| Revision as of 09:35, 29 July 2014 view sourceStephen (talk | contribs)Administrators49,362 editsm Reverted edits by Stephen (talk) to last version by Gerda Arendt← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,948 edits Happy Holidays! |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}} |
|
{{quote|text="Lager, so much more than just a breakfast drink"|sign=<small>Sign in the Pheasant Pluckers pub in Southport, England</small>}} |
|
|
|
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}--> |
|
<!--<center> |
|
<!--<center> |
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> |
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> |
| Line 9: |
Line 10: |
|
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{sidebar |
|
{{sidebar with collapsible lists |
|
| outertitle = Archives |
|
| outertitle = |
|
| topimage = ] |
|
| topimage = ] |
|
| bodyclass = hlist |
|
| bodyclass = hlist |
|
| style = {{box-shadow}} {{border-radius}} background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller; |
|
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller; |
|
|
| expanded = |
|
|
|
|
|
| contentstyle = text-align: left; |
|
| contentstyle = text-align: left; |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading1 = 2007 |
|
| heading1 |
|
| content1 = |
|
| list1name = 2007 |
|
|
| list1title = 2007 archive |
|
|
| list1 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 29: |
Line 33: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading2 = 2008 |
|
| heading2 |
|
| content2 = |
|
| list2name = 2008 |
|
|
| list2title = 2008 archive |
|
|
| list2 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 44: |
Line 50: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading3 = 2009 |
|
| heading3 |
|
| content3 = |
|
| list3name = 2009 |
|
|
| list3title = 2009 archive |
|
|
| list3 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 59: |
Line 67: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading4 = 2010 |
|
| heading4 |
|
| content4 = |
|
| list4name = 20010 |
|
|
| list4title = 2010 archive |
|
|
| list4 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 74: |
Line 84: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading5 = 2011 |
|
| heading5 |
|
| content5 = |
|
| list5name = 2011 |
|
|
| list5title = 2011 archive |
|
|
| list5 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 89: |
Line 101: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading6 = 2012 |
|
| heading6 |
|
| content6 = |
|
| list6name = 2012 |
|
|
| list6title = 2012 archive |
|
|
| list6 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 104: |
Line 118: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading7 = 2013 |
|
| heading7 |
|
| content7 = |
|
| list7name = 2013 |
|
|
| list7title = 2013 archive |
|
|
| list7 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 119: |
Line 135: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading8 = 2014 |
|
| heading8 |
|
| content8 = |
|
| list8name = 2014 |
|
|
| list8title = 2014 archive |
|
|
| list8 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 128: |
Line 146: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| heading9 |
|
| content34style = text-align: center; margin-top: 1em; |
|
|
| content34 = |
|
| list9name = 2015 |
|
|
| list9title = 2015 archive |
|
<span style="display: inline;"><span style="display: table-cell; border: 5px solid rgba(64,255,64,0.9); {{box-shadow|0|0|2.0em|rgba(64,255,64,0.9)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}} background-color: #eee; opacity: 0.9; -moz-opacity: 0.9;">]</span></span> |
|
|
|
| list9 = |
|
<p> |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
]! |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
</p> |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading10 |
|
|
| list10name = 2016 |
|
|
| list10title = 2016 archive |
|
|
| list10 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading11 |
|
|
| list11name = 2017 |
|
|
| list11title = 2017 archive |
|
|
| list11 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading12 |
|
|
| list12name = 2018 |
|
|
| list12title = 2018 archive |
|
|
| list12 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading13 |
|
|
| list13name = 2019 |
|
|
| list13title = 2019 archive |
|
|
| list13 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| content35 = |
|
| content35 = |
| Line 147: |
Line 248: |
|
| navbar = none |
|
| navbar = none |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{-}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Coal mining terminology == |
|
== TFA == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User QAIbox |
|
When we wrote Bradford Colliery, I think you suggested a glossary of coal mining terms would be useful, and since then I've been very gradually compiling one. I have looked at a few lists and just about every one is formatted differently and I have no idea what NOTOC means. Any guidance would be welcome but I did think of a title, ]. Is it possible to link every term or would I have to do it by alphabetical section? Sorry to be so dim but I've only been here for five years :( ] (]) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg |
|
|
| image_upright = 0.8 |
|
|
| bold = ] · ] · ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Io Saturnalia!== |
|
:Take a look at how WikiProject Equine set up ]. We're rather pleased with it. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;" |
|
:NOTOC means no table of content, --] (]) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
:The Glossary of equestrian terms that Montanabw mentioned looks like a good model to follow. ] ] 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!''' |
|
|
|
|
::I'll take a look at that one, thanks all. ] (]) 08:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Very useful. -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Enid Blyton == |
