages it seems that the {{citation}} template needs to be given clues as to what's being cited, such as |newspaper=, |journal=, |work= and so on. But as you know, in the past the |contribution= parameter worked perfectly well for that purpose, until some clever-clogs decided to change things without any proper discussion among the users of these templates. It would be so easy to fix the citation template, but obviously that's restricted only to trusted users, aka administrators and their lackeys, who by and large don't understand what they're doing. Eric Corbett 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All I want is to write articles and to compile list-articles, and to reference them in a simple-to-use method. I don't care about modes, separators, ps, etc. Just let the "experts" make things simple for me (and others), and stop going on technological jollies. It's this that will drive editors away (even more than misbehaving admins may do). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what we all want Peter, but the recurring problem here is that who develop the software don't use it and therefore don't fully understand how it's being used. I don't know what it takes to become a template editor, but I'm quite convinced I could do a better job. Eric Corbett 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. See this. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When will the veil be lifted from their eyes? I was a software developer for more than thirty years, but I never developed what I wanted, I developed what the customer wanted. Eric Corbett 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that every day someone trashes our work. Eric Corbett 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's simpler than that: Experts are crap. Remember?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Although Trappists don't take a vow of silence, they are not encouraged to speak much. I think that must be what the i.d. of the spokesperson for these changes refers to: lack of encouragement to speak to a broad base of editors about a change that will affect all content that should be referenced. Visual Editor, that strange media display thing, now this. It seems like writing content is becoming a major battleground between editors and the powers that be.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear that very few give a fuck about writing content. Eric Corbett 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem here with the development model. From all evidence, the boys and girls are correctly following their college notes. The first phase was investigation, where the examined the available notes and from that documented their perception of the module. (citations/visual editor--ot whatever). This was primarily a paper exercise. This document would be peer reviewed and signed off at phase meeting/keystage meeting. The clock is ticking and Wikipedia is growing and becoming more sophisticated and changing- but not for them- the document is fixed in time.

Coding now takes place- and the the boys and girls discover that there are incompatibilities in their model- the same incompatibilities that we have been hilighting since the previous generation of obscure changes. Their college tutor will have given them a ticklist of how to approach incompatibilites- so they will apply one of those strategems. KISS- keep it simple, then simplify some more- make the changes that affect the statistically fewest articles. I will keep to myself my POV about mentors that don't reference their work- and don't explain to newbies that the reference is more important than the trivia. But logically, being a prolific editor puts you in a statistically tiny group.

I have looked at the syntax of Lua-and it seem deceptively simple, and it will be a fairly easy to patch after the boys and girls give up, but there is no excuse for them to start coding before fully understanding the required algorith, and changing that. The development model needs to be revised, but until them I suggest that an extra phase is added- alpha testing whereby- they ping this highly stalked talk page, asking for comments before passing te code round the office for peer review. Our comments may be vicious but they will be constructive. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't use {{citation}} normally but when I'm "guest starring" on articles that do, I use that for consistency. It ain't broke and it don't need "fixing". I think Parrot of Doom's FAs all use {{citation}} too, and anyway, aren't there still a load of FAs with free text citations inside <ref> tags bouncing around? Lua doesn't look particularly out of the ordinary for those of us who've been writing code in any language you can think of (including ObjectPAL) before some admins were born, but the fundamentals of how to bugger up software development beyond the call of duty were well documented in Fred Brooks' The Mythical Man Month several decades ago and haven't really changed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask the person who's editing Module:Citation/CS1 to fix it? I'd have done so already, but I'm not sure exactly what the issue is -- "contribution" used to work and now it doesn't? NE Ent 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already have, but to no avail. Eric Corbett 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Better idea, why doesn't whoever is editing Module:Citation/CS1 ask content editors what they want? There must be somewhere to on the encyclopedia to solicit opinions. I don't understand either but I am discouraged if I find red error notices in the ref section of articles I've written. This is something that particularly affects the most scrupulous of editors such as Eric and Peter I. Vardy. It doesn't make life any easier for new editors. I learned about adding ref by copying what experienced editors did in Good Articles not by reading reams of instructions. J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Could ya'll verify the recent change is what's causing the ugly red warnings on MediaCity UK references? NE Ent 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what alerted me to the problem, it's been going on for a while. J3Mrs (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You were right, and I was wrong

