Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:44, 26 February 2015 view sourceGiano (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users20,173 edits →GAR request← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,808 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.}} <!--{{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.}}
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}} {{#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 10: 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 30: Line 33:
* ] * ]


| heading2 = 2008 | heading2
| content2 = | list2name = 2008
| list2title = 2008 archive
| list2 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 45: Line 50:
* ] * ]


| heading3 = 2009 | heading3
| content3 = | list3name = 2009
| list3title = 2009 archive
| list3 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 60: Line 67:
* ] * ]


| heading4 = 2010 | heading4
| content4 = | list4name = 20010
| list4title = 2010 archive
| list4 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 75: Line 84:
* ] * ]


| heading5 = 2011 | heading5
| content5 = | list5name = 2011
| list5title = 2011 archive
| list5 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 90: Line 101:
* ] * ]


| heading6 = 2012 | heading6
| content6 = | list6name = 2012
| list6title = 2012 archive
| list6 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 105: Line 118:
* ] * ]


| heading7 = 2013 | heading7
| content7 = | list7name = 2013
| list7title = 2013 archive
| list7 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 120: Line 135:
* ] * ]


| heading8 = 2014 | heading8
| content8 = | list8name = 2014
| list8title = 2014 archive
| list8 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 135: Line 152:
* ] * ]


| heading9 = 2015 | heading9
| content9 = | list9name = 2015
| list9title = 2015 archive
| list9 =
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading10
| content34style = text-align: center; margin-top: 1em;
| content34 = | list10name = 2016
| list10title = 2016 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>
| list10 =
<p>
* ]
]!
* ]
</p>
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

| heading11
| list11name = 2017
| list11title = 2017 archive
| list11 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

| heading12
| list12name = 2018
| list12title = 2018 archive
| list12 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

| heading13
| list13name = 2019
| list13title = 2019 archive
| list13 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| content35 = | content35 =
Line 158: Line 248:
| navbar = none | navbar = none
}} }}
{{-}}


