User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2015/August

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eric Corbett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you seriously think it's likely that I'll be following you, a self-confessed sockpuppet, to ANI? Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG has already taken place. Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really, as the sockmaster walks free. Eric Corbett 21:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Eric. Still, softly softly catches monkey: snides always drop a bollock and give themselves away in the end. Keri (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is usually effective. There is a new Matisse sock on the loose, apparently. Just keep your powder dry and don't be baited by the trolls and drama-mongers. Montanabw^(talk) 01:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, you reverted my change of the GA topic parameter from Myths, mythology and miracles to Philosophy and religion, asking "what's it got to do with religion?" Stoor worm is listed under Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. The topic "Myths, mythology and miracles" doesn't work in {{GA}}; very few of those subheadings do. The page Stoor worm is now listed at Category:Good articles without topic parameter (which "in theory ... should be empty"). The alternative option is to make an edit protected request to Module:Good article topics/data, requesting the addition of "Myths, mythology and miracles", but I don't think this is the best option as the Module doesn't contain very many other subheadings that aren't listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary. If you have an objection with the heading "Myths, mythology and miracles" being a subheading of "Philosophy and religion", that's a separate problem, which could perhaps be fixed by (a) making "Philosophy and religion" more verbose (e.g. "Philosophy, religion and myths") or (b) moving it to another category (although I can't think of a better place to put it). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See the article history now. Eric Corbett 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what an SJW female is? It's an epithet I've seen thrown around quite a bit over the last few days, but I've got no idea what it means. Eric Corbett 18:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior. Worm^TT(talk) 19:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Eric Corbett 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Liz's crat chat isn't an appropriate venue to pursue your "The Eric Corbett issue", so let me simply say that I'm deeply unimpressed at the shallowness of your thinking, and let's leave it there. Eric Corbett 19:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what I was trying to say. You're no fool, you know I respect you. I certainly didn't mean to insult you. Worm^TT(talk) 19:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you have to think about it from my point of view. That discussion had absolutely nothing to do with me, yet you felt it was proper to try and drag me into it with your "The Eric Corbett issue". Colour me unimpressed. Eric Corbett 19:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

your help on Andreas Scholl fondly. Heard him today, singing BWV 170 (Delightful rest, beloved pleasure of the soul) and conducting BWV 105 (twice) here, will receive the Rheingau Musikpreis tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Shergar Cup, particularly in light of the 2015 results. Good sport, even if it's a bit commercialized. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Horse racing is not something that's ever interested me, so I'll pass on that. Eric Corbett 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for giving it a thought. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric Corbett, in the open Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Better still L235, why don't we instead ask Eric to write a new GA or review an existing one seeing as that's what we are here for. Time is better spent elsewhere rather than at the toilet facility that is ArbCom. Cassianto^Talk 12:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I'm not ArbCom, I'm merely a messenger. Any issues with the proposed decision should be taken to them directly. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You were mentioned by name, so the procedures demand that you be notified to give you a chance to raise objections to ArbCom on the PD talk page. Sorry if the notice causes you any inconvenience. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone slipped that requirement in a couple of years ago; it certainly wasn't in WP:ARBPOL when I ratified it (that list of names makes an impressive "where are they now?", doesn't it?). I can kind of see the logic, much as I dislike Arbcom's ever-sprawling web of made-up-on-the-hoof pseudo-policies; if they don't tell everyone who's mentioned, someone is bound to complain that they were never given a chance to object. ‑ iridescent 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Iridescent; there were a couple of incidents of editors being named in an arbitration decision who first learned of this fact when the decision was announced, and people including me certainly felt this was grossly unfair to those editors. (The counterargument sometimes raised was "if you're a party to an arbitration case, it's your responsibility to follow the case closely for however many weeks or months it takes," which I thought was unrealistic given the large number of editors who don't want to live their wikilives on the arbitration pages.) I also made a relevant procedural comment on the workshop page, here.