First off, I apologize for joining in the feminist bandwagon against you. I see now that it was a huge mistake, and I was blinded by my loyalty to women. I don't expect you to forgive me, nor will it matter much, as I think I'll be retiring soon. But the females here don't treat each other with the respect they demand you treat them with, and my number one pet peeve is hypocrisy. The prime directive of Wikipedia is content creation, and I applaud your accomplishments in that area. I finally get what Sitush and Giano tried to teach me about civility, and I am now in near agreement. E.g., what good are banned words if people you trust throw you under the bus the first chance they get, all the while acting civil in the strict sense, but speaking with a forked tongue in the other? I.e., I'd rather you called me a cunt than pretended to be my friend before stabbing me in the back. I'll stop rambling now, and I won't be surprised if you revert this edit. I just wanted you to know that I can see your side of it now, and I think you are right to stick to your guns, and others are right to defend you. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a feminist bandwagon against me? All I see is a few females, at least one of whom ought to know better, jumping on a bandwagon the name of which of I'm not even allowed to mention. Eric Corbett 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point; this is not true feminism, and it never was, and these ridiculous restrictions are embarrassing, but I wouldn't pay them any mind if I were you. Even if you were allowed to participate, nothing you say will ever sway them. That's why I wanted you to know that you've swayed me, or rather after seeing them for what they really are I realized that you, Sitush, and Giano are right to stand your ground. I'd rather be an honest cunt than a dishonest "friend". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More female editors here I can think of support Eric and praise his assistance in their articles than I've seen oppose him in "feminist" debates. In fact most strong female editors I can think of at some point I've seen a positive comment on here. He even gets on very well with Sandy Georgia (which is mind boggling how anybody could) but it's true. It's usually an extreme like Carol and few others who might make it seem like a "feminist bandwagon". Jimbo Wales has implied that Eric is the sole cause of female editors leaving wikipedia but it is a fact that Eric seems to get on very well with female editors in general on there (or at least those who I know of and contribute good content like Sagacious, Montanabw, Gerda, Pam, J3Mrs etc), whatever his views are on gender in editing wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sincerely regretful that I got sucked into the frenzy. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are mere facts; never let the facts get in the way of a good story. My view on gender is very simple, but I'm not permitted to share it. Eric Corbett 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to take you to task over your comment about Sandy Georgia though, Dr. Blofeld. I've always found her very easy to get on with, even when we haven't agreed. Eric Corbett 22:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason we've never gelled. Perhaps she gained respect for you seeing your work firsthand at FAC. I think she's the only editor on here my relationship has not improved with since the early days. I'd rather be on good terms with her, of course. Occasionally when I've been around her for a while I get that she often has a certain charisma, but then I don't see her for months and when she turns up again it's usually a negative comment. See the comment she made on the Vivien Leigh talk page for instance, that was rude and arrogant apparently. I'm on good terms with Bzuk, I was just concerned that a great editor like SchroCat was scared off because of an infobox. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That can happen I suppose, but IMO SandyG is one those allegedly elusive female editors that WP needs more of. Eric Corbett 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me just add a little bit of meat to that. For quite a long time SandyG and I were locked in battle over what is now the commonly accepted little green blob that displays in the top right-hand corner of a GA. Yet I don't ever remember the discussion becoming personal; she made some good points, we tried to address them, notably by the GA sweeps project. Eric Corbett 23:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You were pretty harsh with me, but it's nothing compared to what Victoria and Sarah have done to me this week. I'd take your approach to their's any day. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've struck part of my above comment because I realized that I was rude to you before you ever acknowledged me, and anything that you said after that was provoked. I'm really sorry about that. I think I got some attention from a few editors when I said something rude about you, and I was too immature to stand by my real life principles because I wanted to fit in. That backfired horribly, so I suppose I deserve the grief I've gotten here. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We all make our own beds, and then we have to lie in them. Eric Corbett 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Play a nocturne by Chopin, perhaps? One of the women mentioned above, and of the women with courage (still don't know if there was a single woman in the majority who supported) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I will share something with you Gerda. The GGTF ArbCom case was a disgrace, but nothing less than I expected given the accusers and their supporters. What incensed me, and still does, is the vote delivered by the sole female arbitrator. Eric Corbett 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I thoughtlessly mentioned the GGTF, mea culpa. I have only one last request. Can I please serve my next block on the Seychelles? Eric Corbett 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can say that you love women and "find brainy women so ... exciting" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I do, a misogynist I am not. Eric Corbett 00:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Care to write a bio?