==Help== == TFA ==
Eric and company, I could do with some help. I've been looking at ] and couldn't leave this GA alone. I have come to believe that this should not be a GA but I don't wish to go any further without some solid advice from some legitimate GA writers and reviewers. Thanks. ] (]) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
: That song is neither "bubblegum pop" nor "doo wop." It is saccharine-sweet hip hop. ] (]) 06:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::Stop the genre warring! ] ] 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:"Trainor stated that the clip did not only comprise of a story and theme " and "the lyrics tell off a cheating, lying, boyfriend" tell you all you need to know about whether or not this is a legitimate GA. ] ] 10:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:*That last one is mine: an obviously failed attempt to make something out of nothing. "Lyrically, the singer tells of a cheating, lying boyfriend while asserting Trainor's physical assets." That actually suggests the singer is singing about Meghan Trainor. BTW, the "physical assets", that's some cute phrase from I think a Billboard review (cited here in our voice)--the reviewer means "the singer says she has a great ass". Anyone remember the famous "I Like Big Butts" paraphrase wars? ] (]) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:*:It was the "tell off" I was complaining about. ] ] 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*Haha, I didn't even notice that! Sorry. I made thirty copy edits to that article yesterday and only scratched the surface. In the meantime I wrote up ], and found that the article lacked #4, neutrality, as well. ] (]) 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::::* Actually, both "tells of" and "" are correct in context, although the latter is a bit informal. I would suggest going Joycean with "tell of(f)". ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::*But "tells off" means to scold or reprimand, which I don't think is what was meant. ] ] 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::* I guess I'll have to go listen to the song a few dozen more times to settle this... :P ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::*I'll try at some point, given my younger daughter is an avid top-40 music lover and commandeers the car radio regularly....] (] '''·''' ]) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*Eric, I delisted it. Can you or any of your talk page stalkers see if I filed the paperwork (on the talk page) correctly? The GAR instructions told me to change an Article History template, but there was no such template, so I found a GA delisted template--but that AH template looks better to me. Anyway, thanks for y'all's help, ] (]) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::Sha na na a GA?]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
== January 2015 ==
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision&nbsp;and for violating your GGTF topic ban, as discussed in the related , you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp;<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a ]: "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" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
| 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!==
:I think you ought to extend your block to 72 hours, as I don't edit on Mondays. ] ] 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::That doesn't strike me as a reason that would justify extending a block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Does anything ever strike you? ] ] 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*I would consider the block to be inappropriate, given that far more admins voiced dissent against the block than supported it. Obvious supervote is obvious. ] ] 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*:Sandstein has no "supervote", he just thinks that he does. His next step of course will be to restrict access to my talk page. That might be a mistake on his part though, because there's always the possibility that I might launch into a profane and vitriolic attack on him and anyone who believes that he is anything other than what I believe him to be. ] ] 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*It appears to me that there is an agenda . '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*:I'm not permitted to say what I think about Sandstein, although he's permitted to propagate whatever lies about me that pop into his head. I think that tells us all we need to know about WP's chaotic model of governance. The reason that Jimmy Wales wants the WMF to ban me as soon as humanly possible is because he knows that I'm right, and he's afraid that too many others might realise that as well. ] ] 19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
*I can see Sandstein's logic on this one, and had the comment clearly been meant in bad faith I might have supported a block, but this seems completely out of proportion to the alleged offence. That said, I think it's grossly unfair to accuse Sandstein of having an agenda. I have criticised Sandstein in the past for his overly literal interpretation of remedies and the lack of proportion in subsequent sanctions (as indeed have plenty of arbitrators over the years), but he takes this approach across the board. I've seen nothing at all that suggest he has an axe to grind—against any editor—and would appreciate it if people would refrain from making such suggestions unless they have evidence. It is important to remember that it is possible for somebody to take an action you disagree with in only the best of faith, and that it is possible to disagree with that action without suggesting that the person who made it had an ulterior motive. ] &#124; ] 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
::His "approach" has been to punish one party whilst letting off the other. That, to me, points to an agenda. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a basis for sanctions against the other party, there isn't an applicable arbitration remedy. We can and often do scrutinise those who come to AE with unclean hands to request discretionary sanctions, but we don't have the same latitude with specific remedies like topic bans, and Sandstein has only evaluated things from the perspective of arbitration enforcement (which is also something for which he has a reputation). ] &#124; ] 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::So what's going to be next Harry? Am I even allowed to mention the existence of the GGTF? This very much reminds of one of those five-steps-removed from shows. Can anyone point to any female editor that I've abused in the way that I'm being continually accused of? ] ] 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::*Based on this block, I would say no, you won't be able to. ] ] 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::*:So basically I'm forbidden to edit any article to do with females? Why didn't ArbCom just say that? ] ] 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::* So Eric can't edit ] <small>(well obviously ''right now'' he can't but you get my drift)</small> to give it a good copyedit and beef up the sourcing so it can be a GA? Who else will do the work? ] ] ] 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::*I wouldn't go that far. It just looks to me like ArbCom wants you, Eric, to simply avoid even ''seeing'' the acronym GGTF, let alone mentioning it or responding to someone else who has the audacity to bring it up in a discussion that hadn't involved them previously. ] ] 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This block was against a clearly forming consensus and contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am far too involved to entertain any unblock request but as on outside observer I would probably grant it(oh, I just noticed it is a special kind of block where I could not anyways). Just because someone technically violated the rules does not mean the community cannot have a consensus to not act, there was such a consensus and it was ignored. ] 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:I have never understood the "broadly construed" ArbCom mantra, but ''c'est la vie''. It now seems to me to being stretched to the point of ridicule, but I doubt Sandstein will care about that, as it gives him the opportunity to wreak his vengeance. ] ] 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::It's just Sandstein doing what Sandstein does; probably nothing against you specifically. A while back someone wrote something like "if there was a group of people running from a burning building, Sandstein would be the policeman calmly standing at the curb writing them tickets for jaywalking." But I've never seen any evidence that he's partial in his actions. ] (]) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Are you suggesting that Sandstein is an equal opportunity abuser? ] ] 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::As I said on his talk page, yes, I'm afraid that's the case. It's not that you're blocked because you're Eric Corbett(TM), but because you broke The Rule #418 §13, fine print. ] (]) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I broke no rules. ] ] 23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Now that I have the time (a self-imposed 3 day holiday to honor a friend), I was strolling around one of the old pastures behind the GGTF Building and found this ]. Careful! It stinks! ]<small>]</small> 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
]
*Well, thanks a lot, Sandstein. Great job adminning; you've clearly allowed Lightbreather to breathe more freely and make even more quality contributions. Eric, I came by to ask you if you could have a look at ] for me, which I just wrote up, on request. Turns out it was quite a bit of fun, and I was reminded of why I joined Misplaced Pages in the first place: to learn stuff. Anyway, I got plenty of real-life work to do, so I think I'll join you. ] (]) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