All that said, it would be a wondrously excellent thing if Eric's conduct didn't result in any more administrator disputes and arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a prize? Eric Corbett 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess the joy of silence. I reflected the role of the one who complains about behaviour, top of the workshop. - I would like to be asked before someone reports me to AE, - we might sort it out without admins and arbs. Imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well gosh, I sure would have liked to be notified as well. A few years ago I was almost banned from the Abortion article. I had no idea at all and was certain that it was some sort of terrible mistake when they notified me. I can hardly say how bad I felt and how angry I was. Not one person in the article had ever suggested that my behavior was not acceptable (I was, according to Arbcom, sarcastic three times). In fact, I thought that I was part of the hardworking team working to improve the article! How would I know, since in all the years I had been editing I'd never even had a minor infringement such as an edit war. They had sent the standard "you may be interested...", or whatever it is they send out, but I didn't follow up on it since I knew that it did not involve me. To this day I wonder how it is that nobody took a moment to send me a note when I was the only one that did not post anything in defense of my edits. It was totally lacking in any sort of human emotion such as kindness or understanding. I had never been treated like that before. I did not like it. Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've become accustomed to it. Eric Corbett 23:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I was never asked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Needed a haircut. Fixed some of the wording, but would like your quick 2 cents. Collect (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

	Nuckis in the Water
	Spot the nucky in the water. Surely there is one there. Hafspajen (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be in one of those boats, and not because of any monsters. Eric Corbett 22:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Eric! Currently is held a GA review of the article on Bulgars, and the user SilkTork who reviews it recommend You for help with copy edit. Notice that the article was already copyedited in June and July by the user Folklore1, however, there remained some minor issues and prose to be worked on. Your assistance would greatly help to make a better article, and make the review pass or fail. Regards.--Crovata (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll help with this, but there's quite a bit of work to do I think. My time is limited, so it may take me up to a week to get through the whole article. Hopefully your GA reviewer will be patient. I'll have some questions for you; would you prefer me to post at the GA review or at your talk page? Eric Corbett 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it depends on SilkTork and You, ie. if it is a habit to do it in GA reviews. Either way, you can do it on my talk page discussion "Bulgars GA review" which made for such a purpose. Also it would make me notice it easier, and could ping you every time I make a reply, if you have activated ping.--Crovata (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on Silktork, not me, as I'm not the GA reviewer. No need to ping me, as I'll watch your page until we're done. Eric Corbett 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I would be wasting my time in copy editing this article. Eric Corbett 20:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I hope this finds you well. You may remember that you reviewed The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) at GAC earlier this year and I mentioned that I aimed to take it to FAC- thanks to a promotion this morning, I've finally been able to nominate it it. If you get a chance (but no pressure!), any feedback would be fully appreciated. Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'll have another read through it and put it on my watchlist. Eric Corbett 11:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work reviewing Good Articles! Without the hard work of users such as yourself there would be no classification of Good Articles on Wikipedia. Rubbish computer 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no horse in this race—I've never heard of this topic, and only became aware of it because the long-departed Majorly has never been deleted from my watchlist and I was curious as to why anyone would be posting to his talkpage so many years after he left—but this GAR looks like one that might interest you or your TPWs, as whatever decisions are made there are likely to have a huge knock-on effect on other mythology, folklore and religion articles. ‑ iridescent 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can get into enough trouble on my own, without any help from Majorly. I understand what you're saying though, I'll think about it. Eric Corbett 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and give me your thoughts on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you have a look at Trinity Chain Pier for me? I just wrote it (I've been meaning to for a while) and it could probably do with a critical eye. --John (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few little tweaks. That {{Inflation}} template isn't really suitable for converting the value of capital projects such as building a pier though. Added to which your conversion of £304548 is far too misleadingly accurate.