|
|
|
|
|
"... because of the alleged unchallenging nature of her writing ..." |
|
|
:My first instinct on reading the FA today was to change "alleged" to "allegedly". The latter would be more conventionally "grammatical," but the former somehow sounds better to part of me, so I didn't make the change. Your thoughts? ] (]) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: (watching) I am not good in grammar, but my instinct tells me that the adverb "allegedly" would have to go with a verb, not "nature", --] (]) 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Conventionally, an adverb is used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Here, "alleged" is modifying the adjective "unchallenging." Regards, ] (]) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Learning, - I didn't know that adjective thing, interesting aspect. - Different topic: we are approaching the anniversary of me being welcomed to the club of infobox warriors (26 June), - the latest topic on my talk, quite enjoyable so far ;) --] (]) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting question, both seem arguably "correct" to me. I do have a preference for ''alleged'' though, which in the sense it's used here I'd say is a past participle rather than an adjective or adverb, and therefore perfectly OK as it is. ] ] 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Learning more grammar, I think it is not used as a past participle here ;) - I would probably try to escape by wording something completely different. --] (]) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Trying to think of a example: "her alleged long history" might question that there was a history (never mind long or short), while "her allegedly long history" might question the length of a history not in question? --] (]) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Now should it be on the background of my alleged long history or allegedly long history as an ]? --] (]) 07:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Is it "allegedly long", implying that it might actually have been short, or is it that your long history is alleged, and may even be non-existent? ] ] 22:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Is that - in other words - what I tried to say above? (alleged relates to "history", allegedly to "long") And now to the question: is my history short or non-existent? I don't remember. --] (]) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I think it's pretty much exactly what you were trying to say above. What's being alleged? That you have a history or that it's a long history? ] ] 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: I don't know. I was admonished to better conduct myself and not use WP as a battleground, but they didn't tell me how. I know that I earned the title for ]. I said that I didn't think that I deserved it. --] (]) 23:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I wouldn't worry about it, who really cares about admonishments? Or even knows what they're supposed to be? You go around expending a lot of effort in trying to support other editors, but maybe you should spend a little bit more time on yourself as well. ] ] 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: Don't get me wrong, I don't care, I actually came to love a restriction to two comments, it should be handed out more generously. - I still wonder, however, how I got that label. - Be assured that I don't do a thing here that I don't do for myself and my dreams ;) --] (]) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::So it's all good then. :-) These kind of restrictions don't always work in the way that they're intended to I don't think. I'm still restricted from taking part in any threaded discussion on any RfA or RfA-related page, which means that I can vote or say whatever I like but then don't have to respond to the screams of outrage if I should oppose a popular candidate. Not that I bother voting at the popularity contest known as RfA any longer, but you get the idea. ] ] 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::: I get the idea ;) - I haven't formally thanked the arbs for their collective wisdom, next week, there's ] first, --] (]) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: ]: ''']''' ], and two more in the pipeline! - recommended Sunday listening: ], cleverly published (on the same page later today), --] (]) 05:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What a refreshing change to have an article like Kelpie as TFA for once!♦ ] 07:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: How refreshing to ], compared to ] ;) --] (]) 07:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Today: "... a jolly little article on one of the most prolific and perhaps most incompetent British ]" - thank you, Eric! What would Misplaced Pages be without you? --] (]) 06:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Calling Eric's stalkers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey all you who follow Eric's talk page: I could use a new set of eyes to do a general copyedit at ] article - or comment about their observatons at the talk page - before I take it to FAC. I had a good peer review, but only one person, and I feel like everyone else who has helped me watch this article (including me) is bleary-eyed. It came out of triple crown season with over 500,000 hits (whoa!) and as I was updating it almost daily, I think there is now stuff in there that isn't needed any more now that we know how the saga ended (this round, at least until August or September) but I honestly can't decide what. I'd normally request the Corbett review, but as he is clearly a busy fellow, I'm also good with any trusty, reliable sidekicks. Blofeld? You interested? Anyone else? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks excellent and impeccably sourced at first glance, but I'll give it a full read this week.♦ ] 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Appreciated. It is excellent and impeccably sourced (grin), but a couple of copy editors have caught typos, and more to the point, I don't know if it is boring or redundant. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Will try to read it later! Too late though by the looks of it!♦ ] 13:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I haven't put it up for FAC yet, and informal PR can continue at article talk (and is). If you'd prefer to be an FAC reviewer, that would be OK too. Whatever works for you. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A baby on your doorstep... == |