]
* Me too. One exchange with LB, ], not really an interaction. There seems to be some difficulty in grasping my idea that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities. - Watch AE for more entertainment, we have the approach that suggesting to generally replace a template by a better one leads to "removing and adding" an infobox and thus is a violation (which prohobits "removing" and "adding". I would not be surprised if it ended the same way. - Thank you, ], for giving me the term "best interest of the encyclopedia", - the interests of arbitration enforcement may be different. - I was cited there because I restored ] after an edit war. --] (]) 10:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:: some flowers also for {{diff|User talk:Cassianto|644267917|644265511|Cassianto}} --] (]) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

*I'm not sure what this latest block was meant to achieve, but "Ours not to reason why" I guess. ] ] 18:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::Look at it this way. Think of the sheer joy felt by those who dislike you. The block may have been pointless, but at least something good came from it. ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== I am reporting your recent violation of ArbCom sanctions ==

Please consider this a formal notice that I have reported your recent violation of your ArbCom sanctions at ]. ] (]) 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:Good luck with that, I suggest that you canvass Sandstein ... Oh I see you've already done that. ] ] 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Just when you hope this place can't get any more ridiculous...it does. ]] 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Not terribly recent. Only after not gaining any sort of consensus at ] for their POV. <small>]</small> 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:: In what world is a few hours ago "not recent"? ] (]) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::: This one, in which Rationalobserver made numerous edits before filing the AE request -- as has been noted by the responding admin at AE. <small>]</small> 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: FTR, to Sandstein's page, and I brought it to AE ''only'' after . You are helping them turn this on me, which is why this place is so dysfunctional. If calling an editor "filth" isn't an insult, then I don't know what is. ] (]) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::::*Rationalobserver, since you clearly despise Eric so much that you will run to dramaboards at the drop of a hat with evidence that is at best flawed, why are you still keeping this page on your watchlist? Oh, yeah; so you can bait him into being blocked. That doesn't help you, Eric, or anyone else. How, exactly, is Eric supposed to improve with people like you biting at his ankles every step of the way? ] ] 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::* Okay, I shouldn't have underestimated the amount of support that EC has for his ''style''. I'll take your advice and unwatch this page, and hopefully I won't have to interact with him again any time soon. ] (]) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

*Owing to their filthy analogy towards me, they have been described as the noun alternative. It's not difficult to understand, but then perhaps for you, it is. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:* I don't know what your talking about, but you win. I'll try to avoid to guys from now on. ] (]) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:*:I don't want to see you here ever again Rationalobserver. Is that clear enough? ] ] 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::::And if RO continues this vendetta, I'll be asking for sanctions against <s>him<s> her at ANI. I really don't care if they don't actually pass now, but at some point the number of incidents will be too much for anyone to ignore. The moral of the story for the RO,KK,LB of the world; The fact is a lot of us ''like'' him writing stuff and he can't do that blocked. And he is less likely to be blocked if you stop counting the ways to be offended and/or poking at him. Just ignore him.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Harassing me is allowed, I'm surprised you haven't noticed. What's not allowed is for me to object to that harassment. ] ] 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I've noticed. Let other's object on your behalf, though you could do everyone a favor and try not to take their bait.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 04:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Ping me any time, I'm just looking for excuses to avoid my dramas and take on someone else's. I'm also more than willing to tell trolls they are trolls and to suggest that particularly annoying people go commit the infamous anatomically impossible act. (I also am always on the lookout for colorful euphemisms that provoke a SCOMN response from the reader!) ]<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