I've just expanding a fascinating page on a barely notable country house, and finding all manner of notable things - hidden freemasonry for example. Anyway, it did have just one notable owner, General Sir William Gabriel Davy. Sounds a really interesting man; I've uploaded an image here and there's quite a bit of info here. I would write it myself, but I've become rather absorbed with his odd son's masonic habits and eccentricities. Giano (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e. Giano (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Giano: Apologies if you'd prefer that I didn't do it, but I just couldn't resist. (I read about military officers quite a bit.) I've started the article here. Please feel free to improve the article if it needs a copy edit or if there's anything else to add. --Biblioworm 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, No, that's lovely: I'll link to it from Tracy Park. I'm sure Eric will be pleased to have one chore less. Giano (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This auction listing for his medals here seems to have plenty of detail- Field Officer’s Gold Medal 1808-14, for Roleia, Vimiera & Talavera, 1 clasp, Talavera (Major Willm. Gabriel Davy, 5th Batn. 60th) complete with gold ribbon buckle is probably the one mentioned in the article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll include that today if I get the chance. --Biblioworm 14:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. By the way, Eric, would you mind taking a quick look at the infobox and things to make sure they're correct? Thanks. --Biblioworm 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I never bother with infoboxes, so I'm not the best person to ask. Eric Corbett 00:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm probably did a better job of it than I would have done anyway. Eric Corbett 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exhumation of Richard III of England

Hi Eric, This article was put up as an FAC over a month ago with a view to having it on the main page for his reburial on 26 March - which is something I'd like to see. It seems to be progressing through FAC all right but, to me, the text doesn't seem good enough. I've done some fixing myself but I'm struggling with some of the odd sentences. If you have the time, and the inclination, could you have a look and see what you think? Richerman (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a worthy cause. I've had a quick look and made a few changes, but I think it's some way off being FA-ready yet. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to spend on it tomorrow, and of course Monday is my day off, but I'll see what I can do next week. Eric Corbett 01:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric, you're a fine man and don't let anyone tell you any different. I thought it had some way to go too and I'm trying to fix some of it myself but I'll probably have to flag some of them up for others to fix who have access to the sources. Richerman (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Date ranges

Hi Eric, I notice that you've twice reverted a date range on Tracy Park. I might be wrong, but the MoS seems to suggest that for birth-death ranges, the format is (yyyy–yyyy). Quote: "birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) was ...; not (1304–74)". What do you think? Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Twice? Only once surely. But as it does seem to come under the heading of "birth-date parentheticals" I've reverted myself. Eric Corbett 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Any comprehensive works on your wiki-philosophies?

I confess that I'd be very, very interested in reading them, and not in an ironic sense. ResMar 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, certainly not written by me anyway. Eric Corbett 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should consider writing it up, then. I find all the buzz on this talk page curious but amn't willing to dig through ArbCom and related clutter to figure out why you seem to be such a polarizing figure. ResMar 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that I would choose to waste my time on such an exercise. Eric Corbett 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This problem left as an exercise to the reader. ResMar 16:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember the nuns smacking my palms with a wooden ruler for using the word "amn't". Fond parochial memories. . Buster Seven Talk 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman's bet