|
|
|
|
|
] is an interesting and seemingly sourced little tidbit, been marked for merge for some time and is orphaned. Some said to merge in 2007 (per archives) but that is too old to consider. The main article ] is a GA (that GA looks weird, I only see one person at nom and reviewer both, but maybe I'm wrong). It is a fairly complete article as it is, so I don't want to go mucking about and diminishing the quality. A merge could be no more than cut and paste with proper attribution. Leave alone and remove merge tag? Boldly merge and redirect? Take it to the talk page and start one more discussion on the topic that others there seem to ignore? A great many editors whom I trust lurk about here, so I hope you don't mind me asking you and your posse. ] | ] | ] 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
] |
|
|
*On an unrelated note, I am working the ], which is taking more time than I expected but I'm trying to keep everything bulletproof with sources. It was a very different decade, so the format isn't remotely similar to the ]. I'm just adding semi-rough prose and cites for now, but there isn't enough there to start the clean up yet, but when you get back, I would appreciate if you could take a look at style and format to make sure I'm not getting off the path here. I really want it to be special. Hope you are finding some good use with the time off. ] | ] | ] 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Looks promising Dennis! Look forward to seeing the final result! One of major reasons why I'm attracted to 50s and 60s American cinema so much is the cars and look of the film!♦ ] 12:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks, I need to make time this week to work on it some more. To properly cite it to GA standards from the start takes some effort, although I'm not necessarily going for any pips. When I was in high school ("79-"83) many of those cars were considered cheap junkers, could be bought for £150-400 all day long, in more or less running condition. I never got to own a 1965 Chevrolet Impala 2 door, but always wanted one, an SS would have been nice but any would do. Owed a "68 ($400, clean with 307cid) and "69 ($275, clean with 327cid), both 4 doors. Any of the "65-"69 2 door models would be acceptable. Just saw a 65 SS in great shape for around $32,000. Ouch. ] | ] | ] 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Heh, in 1977, my folks got me a 1965 4-door Impala with less than 100,000 miles on it as my first car. Literally had been owned by a little old lady. A little old lady who had been convinced by the salesman that she needed a "good big engine for the mountain passes" in Montana. Ah yes, it was, I think, a 325 or 327 (whatever the little number was there on the front panel, started with a 3... , all my friends who got old beater Impalas mostly had the ones labeled 283 or 2-something... Even though an automatic, I developed a sub-specialty of smoking out of stoplights against the fellows who thought they were hot stuff with their Cameros, Sunbirds and Firebirds... ah yes... the good old days. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Challenge == |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I took your recent comments on my talk page as a sort of challenge. Anyway, I've expanded ] and wonder if it is worth submitting it for GAC. If so, would you be so kind as to offer comments, and maybe copyedit? --] (]) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tps|v}} Having had a quick look, I would try and see if you can get more of a variety of sources in the article. There's quite a bit of ] in the middle and large portions of text are cited to the ''National Heritage List for England''. I'd mix up your sources a bit as it helps cancel out an errors or POV that can creep into an individual one. The author of "Anon" for the "Guide to Capesthorne Hall" looks a bit strange - we'd probably want to know if that was a good independent source. A couple of the image captions are a bit short and vague, and for an article of 16K you probably want a lead of around two paragraphs, so you'll need to trim down what you've currently got. I think B class is a fair assessment of its current state. ] ] ] 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::For information, the "Anon" author applies to what was the "official" guide for visitors to the house. Is that not a reliable source? --] (]) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@ ] Many thanks for your comments. I really appreciate the time and trouble you have taken. --] (]) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@ ] See what I mean? Don't bother. --] (]) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry I've not been around to help Peter. I'll have a look at Capesthorne Hall later. ] ] 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Eric's on a break at the mo. I'm sure he'll help people who genuinely want to improve articles, he always has done, but he can't improve every article everywhere. Chill. ] ] ] 08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think Peter was getting at me, rather referring to a discussion we've had periodically about whether it's better to focus on a few GA/FAs or to improve a broader range of articles. ] ] 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see the DM sinks to new low depths with . Clooney calls them "the worst kind of tabloid" and says "They cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting violence."! He might have a point you know.. ♦ ] 14:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I take it you've seen the , Blofeld? ] ] ] 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, I like it!♦ ] 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chrome == |