==Mailing lists and conspiracies==

You may possibly not have noticed, but there's been a lot of talk of mailing lists, and secret plots to drive you off lately. I have a problem believing in the conspiracy theories because conspiracies require clever Machiavellian people, and I have seen precious few of those sallying against you, and while ] has his faults (as we've seen over the last few days, he's not Machiavellian and I think he's basically honest, if easily led, frequently obsessive and mistaken. However, there is no doubt that some mailing lists have been rallying against you, and as they are offshoots of Misplaced Pages, we all have a right to know, which are these lists and which users subscribe to them - so lets have some names for these lists, details of what exactly are they saying and their membership. For the benefit of the shy, my user-email is working and discretion is assured. So let's get this cloak, dagger and stiletto stuff out in the open before the next poor wretch is set upon. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

:The only relevant WMF mailing list I'm aware of is . ] ] 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:''(after ] with EC]'' I admit I'm baked, and not in a good way, but it's time to point out that, while he is not Misplaced Pages's champion of mincing words, I have never seen Eric try to drive anyone away from this project, certainly not another editor whose primary concern lies in mainspace. On the contrary, he's most receptive toward those who seek his assistance in improving articles, including people he might have initially tangled with (or they might have tangled with him). It's depressing enough to see some people watching Eric-in-a-fishbowl's every edit and waiting to pounce (same goes for edits by other prolific editors who improve the encyclopedia while perhaps not meeting some people's expectations toward Misplaced Pages as a social medium), to additionally have to read how these others obsess over Eric ''off-''Wiki is too much to ask of anyone. Eric-detractors, please find something else to do. This is an encyclopedia. ---] ] 22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::WP is a venomous environment led by a toxic personality. Is there anything more that needs to be said? ] ] 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::: ] --] (]) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
]"'']]
::::I am out now, thanks, and looking forward to the next instalment of my surgical saga. As with a few others who have emailed me, I just cannot be arsed doing much here while this POV-pushing, pseudo-do-gooding political farrago continues. Let the DYK die a death, and let's hope that the community comes to its senses and begins to react to the real troublemakers who seem so keen to claim a faction exists but not to acknowledge that they are certainly part of one. I have read with interest the various user talk page responses to an invitation to ], of which the one ] seems to be fairly typical. I am a Wikipedian first and, in a very distant second, a man. But I am fed up of the bullshit. - ] (]) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not going to touch anything to do with Lightbreather until I've fixed up a few articles on (as I feel the best response to somebody saying "well ''you'' improve these articles then" is to actually do so), though I can only find primary sources for ] and I think it's only inherent notability through ] that stops the bio going to AfD. Still, if another person sends that Kaffeeklatsch stuff to MfD, I will not shed tears. ] ] ] 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Thanks to all eight editors who have sent me mailing lists to look at - amazing how the same names appear time after time, perhaps they don't get much mail in RL. From what I've read, so far, it looks like this is probably jut two silly editors constantly exciting each other to greater and greater acts of stupidity - of course that's assuming that they are two separate editors. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Without even seeing them, I suspect who the gruesome twosome are. The conduct of one stinks so bad, I sometimes think she transposed the letters of her username.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 09:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*I think, {{U|Sitush}}, that you accidentally forwarded something to me instead of to your sex kitten mailing list--"Hello I'm Sara,i saw your profile and i became interested in you,i will like to know you more,honestly dear friend i will be glad to receive your conversation responds to my mailbox, so that i will give you my pictures and also tell you more about myself. Remember the distance, colour or language does not matter but love matters a lot in life". I mean, you know I'm married, right? ] (]) 05:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

== And now for something completely different.... ==

just arrived through ILL. Mwwwwhhhaa... I can cover your (possible) ancestors.... ] - ] 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

::<small>What, you're not a ]?</small> ---] ]

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

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

== Possessive form of Louis ==

Could you (or one of your talk page stalkers) advise on the possessive form of French Prince Louis? At ] a reviewer has commented on the use of "Louis's" which is used three times in the subsection "Great Charter of 1217" of ]. Any advice appreciated.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:As a talk page stalker: I would say it's Louis' palace at Versailles, and Lewis's semi-detatched in Wolverhapmpton. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