I've had several discussions at FAC about the best way to deal with these conversions, and I'd suggest consulting Measuring Worth and using their historic opportunity cost conversion, which gives a value of £349,400. I'd also recommend adding a note giving the basis of your conversion, as in Note e. of Little Moreton Hall. Eric Corbett 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I think I made the same mistake with the Inflation template at Leeds and Liverpool Canal, I presume the same advice would suit?--17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappedinburnley (talk • contribs)

The {{inflation}} template only measures consumer price inflation, and is meaningless with regards to wages or capital projects prior to around 1950, as the entire market was totally different; it's intended for things like rent, tickets and cheap paintings where "what could the buyer have got if he'd chosen to spend it on clothes or food" is a meaningful question. (The template documentation does say this in huge bold letters at the top, but nobody ever seems to read it.) In my experience, for capital expenditure it's more useful to give comparisons to other things from the same period with which the readers is likely to be familiar ("The Fooville and Bartown Railway cost £100,000 to build, more than three times the cost of the navy's largest battleship"). ‑ iridescent 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I admit I did see the huge writing on the inflation template but disregarded it. I was going to fix, replace or remove it, but I forgot as I was carried away with the joys of creation. I am glad I brought it here for review before publicising it more widely, I had a feeling that would be a good thing to do. I will use the measuringworth website as Eric suggested. Anything else? My own feeling it that it's a shame that there seem not to be many good book sources which deal with what was an iconic landmark. The equivalent one in Brighton was the subject of a painting by Turner. This one; a few mentions in biographies and gazetteers, some local history sites, and a few grainy black-and-white images. Frustrating. --John (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apart from the fact that the lead is obviously too short I think it's in pretty good shape. I've done something similar to what Iridescent is suggesting for the medieval period, comparing the cost of construction of a castle with the monarch's annual income for instance, but I think for the 19th century I'd go with one of the GDP comparisons. Eric Corbett

I'd suggest pestering User:lirazelf—if we're going to go to the trouble of having a Wikimedian-in-Residence at Museums Galleries Scotland, it would be worth seeing if she can coax anything out of the bowels of the National Museum of Scotland or one of the local history museums. ‑ iridescent 19:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@TrappedinBurnley: yes, indeed it would, exactly the same advice. Eric Corbett 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've got it sorted. Would you mind casting an eye over it to make sure I didn't do something daft? There are four instances.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you both, I had no idea such a position existed and I shall definitely pursue that line of inquiry. If User:lirazelf is not summoned by this ping here, I will go to her talk. I have expanded the lead a little and changed the currency calculation (it makes surprisingly little difference, but you are right that this is more accurate). Eric, thank you for the edits you made there too. --John (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Resident duly summoned! Will have a think... Lirazelf (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you again, especially User:Iridescent for researching the original name of the pier, which certainly made finding old sources a lot easier. I also appreciate User:Lirazelf offering to help, and your copyedits. I am not sure, given the variety of names, that Old Chain Pier is the best title for the pub section, as it was undoubtedly named after a popular name for the pier. More importantly, I really need a beer and pub expert to research what the building was between being a Victorian swimming pier ticket office and an outré pub. Did you like the story about the crazy landlady with her swords and guns? She also used to wear bamboo glasses. A lot of local people I've talked to are aware of that story. I'd still like more sources, more sources. --John (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Dig out local papers from the time of the pub's opening, as they'll almost certainly have something along the lines of "a new pub has opened in the building which was formerly a…" somewhere. Given its location, I would be surprised if it wasn't previously a military storeroom of some kind, in which case the 1945 date for conversion to other purposes would make obvious sense. ‑ iridescent 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

      (Adding) If you're in Edinburgh, the big Waterstones on Princes Street has a very good local history section, and it would be worth browsing through there. ‑ iridescent 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

      • I took your advice, User:Iridescent. See what you think of it now. --John (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Added a big stack of rather nitpicky comments to the talkpage. You might want to poke your head in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edinburgh to see if anyone's interested in having a look. ‑ iridescent 19:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I've attempted to answer your perceptive comments there, and I have flagged up the projects you suggested. Could do with a hand with the reference formatting though. --John (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)