|
|
|
|
|
Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: ]. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Generalising.... == |
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't assume there'd be a problem with ] based on the other and similarity with topic matter. I've found it seems pretty ad hoc which articles one will strike trouble with. e.g. medical articles are a headache but astronomy ones I've found pretty smooth....however ] was one where I was reverted by someone who knows more than me about it but insisted on an odd layout...and will likely require considerable diplomacy in the future if I ever decide to attempt to improve it....aah well....] (] '''·''' ]) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I didn't think there would be a problem with nuckelavee at FAC, it's a fine article well worth a bronze star. I just can't be doing with what happens after articles are promoted. ] ] 15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::True - the timing of that was a headache for sure. However, that can happen any time to any article. At least with any GA/FA point there is a "stable version" that can be referred back to, so in my line of thinking it drives me to "park" whatever I've spent significant time working on at an audited point ''somewhere'' so in the future I can quickly check where the article was when I'd finished with it by comparing that revision with the current and then going from there (though this is the point where the removal or addition of paragraph spacing really screws the ability to compare paras). But yeah I can see the frustration - I can't see it happeneing with ] but I guess no-one thought it'd happen with the other. hmmm. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As you know, FAC is a significant effort sink, not always with a compensating payback. Sagaciousphil and I have set ourselves the ambitious target – perhaps overly ambitious target – of producing decent articles on all of Scotland's mythological creatures, and we need to concentrate on that rather on bronze stars and their fallout. Your comment about audit points is well made, and one I entirely agree with, which is why nuckelavee is now at GAN, as will the rest of our efforts be in due course. Perhaps in the fullness of time we'll move them on to FAC, but not for now, too distracting. ] ] 21:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah I know all too well re effort and how things can spin out of control. Good thing about quiet articles is they tend not to erode anywhere near as quickly so one can come back after a time with fresh eyes and generally not have to do much cleaning up, if any. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The Fifth Element FAC == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Eric. I addressed your concerns at ]. Thanks for your comments. Don't feel obligated but I thought there would be no harm in asking if you could have a look at anything else that may need improving in order for you to support this nomination. I'm happy to exchange reviews quid pro quo; i'll review something of yours in exchange for you reviewing this nomination if you like, just let me know (i'm assuming that is allowed, this is my first FAC nomination so wasn't too sure what to expect). Anyway if you're not interested or too busy no worries, have a nice day. ] (]) 10:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I doubt I'll be nominating anything else at FAC for a while, so don't worry about that. I'll have a read through your article later. ] ] 11:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For you == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Secret Award''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Eric is the secret fairy of Misplaced Pages (well guarded secret) . Maybe you can find him among these. Unless he doesn't have a ]. ] (]) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
:Very kind, but you're more likely to find me in ]. I'm the one in the red cape at the top of the picture. ] ] 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Jesus? Nice to meet you. ] (]) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Jesus is just another mythological creature as far as I'm concerned. Fervent Christians or Muslims might want to unwatch this page, as I have no time for either. Or even for religion. ] ] 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Of course. ] (]) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't consider him mythological but then again just another of the tens of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans back in those days, many with the name of Yehoshua. I've heard that roads were lined with such corpses when times were tough. But I can't figure out how anyone has any idea whatsover what this guy looked like. ] ] 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{smiley}} pick your choice -> ]. ] (]) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::…one painted by ]- never heard of him til just now. ] (]) 09:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That is bad presentation of a good painter, Xanthomelanoussprog, he is