:''Belated talk page stalker'' {{ping|Rodw}} Hmm: Googling suggests that "Louis's palace" is much more common than "Louis' palace". Given that "Louis" is pronounced "Looie", and that you'd talk about "Looiez palas", phonetically speaking, I'd have thought that the "apostrophe ess" would be added after this silent "s". According to Misplaced Pages (!), "The English possessive of French nouns ending in a silent s, x, or z is rendered differently by different authorities." (]). There are 18k ghits for "Louis's reign" and 14k for "Louis' reign", but the first page of ghits for the latter seems to include many occurrences of the "Louis's" version. ]] 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:And the ''Oxford Guide to Style'' on Googlebooks supports "Louis's". ]] 00:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. As I said at the review my grammar is not good enough to make valid arguments on this one (and I'm not sure the English grammar purists would put much weight on ghits). The query was raised by ] and once ] and Eric (all much more expert on grammar than I am) had commented all with the same answer I changed it in the Magna Carta article. It has now passed GA but if you'd like to put the potential options (or any other queries) onto the ] that would be great as we already have a "Further development" section for "nit-picks" as we are hoping to move it forward to FAC before the anniversary.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 08:33, 31 January 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? ] (]) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::::I'm labouring under more sanctions that you could possibly imagine, so I think I'll pass. ] ] 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 ] and you've helped to improve the page. Good work. ] (]) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I doubt it Viriditas so I'm still going to pass. ] ] 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: . I'm somewhat saddened (although not surprised) by the "preach and insult" method. - ] (]) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''You're at 3RR. How much clearer does it have to be before you get a clue?''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 00:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

:Hard to say, How soon will it be before you get a clue? ] ] 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). ] ] 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. ] ] 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*Stops RO from having any more ammunition for dodgy cases. It's up to you though, of course. ] ] 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 {{u|Sagaciousphil}} onto ] or something. ] (] '''·''' ]) 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.♦ ] 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. ] (]) 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? ]<sup>]</sup> 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. -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Always find these "newbies" who instantly discover the drama boards to be uncanny in their ]. :-P ]<sup>]</sup> 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::*Yes, {{U|Montanabw}} has a point, and made me look a bit around. This I don't get. OK, that unblock from was made in good fait, but by now ... Also some warnings have been made already. On same topic... ] (]) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::::* One editor's behaviour does not excuse another's. ] (]) 13:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*:Perhaps not, but it may go some towards explaining it. ] ] 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''. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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?] (]) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::In this instance, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::*Ah yes, the dire consequences of "Experienced Newbie". This example still boggles my mind. 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 ] a month after starting to edit.. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*Indeed. IPs can be very unpleasant; 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

==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? . ]<small>]</small> 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:For a given page, select "View History" and then "Revision history statistics" from External Tools. e.g for ], <small>]</small> 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you Ent. Turns out I was wrong. . ]<small>]</small> 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

== Courtesy Notification(s) ==

There is some discussion that would consider nonsense going on at ] 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.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
: Oh yeah, KnowledgeKid77, you've been mentioned as well.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

== Another fine article ==

I do like your new ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 19:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:You've created an awful lot of articles J3Mrs, but were you thinking of ]? ] ] 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. ] (]) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I think we should have articles on all the patent medicines and their manufacturers. ] ] 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 ] might be able to set you up with something. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 05:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

== Arbitration amendment to a decision affecting you ==

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has made two amendments to the ] 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, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 15:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::* After saying something similar, I just ] for a female hero ;) --] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ] 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 ;) --] (]) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::*There was even an article in The Times last week about Misplaced Pages'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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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.)<p>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. - ] (]) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
*Here's a hypothetical. If {{u|Sagaciousphil}} makes an edit I subsequently revert or amend am I in any way abusing her? Or vice versa? ] ] 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? ] (]) 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Notification of enforcement request ==