I was never sure whether @Kevin Gorman: agreed to back up his opinion by putting his money where is mouth is or not: "I'd bet $20 that either no civility block sticks to Eric or it ends in another arb case within four months." (Posted on the Gender Gap mailing list on 26 November 2014). Eric Corbett 01:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He may not see the ping, Eric. He's been ill with septicaemia/other things. FWIW, I thought he was serious. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'll forget about it then. Eric Corbett 12:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is Kevin Gorman posting on the Gender Gap mailing list - I thought it was only for women. Kevin sound like a man's name to me. Giano (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that he runs it. Eric Corbett 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's short for "Kate". Bencherlite^Talk 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait--if I block you, does he get $20? I've had dealings with Kevin in real life: I like him fine. No comment on that ill-placed bet. I just ran into someone you know--someone who did a GA review for Sitakunda Upazila back in 2008. That person might be sad to see that it's not so clean anymore, but let's let Sitush take care of it. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good old Malleus! Whatever happened to him? Chased off by a bunch of screaming harpies? Eric Corbett 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just got done teaching books 7-9; we covered the harpies last week. They get a bad rep, but when you read Ascanius's joke you understand that Celaeno was uttering a prophecy, not a curse, and that they in fact furthered Aeneas toward his goal. Also, Sippy attended the lectures for the Aeneid. She did not score worse than the upper-level students on the reading quizzes. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sippy is going to grow up to be a formidable lady. Eric Corbett 02:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Reading the bet, I think if you block is only the beginning, then it also has to "stick" - whatever that means, and for how long seems not defined. - Kevin listens to me. Not everybody: I started a little article with a lead image in the infobox, the image was placed elsewhere three times, but I want it first glance. I promised myself to revert only once. Anybody to add it back, like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has actually answered my question - why is K Gorman allowed in a woman's group? can I join it too? Giano (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Because he set it up and he runs it? My understanding is that anyone approved by the moderating team is eligible regardless of gender, which probably rules you out just as much as it would me. Take a look here. Eric Corbett 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I thought it was exclusively for females, but then until I saw Slim Virgin was on it a couple of weeks ago, I thought it was for transvestites and the sexually confused. That's the second thing I've learnt today. The first was altogether far more useful. Giano (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric Corbett

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric Corbett. Please see the above request for Arbitration enforcement in relation to your post at WP:ANI#Request IBAN with User:Hell in a Bucket. Thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia slime is inexorable, impossible to halt. Eric Corbett 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia slim that's impossible to halt; I can hear four horses chomping and waiting impatiently for their stable door to be opened. They will be equally unstoppable and I suspect cause far more damage. Giano (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

In a link on my talk page, Gerda reminded me of something I said a year ago this week: "I have always found Eric a pleasure and delight to work with". That statement still holds true today. I have no doubt that Mrs Nagle would be as appalled, ashamed and embarrassed at some of the shenanigans taking place as I am. Now, I expect you're going to be cross with me for being all "feminine" and "soppy" - but, hey, I'm allowed because I'm female! I don't say it often enough but your help, guidance and advice is always very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We love you for who you are Sagacious!... "Soppiness" and TLC on a website like this is always welcome in my book..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks much, Eric Corbett, for your copy editing help on an article I improved in quality as part of my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say more, but I'm presently under an ArbCom imposed gagging order. ;-) Eric Corbett 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks again for the copy editing help, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you and Giano have done on Tracy Park - absolutely superb how you the pair of you can turn around an article like that. While we're talking about "gagging orders", since I brought it up elsewhere, I wonder if you were aware of Linus Torvalds' civility policy (or rather lack of one), where he thinks nothing of flipping the bird and telling developers to fuck off if it means maintaining the quality of one of the most widely used operating systems in the world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever credit is due must go to Giano, as I wouldn't know a courbelle from a crow. Eric Corbett 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Eric; may all of enemies have flaking corbels, guttas that fail to protrude and metal spikes in their acroteriums. Giano (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comments by Torvalds BTW, pretty much chiming with what I think about the nonsense that's allowed to go on here. Eric Corbett 17:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