much better than the paintings shown there. I had a certain feeling I should be doing something for him - for quite a while now. ] (]) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hey == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Eric! Hope all's well. Not sure how busy you are nowadays, but if you can find the time, would you mind leaving me some comments for ]? It's been a long-term project and I'd like to take it to FAC soon-ish, but I need a little more feedback. If you're too busy, of course I don't mind. Thanks. ''']'''] 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Went ahead and listed it at FAC. Would appreciate any feedback. ''']'''] 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar question == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding , in U.S. usage the apostrophe needs to be there because "being" is a gerund—if a pronoun were substituted, it would be ''their being found'', not ''them being found''. Does current British usage differ in this respect? If so, I'll make a note of it; I write perhaps half my articles in British English. ] (]) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's got nothing to do with gerunds or differences between American and British grammar, of which there are rather few despite the impression one gets from that being so frequently used as an excuse here on WP. Would you, for instance write "the children being found" or the "children's being found"? I would also point out that in the context of the relevant sentence – {{tq|"Fokke Sierksma commented in 1960 that the evidence of fires, plus pottery fragments and the figures being found together"}} – it would make no sense at all to substitute "their being found " for "the figures being found". ] ] 17:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{ec}} If it were a gerund: "The children's being found outdoors, alone, at that time of night was concerning", US grammar would require the possessive. If it were a present participle: "All the bodies have now been accounted for and labeled in place, the two children being found together in their bedroom and of the three adults, one in the hallway and two in the den", the apostrophe would be incorrect. The possessive with gerund is required by correct grammar but widely disregarded in common usage, which is why I ask: some such things have actually been abolished, or were never enshrined as rules, in British English. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'll have to check the source, because if what was meant was "that they were found with pottery fragments", that's what the sentence should say. ] (]) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Then it sounds like the standard of teaching in American schools is lamentable. And the fact that you're uncertain now what the sentence actually means is rather telling. I bet you were even taught that it's "''i'' before ''e'', except after ''c''". weird, just weird. ] ] 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::{{ec}} I am unable to see the source. Presumably {{U|Bloodofox}} could. The version after his last substantive edit was ; with the next or the next-but-one edit, I tweaked the sentence to supply a plural subject for "make" in the quote. So I've now fixed that problem a little less elegantly and put back his wording. Pity - I suspect "found together" and "male and female" are the same point and if so, would have liked to simplify that. ] (]) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is a distinction of usage - sorry if my examples are less than clear, but your response tends to confirm that it's not a distinction made in British usage, which was my question :-) (The spelling rule of thumb is a useful one but have no fear, I was also taught to watch out for the words for which it is invalid.) ] (]) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::On the contrary, it would be be quite common to see a phrase such as "the children's swimming". The difference here is quite simply that the figures (or whatever is actually being referred to in that sentence) in no sense own "being". But this is just pissing in the wind compared to all the other problems with that article. For instance, what's the evidence that the timber from which the figures were carved was chosen "carefully", as opposed to just chosen? And how could the figures result in any theories? ] ] 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Its having been carefully chosen was taken from the cited source; don't blame me for what academics write '-) ... I presume the fact we have the figures has given rise to theories; there you may well wish to rephrase. Hope that change I made helps. Unfortunately I didn't originally write that sentence and Google won't show me the cited passage. Them's the breaks. ] (]) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Just because someone has tenure at some kind of academic institution doesn't guarantee that they're playing with a full set of marbles. ] ] 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{tps}} children's swimming seems quite unusual to me as it requires swimming to be a noun-verb, but I suppose nounification makes sense in a "habitiual action" sense ("the children's swimming was always boisterous"). My reading of the original edit is certainly that the fire, pottery, and the figures were all together, not that the two figures were together unrelated to the fragments or fire, but without the original source who knows which is correct. ] (]) 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: But a "noun-verb" is exactly what a gerund is. ] ] 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ANI discussion == |
|
|
]''"]] |
|
|