] ] <small>(])</small> 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:Why not just contact {{u|Sandstein}} directly? I'm quite certain he'd be only too happy to do the honours for you. ] ] 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::*How very droll; ] is a proud editor-in chief of Misplaced Pages's newspaper. As he scours its pages for subversion there's no risk of him ever becoming a fearless ]. This place gets sicker by the moment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::*:I guess that once Jimmy Wales hands you the ] it's all over bar the shouting. ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*:We'll just have to wait and see what ] decides to do, as he practically runs the AE show. ] ] 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think I don't know what your game is here, Staler and Waldorf. ] <small>(])</small> 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:What are you accusing me of now? ] ] 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. - ] (]) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:::He is referring to ]. A U.S. entertainment reference. ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::Fun fact, the muppets Statler and Waldorf were in fact named after the hotels. ] 19:00, 7 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 ] as somebody who could possibly give the ] 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. ''']]'''</span> 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. ] ] 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::Again? Sheesh. But understandable, thanks anyways. ''']]'''</span> 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. ] ] 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you Eric. ] (]) 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*I was hoping you might copy edit ], 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::*:It's not the dead that cause me trouble, it's the living. ] ] 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::*Try editing only during the hours of darkness. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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 {{u|Sandstein}} thinks. ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ] ] 19:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::*I think it's probably Herr! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just seeing your reply now. Thank you, Eric! ''']]'''</span> 21:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:I'm signing off now, but we should be able to finish this off tomorrow. ] ] 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::Sounds great. ''']]'''</span> 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::There you go, all done now I think. Good luck with the FAC. ] ] 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::PS. I do have one question for you though. The second sentence in the lead says {{tq|"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"? ] ] 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. ''']]'''</span> 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. ] ] 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. ''']]'''</span> 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.

: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. ] ] 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

:::Do you think I give a shit? ] ] 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. ] 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

== Apparently you need to be kept in line by Lightbreather ==

Apparently ] thinks that Lightbreather should be your personal monitor. Take a look at this stating 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. ] (]) 08:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::Does ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 12:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Monitor, not mentor. - ] (]) 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 ]. It's all quite concerning as the Arbcom seems to be quite happy with the situation, but then I suppose they would be. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from it, EC. ] (]) 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, ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::I'm less sure than you ] 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 ] was using Wikipediocracy to accuse me of attacking her because of her sex (My analogy to her (posted openly on Misplaced Pages) was actually don't behave like a pathetic fool if you won't be regarded as one). My experience of women on Misplaced Pages 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ] ] 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Be careful. Even mentioning anything directly or indirectly on your own page, is risky. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages's core attributes. ]] 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". ;) ). ] (]) 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 ] novel together. If what I've just said results in another AE sanction then so be it, I really couldn't care less. ] ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I didn't choose this fight. ] ]
{{od}} 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages? 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. ] ] 06:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::Dysfunctional. - ] (]) 06:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::Primeval. - ] (]) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

:::I love women Gerda, I think they're very interesting. ] ] 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. ] ] 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::Indeed. Very well said, Eric. It's not supposed to be a war. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] ] 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

==Congratulations==
{| style="border: 3px solid {{{border|gold}}}; background-color: #000000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" |<font color="gold">'''100 Pages of Archived Talk''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|- |-
|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)
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |<font color="gold"> 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 Misplaced Pages Community uses your page as the town dump, we thank you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
<font color="black">
|} |}
If you like you can add this userbox to your extensive collection.
{{Userbox
|id = ]
|id-c = #000000
|info = <font color="gold">This user has been awarded with the '''100 Pages of Archives''' Award.
|info-c = #000000
|border-c = #bbb
|border-s = 1}}
. ]<small>]</small> 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Buster7}} HA! I'll be sure to use that in the future :P --''']''' (]) <span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;font-size: 40%;">]</span> 03:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== Complete non-drama ==

Did you know? ... that ] win horse races with ]?
*Not a GA yet, but a touch of wikignoming is welcomed. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:31, 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 ] for ] 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! ] (]) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

==Kedleston Hall==

A request that's totally not connected to females and their problems. Can you pop over to ], and click on the thing that tells you how to pronounce it. I've always thought (and pronounced) it Kedleston to rhyme with kettle then 'stn' rather 'ston' with the emphasis on the 'e' as in kettle. However, that pronouncing thing makes a great deal of 'lest.' I suppose native speakers may know otherwise, and as you are from those wilds that are north of Watford, you may just happen to know. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::*Don't worry, it's now sorted . At least I know now that whatever my accent is, it's not Derbyshire. Talking of accents, I do have one (I'm told) although, I agree with you all, it's hard to believe - so it's good time to say this, English people have no idea how irritating it is to those of us phonetically challenged, when they keep saying "'''Sorry?'''" (and are clearly not) and looking at us as though we are half-wits. FFS say "''what''" or as my middle son's girlfriend says "''Wassat''" (<small>hopefully, she won't last long</small>) or "I have left my deaf-aid at home" or even: "''speak properly or go back you foreign bastard.''" Whatever, just something I thought I'd mention at this opportune moment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::*Keddùlstun. But how useful are these pronunciations? Who says "Dudley" like a… like a… like someone who comes from ]? Last time I heard some of 'em talking, I thought they were Swedish. ] (]) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Not Misplaced Pages: "({{IPAc-en|audio=en-uk-Dudley.ogg|ˈ|d|ʌ|d|l|i}} {{respell|DUD|lee}})", though I don't see why we can't have the local as well as the national ] (]) 20:28, 11 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 ], 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. ] ] 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 ] in the body from a corresponding organ of a healthy ] by triggering the creation of ]s 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. ] (]) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks Karanacs, I feel more comfortable about carrying on with it now. I thought the ] 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! ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I'll be careful. My interest is really only in quack cures though. ] ] 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. ] ] 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::My advice is to avoid all "hysteria in females." <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ] ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