GAR request

Hello, Eric. I realize this is a long-shot, but an article I wrote, Rose-Baley Party, has recently come under fire for alleged concerns about paraphrasing and overall quality (please see here and here). While I am convinced that the article meets the GA criteria and stays within acceptable paraphrasing boundaries, I fear that, despite two neutral and uninvolved opinions that support my position (please see here and here), the reputation of the article will likely suffer from "bad press". Anyway, I would be forever in your debt if you took a look and commented regarding the GA criteria, which nobody knows better than you. I know we've had our differences in the past, and I'm probably really low on the list of people you're willing to help, but no one could put this issue to rest better than you. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that you cannot be serious. Eric Corbett 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It was worth a try, as I always assume people are as forgiving as I am, particularly when I've apologized. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I leave forgiveness to God. Eric Corbett 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I can't say that I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you recommend anyone, preferably with an interest in Old West topics? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Eric Corbett 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, there is a bad case of OWNership there and there are legitimate close prarphrasing concerns, this editor is rather inexperienced with the way Western History is handled these days; this account is pretty much an uncritical retelling of the saga, absent analysis or historiography. Though the comparison of cut and paste is low see here, the close paraphrasing would defeat a GAN at this point. JMO as a member of WikiProject Old West. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The allegations of close paraphrasing have been independently refuted by two neutral editors: here and here. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, that's ONE editor who didn't "refute" so much as suggest other ways to do things. The wmflabs assessment of 37% (or whatever it was) is enough to suggest that the article be looked at much more closely than it is. But basically, that article is not ready for GAN, it is not stable, it is contested at its talk page, it is taking an awful lot of raw history and just plopping it all into the article. And it's kind of boring. So, clearly, it is not one to be wasting Eric's valuable time on yet. I don't know if you have ever submitted an article to GAN before, but lots of pictures and end-of-paragraph footnotes aren't enough (particularly when some of the images just seem random too). Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, It became a Ga on 16 February with this version.[7] See Talk:Rose-Baley Party. EChastain (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess we save our fire for FAC, where it should be properly critiqued. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"While climbing the mountain, they came across a large snowfield and were surprised to see snow and ice in late July. Before their decent, they entertained themselves by pushing a massive boulder down the mountainside." Is "decent" an American version of "descent"? Eric Corbett 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You feel sorry for me? Plleeezze. And why are you so certain that publishers haven't paid me to write something? I'd bet that I've been paid for my writing more times than you have. I think now we see your true colours. Again. Eric Corbett 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, no wonder editors aren't queuing up to help Rationalobserver. What a nasty spiteful thing to say. J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Some editors have no self-awareness. If Rationalobserver wants her work assessed she must accept scrutiny and criticism. Only yesterday she asked Eric to look through the article, when he did, she did what she always does, deflects the fault onto the person who is right. J3Mrs (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) That article has issues with context and tone, among other things. I'm somewhat involved in the Kit Carson article and am dealing with similar stuff there. No, Eric is wise to steer clear of this one. And a publisher paying someone is no guarantee of either intelligence or writing ability... Intothatdarkness 20:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