There is a discussion at ANI involving recent edits by you. ] (]) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The discussion seems to be more about you and your prissy militant feminist friends. ] ] 13:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Let it go, Eric. Here, take ] and help improve it a bit. ] ] ] 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Why should I let it go? This is by no means the first time I've been accused of misogyny by the female militants so intent not on equality but on reversing what they perceive as inequality in their own favour. IIRC the first time was by the recently sanctified {{user|Awadewit}} and her supporters, for having the temerity to write on a subject she disapproved of, ]. Besides, I've done my shift with ] and ]. Let someone else have a go and see what they can do. ] ] 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think there is much left to say. I'm offended by the very idea that to create equity, we must treat women differently. Not only is it counter to common sense, but it is insulting to women everywhere to say they are incapable of working on a level playing field. Ideology like this never goes far. I probably got more bent out of shape than I cared to, but I've seen too much real discrimination and ideas like these have only make for more discrimination, not less. ] | ] | ] 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::{{edit conflict}} Despite the bad press I'm receiving I've collaborated very successfully with many female editors, most recently with {{u|Sagaciousphil}} on a Scottish mythology series. I very much doubt that any of them would accuse me of misogyny, harassment, sexually-oriented personal attacks or failing to treat them as ''at least'' equals. It's certainly true that I make no allowances for gender or nationality even when I'm aware of it, but neither do I think I should; we're either all equal or we're not. ] ] 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Which is why that Gender Gap Task Force is so dodgy, especially when what seems to be its primary cheerleader (see ]), Carolmooredc, is indeed a militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s. Far from being collaborative, it will end up being divisive. - ] (]) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Time will tell, I suppose, I have no interest in investigating. It doesn't sound like something that is improving the articles on the encyclopedia, but I will reserve judgement at this time. I will say this, the very name of that group implies it has some kind of authority; "task force". ] | ] | ] 21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As I think I've said on several occasions - and if I haven't then I should have - Eric is a pleasure to work with and, to be frank and probably at the risk of laying myself open to being accused of all sorts, I have seldom seen so much rubbish being spouted as I have read on those AN boards today, areas that I usually avoid like the plague. It is mutual respect that counts, whether you are male or female doesn't come into the equation. Civility is subjective - I can, and as Eric knows have ;-), been far more upset, hurt and frustrated by comments that probably would not be defined as 'uncivil' yet were (in my opinion) dis-respectful. Perhaps detractors should spend more time trying to create quality content ... ] - ] 22:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) <small>PS: however, I will admit that when a bit younger I was never above using my female ploys by fluttering my eyelashes, shifting into dizzy blonde mode to get mechanics to check oil, change tyres etc etc. - worked every time! ;-)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
: Personally, I've never had issues editing with most folks on Misplaced Pages, especially not with Eric. I'm female and really haven't had any issues that related to me being female - I do think that some subjects often of more interest to women are under-represented on Misplaced Pages, but I've never really had to deal with crap because I'm female (now... I do get crap for holding up Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and NPOV and undue weight - and get flack for being supposedly an ignorant American (see ])) but... no one's ever dealt with me other than straight up on gender issues. And I find it rather condescending and demeaning that someone thinks that I need special treatment as a "special flower" in order to succeed at editing Misplaced Pages. Heh. I must have imagined those 50+ FAs and 100+ GAs... I obviously need help to get editing! ] - ] 22:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::You know, I am a little concerned at the tone on both sides. I consider myself someone who has had no problems collaborating with Eric on issues, I respect his knowledge, and know to take his occasional snark and thin-skinned attitude with a grain of salt - if he gets pissy, he's always over it in a few days, and if he's discouraged by the constant attacks by people who take his pissiness as a character flaw, he also recovers and is back in a few weeks. I remember that when I first encountered him, though, I too didn't initially understand that his snottiness is just a personality thing and he doesn't actually have a mean spirit. BUT I am also a person who probably leans toward the "militant feminist and social activist for "right-on" causes of the 60s and 70s" because many of the problems that gave rise to second wave feminism still exist. It does no good to attack feminist editors for being feminist. We can waste a lot of bandwidth here discussing things like the relevance of the Civil Rights Act and the creation of protected classes of people, but I'd prefer we didn't. I'd also prefer that we don't attack feminists. I am one, maybe not of quite the same subspecies as the folks who have come of age in a different place and generation, but I don't care to see an ideology attacked just because a few people lean on it too heavily here. Folks like Lightbreather just don't know the whole background. From any other editor but Eric, calling someone the "c-word" would have my blood boiling and I'd be to ANI faster than Lightbreather. But not in this case. So let's not stir the pot by bashing back. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::CMDC has made a very serious charge of systemic bias and she is wriggling around requests from various people that she substantiate her allegation. Those requests for substantiation are entirely reasonable. Being a real-life activist (as has been documented on her user page in the past) and a woman (self-admitted in the thread) doesn't give her some sort of right to avoid scrutiny. An entire wikiproject is being corralled principally by her and principally with that charge at its heart. - ] (]) 06:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Let's remind ourselves of the basics Montanabw. Who was called a cunt? The answer of course is that nobody was. And just sitting back and allowing these strident feminists to run riot isn't the answer to anything. ] ] 11:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not sure anyone really is running riot. There's been a lot of hot air, wailing and teeth-gnashing on the dramaboards over the last few days, but so what? That's nothing new. Unless there's real hard evidence of articles being degraded, prose getting more unreadable or facts becoming questionable, I would just ignore it. Any sufficiently large pile of bullshit will decompose naturally by its own means. ] ] ] 12:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well I am sure, and I've had it with yet again being called a misogynist by these bloody people. ] ] 12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I will never attack a feminist for being a feminist, only for pretending to be one while actually hurting the cause of equality for all people. I don't like to see someone walk on the backs of others to support their individual cause or selfish needs. ] | ] | ] 12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm all for the cause of equality, but that's not what's being demanded here. What's being demanded is some kind of ''1984'' scenario in which all editors are equal, but female editors are more equal than males, and that simply can't be tolerated. ] ] 12:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GAN? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Eric, following my recent ], I thought I would have another go. What do you think of ]? Is it worth a go at GAN? If so would you be willing to apply your usual skills at ce, etc. --] (]) 10:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks good, I like that, well worth a shot at GAN. I might not have the the time for a proper read through until tomorrow though. ] ] 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks, Eric. No rush; I would prefer to wait until you have had time for a proper look. Cheers. --] (]) 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think this is good to go for GAN now. There are probably prose issues that a full review would sort out, but I can't think of any reason this would quick-fail at a GA review. Since the backlog can be measured in months these days, you might as well put it up now. You can use that delay to your advantage, by coming back the article a week later with a fresh pair of eyes and finding things to fix - all before any reviewer has touched it. As I hinted above, I've been looking at ] which was apparently the ] of its day, being part of a ''de facto'' Manchester bypass in the 1950s and a horrendous bottleneck. ] ] ] 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== If you have time.. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added some new stuff to both ] and ] ... finally got around to integrating a new article that came out in 2012. If you could check my usual wordiness, etc it'd be great! ] - ] 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your ] nomination of ]== |
|
|
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 15:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Question for the floor. from ] states that a footbridge was built in this location in 1761 after the original bridge was blown up to stop the Jacobite army. But the ] article says that a road bridge already existed at this time when it opened, in the same year, citing Glen Atkinson's ''Barton's Bridges''. One of the sources must be wrong - which? ] ] ] 15:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think there's much doubt that Atkinson is right. The definitive answer would come from the text of the enabling act of 1760 of course, which Bosdin Leech quotes from in his ''History of the Manchester Ship Canal from its Inception to its Completion'': " may be taken over the River Irwell at or near a certain bridge called Barton Bridge". ] ] 16:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'll go with that. The other evidence I found is contemporary pictures online clearly showing the bridge and the 18th century aqueduct side by side and resembling each other. (eg: , ) ] ] ] 17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Salford Council have pretty clearly got it wrong I think. ] ] 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::A council gets something wrong. Well I never. Could be a typo for 1751, but to build a wooden footbridge and replace it with a stone three arch bridge all in good time for it to be a well known landmark by 1760 sounds a bit of a tall order, in an era when Trafford Park really was a park by our modern definition. ] ] ] 19:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== |
|
|
] |
|
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
== ANI == |
|
|
|
|
|
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
|
.jpg)