::For those who want to see that longest sentence Eric thought he'd ever seen, it's in , before he started to tidy it up. ]] 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 ]: any advance on 13,955 words? ]] 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

::::::Let's not tempt fate by mentioning ] on Eric's page. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 13 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. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] ] 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

== A corndog 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;" | ''']'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | 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. ] (]) 20:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
|}

::OK, the corn dog and prosperity go together, but good health?? =:-O ]<sup>]</sup> 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

== Copyediting request ==

Eric, would you be willing to take a look at ]? 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. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:Sure, maybe not until tomorrow though. ] ] 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks -- whenever you can get to it is fine. Much appreciated. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

== You've been busy ==

] 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.) ] (]) 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, {{tl|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. ] ] 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? ] (]) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

::::I agree with ]. Why do "they" have to make life difficult for editors like us. Why cannot {{tl|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. --] (]) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::From reading the various citation talk pages it seems that the {{tl|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. ] ] 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). --] (]) 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. ] ] 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Yep. See . - ] (]) 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. ] ] 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

::::::::::No, it's simpler than that: Experts are crap. Remember? ;-) ]<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} 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. ]&nbsp;] 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

:It's quite clear that very few give a fuck about writing content. ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't use {{tl|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 {{u|Parrot of Doom}}'s FAs all use {{tl|citation}} too, and anyway, aren't there still a load of FAs with free text citations inside <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> 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 ]) before some admins were born, but the fundamentals of how to bugger up software development beyond the call of duty were well documented in ]' '']'' several decades ago and haven't really changed. ] ] ] 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
<s>Why not ask the person who's editing ] to fix it? I'd have done so already, but</s> I'm not sure exactly what the issue is -- "contribution" used to work and now it doesn't? <small>]</small> 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

::Better idea, why doesn't whoever is editing ] 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Could ya'll verify the recent change is what's causing the ugly red warnings on ] references? <small>]</small> 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

: is what alerted me to the problem, it's been going on for a while. ] (]) 20:49, 18 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">]</font></span> 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:Not that I'm aware of, certainly not written by me anyway. ] ] 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">]</font></span> 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:::It's very unlikely that I would choose to waste my time on such an exercise. ] ] 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::''This problem left as an exercise to the reader.'' <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">]</font></span> 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. . ]<small>]</small> 07:25, 24 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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". ] (]) 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.♦ ] 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: I'm sincerely regretful that I got sucked into the frenzy. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 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 ] 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. ♦ ] 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 23:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

::::: <s>You were pretty harsh with me,</s> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::We all make our own beds, and then we have to lie in them. ] ] 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Play a nocturne by ], perhaps? One of the women mentioned above, and of the ] (still don't know if there was a single woman in the majority who supported) --] (]) 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. ] ] 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? ] ] 23:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: I can say that you love women and "find brainy women so ... exciting" ;) --] (]) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::I do, a misogynist I am not. ] ] 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 ] and there's quite a bit of info . I would write it myself, but I've become rather absorbed with his odd son's masonic habits and eccentricities. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for the c/e. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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 ]. Please feel free to improve the article if it needs a copy edit or if there's anything else to add. --]] 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::::No, No, that's lovely: I'll link to it from ]. I'm sure Eric will be pleased to have one chore less. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 11:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::This auction listing for his medals 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. ] (]) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Interesting. I'll include that today if I get the chance. --]] 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. --]] 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I never bother with infoboxes, so I'm not the best person to ask. ] ] 00:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Biblioworm probably did a better job of it than I would have done anyway. ] ] 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