His big example was one typo, how trivial. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you continue to humiliate yourself here. J3Mrs (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think about you guys. Bye-bye! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You came here under the pretext of asking for my help. Please don't come here again under any pretext. Eric Corbett 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder to Rationalobserver, along with @Karanacs: and @Moni3: I was one of the principal authors of the Donner Party. My final piece of advice would be to read that and see how it ought to be done. Eric Corbett 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  And viola, there suddenly appears this. Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric, please don't give Rationalobserver or anyone else more ammunition here. I have warned RO about behaviour on RO's talk page (and had the predictable response by another editor).  DDStretch  (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that I'm in some way obligated to help everyone who comes here asking for my assistance I don't see what "ammunition" you're referring to. Eric Corbett 12:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are not obligated to help anyone. All I was suggesting is that you just say "no" and "Go away" (just those three words), and perhaps "I don't want to see you here on my talk page ever again", and some of these people's vindictive and baiting behaviour will be easier to deal with, that's all. As it happens, any repeat on the part of that editor of this behaviour on your or anyone else's talk page will be dealt with firmly, given what I now know of the past history.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather impractical counsel of perfection. Just look at how my reply of "I'm afraid not" above after being asked whether I could recommend another reviewer has been interpreted as yet another example of my inherent wickedness.[8] It doesn't matter what I say, and soon enough I won't be allowed to say anything of course, if ArbCom has its way. Eric Corbett 13:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct, and I apologize for not being so on the ball to take immediate action about that. I have warned RO about what she did, and then found out that she's done it before to others. I'm not so sure I can do more given the warning I gave her before I was told of other incidents not involving you. I do think enough is enough about this baiting and harassment you are getting and the partial interpretation of it against you by some who should know better.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of ArbCom; they basically declared open season on me from the likes of RO and her hangers-on. Eric Corbett 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) What worked for me was this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That kind of behaviour clearly wasn't a one-off, but I suppose she gets away with because she claims to be a female. Eric Corbett 14:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right in all respects Eric, I would say though that most men I've come across, in real life as well as here, aren't nearly so spiteful or vindictive as some behaviour on your page illustrates. She should be blocked on sight if she returns. She can keep away from my page too, I prefer the collaborative sort of editor especially the sort who improves my prose. And women should absolutely not be treated differently to men. J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, and speaking as a man, I really don't think that "spiteful and vindictive" are typical male traits. I have rather a short temper and an equally short memory, so once something is over it's over. I don't harbour grudges or plan my revenge. Eric Corbett 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@J3Mrs:, she'll be back - it would appear that life holds little other for her than dancing around Eric like a lame, vexatious, spitting Salome. What ought to surprise me, but doesn't is that Administrator Sandstein and his mates never seems to notice these things. As for the Arbcom, well one can't help blaming them for this stupidity. This current lot seem to be a body with no experience of dispute resolution or ability to apply logical common sense. Giano (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've toyed with the idea of appealing my sanction against saying anything that's not nice about RfA. But so far I've thought better of it, as I know it would just degenerate into yet another civility bun fight and give those such as @GorillaWarfare: another bite at the cherry in trying to have me banned, because I'm not of her gender. Eric Corbett 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but come to the conclusion that Ms GorillaWarfare just defends her sisters and plays the female card as second nature. Who can forget her agree with poor little me or you a misogynist comment. Neither have I forgotten her plaintive, pathetic bleating about me on Wikipediocracy - which she doubtless hoped I wouldn't see or else she would have said it here. To think that she is ab Arb ought to be worrying, except fortunately it serves to publicise what many of us already know. I believe women like Edith Cavell and Mrs Pankhurst would weep if they saw such soppy tricks from the sex they helped to prove were equal to men. Giano (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. They were strong women you couldn't help but admire whether you believed in their mission or not. GorillaWarfare not so much, just a band waggon jumper. Eric Corbett 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a great pity that Ms Warfare could't have spent a couple of months with our mutual heroine Mrs Nagle; she'd have soon sharpened Gorilla's behavior up. Giano (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nagle is another of those women you wouldn't want to cross. But of course the young Gorilla has probably never heard of any of them. Eric Corbett 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been discovering just how poor articles about suffrage and the women who fought for the franchise are. I've been tinkering around the edges after a friend introduced me to a church near Leeds University. Another formidable little woman was Elizabeth Elmy (who I just added to that awful GM Project!) who scandalised her compatriots by getting pregnant before she married! And to achieve their aims (shock, horror) they worked with men. J3Mrs (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've long thought about having decent articles on the prominent suffragettes, but of course that's now impossible, as they'd have to be written solely by women. Eric Corbett 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous of course you could, nothing whatsoever to do with that taskforce. J3Mrs (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to even mention gender, as you can see from the report below. Eric Corbett 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I did manage to write Margaret Bondfield a few months back – not strictly a suffragette but of a similar stripe. I had no idea there was a "taskforce" that had pre-empted these things. Bondfield's up for TFA on her birthday in a couple of weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally fucked up about all this feminist crap, I simply don't understand it. I write articles. I try to help others who also want to write articles. Where's the crime? Eric Corbett 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me, why not try to address it instead of pinging me to make sure I can watch you two go back and forth making shitty remarks about me? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have many problems with you, but perhaps best left to the next ArbCom elections? Eric Corbett 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me; certainly seems more appropriate than this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not feminism that's the problem...it's the mindset that allows passive-aggressive bullies to wrap themselves in a politically acceptable cloak and carry out their campaigns that is the problem. Forum shopping, baiting, and general shittiness is obviously acceptable if one can claim to be the victim of something or another. The toleration of that sort of behavior is, to me, a bigger problem for editor retention than the occasional curse word. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's tendentious editing under a different banner, and it is that type of editing that drives away a lot of editors. No one had come up with a solution before I retired (because of that type of editing) a few years ago, and it looks like no one has since either. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Their failure to respond intelligently to this sort of provocation is disgraceful. Intothatdarkness 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Eric, I apologize deeply that you got pulled into this. It was a dispute between me and RO and should never have spilled over here and onto so many other pages. I've found that disengaging and walking away for a few days is best, and so that's what I did (well, I was busy in RL too). Now I wish I'd left a note on your page before leaving. I am sorry. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing for you to apologise for Victoria. This block will pass soon enough. Eric Corbett 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Here Eric, some Wiki-ball-rooms to dwell in while blocked. Today I understood how it has to feel like - the things you go through. Not fun. Have a nice time in your personal palace. Hafspajen (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sonnet 55

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;

Than unswept stone besmear'd with sluttish time.

When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

And broils root out the work of masonry,

Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity

Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room

Even in the eyes of all posterity

So, till the judgment that yourself arise,

You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.

What's the difference?

• A militant feminist walks into a bar and asks, "Where are all the women?".
• A feminist militant walks into the same bar and asks, "Where the fuck are all the women?".... Buster Seven Talk 12:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for for violating your GGTF topic ban, as discussed in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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."

Aww jeez, not this shit again...

Absolutely ridiculous. Eric Corbett 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have used that same term and no one blinked. militant feminism is a political viewpoint; it is, IMO just like, in the US, calling someone left-wing or right-wing. I guess we should all add that to our "do not say" list. SMH. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 I think I'll take the weekend off too, see you on Tuesday. If they carry on they'll drive more than you away. J3Mrs (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am about to log out for 72 also. The sooner the admin corps come to their collective senses and realise where the problem actually lies, the better. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

They won't (and not just in this case or with this user/group of users). It's far easier to work this way. There's nothing complex to consider, they don't have to look at their own conduct, no assumptions to consider or question. My contributions aren't much, but they're going to go away for a time now, too. I don't like the prospect of being bullied by passive-aggressive types. Intothatdarkness 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I won't be doing the same, considering I just came off a one-month block, and, for various reasons, I won't go into detail about my own opinions about possibly in the eyes of some overreacting or not in the face of long-term stalking. Otherwise, I would join you. Also, if anyone wants, I can try to maybe make a transcludable template which might be used by people who want to state their long-term objections to the sort of thing we have all seen recently. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

On strike till Tuesday, March 2. . Buster Seven Talk 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gandy joins hands with Buster and begins to sing "Solidarity Forever", the union marching song. ( John Carter, I'd like one of those banners.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• It still needs a lot of work, including regarding the overlong phrasing and the background coloring (I might prefer something more red myself) of the text, but User:John Carter/Anti-PC is at least a start. Anyone is free to make or discuss any changes they think would improve it. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How apt that the admin who placed this deeply stupid block has a carcinogen for a username. Writegeist (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I lot of us wouldn't be of much use without regular use of that particular carcinogen or its caffeinated substitutes. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sheesh Writegeist, feel free to remove that stupid remark. Come on now--it's entirely unclear what the fuck it is supposed to mean, but it can't be anything good. Insulting the blocking admin? What good does that do? If you want to vent, get back on MySpace. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(inserting) By our actions we are known. I think that when a block prompts a desysopped user such as Ironholds to send the blocking admin a creepy note and an ecstatic love song in support, it helps corroborate the view that the block was a really, really dumb one. Now that Coffee has followed up with another, this time on Giano, and extended it, also on bogus grounds (until Jehochman lifted the block), I regret striking the words "deeply stupid" above. The rank incompetence of the second block puts the stupidity of the first beyond doubt. I've undone the strikethrough. I hope Drmies won't mind. Writegeist (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• If we go on strike it's a signal that a AE sanction means anything. Sadly, it seems meaningless, only pointy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• They do mean something: Eric is blocked. I have asked Coffee to...well, I don't know. I think Eric's comment was ill-advised and probably fell within those restrictions (restrictions that I didn't like in the first place), but I'd never block for something like that. The moment I unblock Eric, though, the shit is really going to hit the fan; it's a pity Eric finds it more difficult to grovel than others. Come on Coffee. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I don't do grovelling. Best not to get involved though Drmies, it's only effectively another 48-hour block anyway, as I don't do Mondays. Eric Corbett 20:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Eric. You know what, I got plenty of stuff to do anyway, school and other stuff. Maybe I'll see you on Tuesday. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have said pointless. If there was consensus it was because people like me didn't even go again, - sorry Eric. Coffee, you were not here I guess to see a thread or two degenerate from the pretense of an apology ... - I don't share your hope that this block will achieve anything but making people like me loose more hope. Eric and I and women with courage have a habit to go against consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I read your email Drmies, and I definitely took it to heart. But, Eric deliberately stepped over a line he knew he shouldn't have, and the consensus by the admins at AE was overwhelmingly in favor of his sanctions being enforced. This type of business is always messy in my opinion, but it sadly needs to be done. Even if I don't personally think that this block will have much of an effect on the way Eric behaves in the future, it's not my habit to go against consensus. I can only hope that Eric has the personal fortitude and lack of ego to be able to realize why this block happened, and not repeat inflammatory behavior like this in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You understate the case by an order of magnitude; it will have absolutely no effect on anything I might or might not do in the future. Eric Corbett