== Exhumation of Richard III of England ==

Hi Eric, ] 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? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 01:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== Date ranges ==

Hi Eric, I notice that you've twice reverted a date range on ]. 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, —] (]) 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. ] ] 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== Kevin Gorman's bet ==

I was never sure whether {{ping|Kevin Gorman}} agreed to back up his opinion by putting his money where is mouth is or not: {{xt|"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). ] ] 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. - ] (]) 06:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

::Ah, I'll forget about it then. ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I believe that he runs it. ] ] 16:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Perhaps ]. ]] 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 ] back in 2008. That person might be sad to see that it's not so clean anymore, but let's let {{U|Sitush}} take care of it. ] (]) 18:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Good old Malleus! Whatever happened to him? Chased off by a bunch of screaming harpies? ] ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Sippy is going to grow up to be a formidable lady. ] ] 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 ] 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, {{diff|Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt|648464695|648458317|like this}}? --] (]) 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? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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 . ] ] 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 was altogether far more useful. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

==GAR request==
Hello, Eric. I realize this is a long-shot, but an article I wrote, ], has recently come under fire for alleged concerns about paraphrasing and overall quality (please see and ). 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 and ), 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? ] (]) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:I think that you cannot be serious. ] ] 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. ] (]) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I leave forgiveness to God. ] ] 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: Fair enough; I can't say that I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. ] (]) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: Can you recommend anyone, preferably with an interest in Old West topics? ] (]) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm afraid not. ] ] 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{tps}} I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, there is a bad case of OWNership there and there are , 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 , the close paraphrasing would defeat a GAN at this point. JMO as a member of WikiProject Old West. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::: The allegations of close paraphrasing have been independently refuted by two ''neutral'' editors: and . ] (]) 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). ]<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Montanabw}}, It became a Ga on 16 February with this version. See ]. ] (]) 02:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, I guess we save our fire for FAC, where it should be properly critiqued. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{xt|"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"? ] ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] ] 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: You seem to resent Misplaced Pages so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like ], 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. ] (]) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Wow, no wonder editors aren't queuing up to help {{u|Rationalobserver}}. What a nasty spiteful thing to say. ] (]) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: No, it's not. ] - ] 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Some editors have no self-awareness. If {{u|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. ] (]) 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... ]] 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. ] (]) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: His big example was one typo, how trivial. ] (]) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: I don't understand why you continue to humiliate yourself here. ] (]) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: That's exactly what I think about you guys. Bye-bye! ] (]) 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. ] ] 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*Just as a reminder to Rationalobserver, along with {{ping|Karanacs}} and {{ping|Moni3}} I was one of the principal authors of the ]. My final piece of advice would be to read that and see how it ought to be done. ] ] 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*:And viola, there suddenly appears . ]<sup>]</sup> 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). ]&nbsp;] 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. ] ] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. 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. ] ] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ] ] 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::::: (ec) What worked for me was ], --] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|J3Mrs}}, she'll be back - it would appear that life holds little other for her than dancing around Eric like a lame, vexatious, spitting ]. What ought to surprise me, but doesn't is that ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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 {{ping|GorillaWarfare}} another bite at the cherry in trying to have me banned, because I'm not of her gender. ] ] 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 ] and ] would weep if they saw such soppy tricks from the sex they helped to prove were equal to men. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. ] ] 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 ]; she'd have soon sharpened Gorilla's behavior up. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:44, 26 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 Misplaced Pages to improve articles related to ] and ] to higher levels of quality including ] and ].

Much appreciated,

&mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:I'd say more, but I'm presently under an ArbCom imposed gagging order. ;-) ] ] 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::Okay, well, thanks again for the copy editing help, &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for all the work you and Giano have done on ] - 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 (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. ] ] ] 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Whatever credit is due must go to Giano, as I wouldn't know a courbelle from a crow. ] ] 16:58, 26 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. ] ] 17:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024

2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive
2012 archive
2013 archive
2014 archive
2015 archive
2016 archive
2017 archive
2018 archive
2019 archive

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Jersey Act, 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. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)