  The community will inevitably in due time indefinitely ban you then, and that to me makes no sense at all when you could just step away from your pride. All I'm hoping for is that you collaborate, not capitulate. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Why don't you leave that to me to worry about? Or not, as the case may be. Eric Corbett 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• coffee? What a curious name, I've never before heard of you, but doubtless you have now found a way of promoting yourself. It seems to me you've had a little too much caffeine and over stimulated yourself - I do hope it's not too uncomfortable. Whatever, for your much necessary enlightenment, the community will not in due time ban Corbett - it will see the error of its ways. However, we are obviously in for a long and painful process before that happens - what a very unenlightened person you must be to not see that. Giano (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't edit war with a troll, but I do feel this needs to be seen [9]. Giano (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Giano, this has nothing to do with women. It's about content, and it's about a lot more. See my apology below. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Victoria, it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables (Eric, spell that for me can you? and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends. Giano (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think anybody who still thinks it is a good idea to impose short (ish) blocks on Eric in 2015 is either craving the attention or brownie points from Jimbo or is genuinely super into wiki policy. History keeps repeating itself and it really solves nothing, a bit ridiculous. Administrators know the reaction that blocking Eric will get so I think if they have any sense they'd realise that less trouble will be caused overall by ignoring him. There seems to be some inherent belief among some here though that if Eric is not given frequent blocks then the site will degrade into chaos where everybody violates policy. I can't see any other reason why an intelligent being would still think it the answer in 2015... @Coffee: I'm sure you feel you've done your sense of duty here but your comment "This is a clear violation of his sanctions and he knows it. I suggest at least a 1 week block to deter future behavior like this." really illustrates a very poor understanding of Eric. You could block him for three months, it's not going to change him. That after his dozens of blocks over the years you still think this an effective solution is rather concerning... And it's not as if arb didn't have the chance to ban him... There was a reason why they didn't...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Criminy. I go offline for 48 hours and this happens! Corbett, dammit but can't I, your token "feminist" buddy, EVER get a break - even for cataract surgery? Curses! Ok, repeat after me: stop calling trolls who play the gender card "militant feminists." *I* am a feminist. Trolls who happen to express feminist concepts in the midst of their drama-mongering are TROLLS. Just like cricket fans who behave like trolls aren't "militant cricket fans" - they are TROLLS. But see you Tuesday! Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do be careful Montanabw, what you've just said is now a blocking offence by User: Coffee and his loyal band of the not so merry wimmin. Giano (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Piss poor block, User:Coffee. --John (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Insanity is blocking Eric again and again and expecting different results."

Erwiana Sulistyaningsih

On a encyclopedia building note I started Erwiana Sulistyaningsih and was unclear on notability but in the end this was a very very notable incident and is near and dear to my heart due to my observations when I lived in Hong Kong. I want to get this article to GA or FA status would you care to comment? I don't think it infringes on your topic ban but feel free to decline because god knows we don't need to hand them ammo but a large amount of this saga just ended with a 6 year prison term for her employer and so seems like a good time to polish it off. Truly anybodies help is welcome there or here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a potential minefield in the current crazy climate, so no articles on females or female-oriented topics for me. Even mentioning the word "female" is probably a blockable offence these days. Eric Corbett 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably an offence. Better say "women" and reserve female as an adjective ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)